All of which must be encouraging news for Democrats.  SenatorsCorzine, Schumer, and Boxer (all D) hold a 10:45 am presser today to share constituent feedback -- presumably all bad for Bush -- from their town halls last week.  But Marshall Wittman, formerly of the Heritage Foundation and now of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, warns Democrats that "defeating Social Security is not necessarily going to be devastating to the Bush Administration." [...]

They also caution Democrats that blogosphere is "not representative of most of the American people" and that it could actually have a "pernicious effect" on how the party is viewed because it's polarizing and getting too much media attention.[...]

In talking about social issues, From said, "We don't show enough respect for people who might disagree with us."

Are you a registered Democrat?

Are you currently employed as a United States Senator?

Are you thinking of cutting a deal with Sen. Lindsey Graham?

If you can answer 'yes' to these three questions, read this.

This is a moderately bad idea on policy terms, and a simply terrible political idea.

Most crucially, the House Republican leadership has already ruled it out. Thus, the only possible effect of brokering a compromise of this sort with moderate Senate Republicans would be to create a conference committee in which whatever concessions the GOP makes to turncoat Democrats will be purged from the bill. Then, having already conceded the high ground on the need to "do something" and on the point that the "something" ought to involve private accounts, turncoat Democrats will be forced to argue that the only problem with the conference report on the phase-out is that it doesn't raise taxes. This will, at best, transform a political winner for the Democrats into a political loser and, at worst, lead to the passage of a bad phase-out bill.

Democrats are winning this fight, and should accept nothing less than surrender. Once the GOP has given up on phasing out the plan, we can either start a serious conversation about finding a balanced approach to Social Security reform, or else move on to addressing more pressing fiscal issues. Until then, trying to compromise with a party that knows no procedural or ethical restraints on its conduct and that's led by a president who's apparently hell-bent on destroying Social Security is a losing deal.

What's the point? Let's imagine that Lindsey Graham and, say, Senator Snoe Snieberman manage to hammer out some sort of compromise bill that even I would find almost reasonable. If there's anything reasonable in it, those reasonable parts won't actually appear in the House version of the bill. So, it'll go to conference, where the White House and DeLay's goons will just turn it into the bill they want.

There's no reason for any Democrat to take this course for strategic political purposes. They can win this issue in all 50 states if they have any sense. And, there's no way anything approach sensible will emerge from conference, no matter what lovely deal they manage to strike with Graham in the Senate.

No compromise on social security.[...]

The GOP is drowning. No need to throw them a lifeline. As Carville says, throw them an anvil.