Bad advice

The Washington Times ran an article by Ralph Hallow entitled Bad advice to Bush blamed for Social Security struggle. In it he said Mr. Bush has refused to rule out measures that would contradict his campaign promises on Social Security, putting himself in what conservatives say is a weak negotiating position with Democrats. "The president would do well to put markers down as to what we are going to do and what we are not going to do on Social Security taxes and benefits," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican.

It would seem to me that doing as Mike Pence suggests is the bad advice; not what the President is doing. If Bush did as many urge him, and totally ruled out any changes, he would never get anything through. That would be just as foolish as if he did as the Democrats say, and take private accounts off the table, and then they will negotiate. That is because the only other alternatives are raising taxes (which the Dems prefer), or reducing benefits (and the Dems would like to see that, because they think they could turn that into a way of dragging votes away from the Republicans and to the Democrats.

The article also says The senior Republican senator said privately that the only way to avoid a bad deal on Social Security may be "to pull the trigger on the nuclear option." This, he said, would mean changing Senate rules to force an end to Democratic filibusters and a vote on Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. The Democrats likely would retaliate by filibustering all Republican bills. Republicans then could blame Democrats for blocking Social Security reform.

I favor blocking the practice of filibustering Judicial nominations, but I don't agree that the Democrats would be foolish enough to then Filibuster all Republican bills, especially if Bill Frist is willing to force them to really filibuster (i.e. speak continuously on a matter).

DemFromCT on DailyKos says Josh Marshall reads the Washington Times so you don't have to (and bless him for that).

This just shows how the Left thinks. I read more on the Left Wing New York Times and Washington Post than I do on the Right Wing New York Post and Washington Times. I may not agree with much of what the Left Wing Press says, but if I don't know what they are saying, I can't comment on it.

Dwight Meredith says that he wrote a few days ago The GOP may decide that the smartest move is to ram through as much legislation as they can (class action, bankruptcy, tort reform, Anwar, etc) and then go nuclear to cause the Senate to shut down before Republicans face defeat on Social Security and tax cuts. and then he goes on to quote Josh Marshall's account of the Washington Times article (another Leftie that does not read the original source) about what the "senior Republican senator said privately" about the nuclear option.

Matthew Yglesias said I had to read that a couple of times until I got it. But now I see what the Senator meant. He means that he and his colleagues don't like being stuck between the president's pressure to endorse his plan, and the public's pressure not to pass his plan. The ideal way out of the impasse would be for the GOP to go nuclear on the filibuster issue, which will lead Democrats to shut down the Senate entirely, thus getting Republican Senators off the hook. To the White House and the privateer money bags they can say, "hey! we would have passed it if it hadn't been for those Democrats" and to the voters they can say, "hey! I never voted for any such thing."

Polemic Propaganda admits that It is already the de facto Democratic objective to obstruct anything, and everything that comes up in this legislative session to the best of their ability..... The extent to which obstructionism was an obstruction to Democrats in 2002 or 2004 has been greatly exaggerated, and naturally, the only ones promoting this line are those that want to see obstructionism decrease during a majority GOP government. In any event, the nuclear option would seem a little drastic and counter-productive given that it would only enhance the lame duck effect on the executive, as it pertains to the domestic agenda, and would create unnecessary turmoil for reelection candidates in ‘06.

I believe that PP is wrong about why the Dems lost in 2002 and 2004, and that excessive filibustering will cause them to lose in 2006 also, but let's not tell the Dems that.