Why "The Politics of No" forces a loss on all Americans.

The ranting E.J. Dionne defends blind rejectionism from the Democrats in Congress over Social Security. He is short-sighted.

The argument runs thusly: say no until Bush loses, then, when you've got a majority somewhere, propose your union-based, big government, growth-busting solution. He says that "for everything there is a season" and this is the season of no.

Does anyone else see the very obvious problem that extremists of all stripes seem blind to? The Republicans are threatening to go nuclear over the (completely unconstitutional, but traditional) judicial filibuster. The Democrats point out that if the filibuster is eliminated, what will the Republicans do when the Dems dominate the government? True. Um, that goes both ways.

If the Democrats refuse to even participate in the debate over Social Security simply to give Bush a black eye, what do they think the Republicans will do when the Dems finally stop whining and make their own Social Security "solution"? Will the Republicans come and negotiate? well, by the time the Dems are back in power, it will likely be because the social conservatives finally piss off the (good, decent) Goldwater Republicans, and party unity is lost to some extent. The Goldwaters will object to the inevitable "throw more money at it" solution that the Dems will propose, and the social conservatives will object to it as somehow against God's will (okay, just because they are pissed, and don't compromise anyway).

The nuclear option is on the table because Gingrich decided that blue-slipping (the process by which a senator from the nominee's home state could secretly hold up a nomination without reason) was dishonest, and required that nominees at least be considered by committee. Because of that, the limited Constitutional power allotted to the Senate to advise and consent (read: give an up or down vote) was implicated in public. The legislature is just supposed to vote on these nominees, not decide who the executive could nominate. The Dems say that this doesn't mean there should be a rubber stamp. Fair enough, but in the rare event that the executive and the Senate broadly agree on a nominee, a minority cannot remove a nominee, because nomination is an enumerated executive power, and just a very limited Legislative power to vote, and approve or disapprove thereby. The right to vote against a nominee removes the idea of a rubber stamp. Just because the President and a majority of the Senate disagree with you, doesn't mean there is a rubber stamp. Stop crying, move on.

The point: when one party dominates, sometimes the other party simply can't stand in the way of everything. When the people speak, and call on one party to rule, the ball moves faster in one direction. That is the way it is. That's the way it was meant to be. That's the way it was when the Dems were in power (and when Roosevelt threatened to stack the Supreme Court if they didn't pretend that his "reforms" were Constitutional... There is a reason why the Constitution can be altered... anyhow...). Please also note that when Ruth Bader Ginsburg came before the Senate, she said that abortion was central to a woman's dignity. She was confirmed 97-3. Advise and consent. NO LITMUS TEST, just an evaluation of competence of the Executive's nominee (in accordance with the Constitution). The next year, the people thought the government had become too liberal and they voted in the Gingrich revolution (yes, the house, not the senate, but there IS a link... I think). None of Bush's nominees are close to that level of controversy, and yet ALL Democrats refuse to allow a vote because they use a LITMUS TEST, not a simple evaluation of competence. Compare that to Ginsburg: only three Republicans voted against a VERY liberal Clinton nominee because she was competent, NOT because they think abortion is a good idea, i.e., NO LITMUS TEST. Things have gotten far more bitter. Three guys hated her; they voted against her; they moved on.

The minority can slow things down, but when they resort to the "politics of no," they salt the earth for years to come. Make a proposal and fight for it, or get out of the way.