corrente

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

There is exactly one acceptable exit strategy for Republicans from Bush's plan to phase out social security: Complete capitulation, followed by prolonged grovelling.

And a little whimpering, and some tearful gestures of fealty to FDR's social compact would not go amiss.

Why then, would Dems want to be "responsible" and "bi-partisan" and deal with Social Security solvency? Because you just know anything halfway acceptable to the Dems is going to go into conference committee and come out as a Social Security phase-out.

The nuclear option is looking pretty good right now. In fact, letting the Republicans do whatever they want is looking like the nuclear option to me—far better to shut the place down. (Could this be another ingenious strategy by Harry Reid?)

The operational definition of "responsible" for Dems is doing everything possible to cripple Bush in 2006 and defeat his Republican spawn in 2008, before they complete their program of wreckage.

UPDATE And speaking of the nuclear option:

Elliot Mincberg of People for The American Way said Thursday he hoped fallout from the Schiavo case would hamper GOP efforts to change Senate rules and speed confirmation of controversial Bush court appointees.

Speaking of Republicans who are undecided on the rules change, he said, "When they look at the Schiavo case and look at where leadership led them and look at the fact that 70 percent of the people are against them, we'd hope they'd think two, three or four times before plunging over the cliff."
(AP)

Elliot, Elliot, Elliot.

The Republicans plunge over a cliff—what's not to like?