Truer words...

...were never blogged.

The prerequisite for defending and preserving Social Security is Democratic unity. As the senators apparently told Mr. Rove, down-the-line opposition from the Democrats raises the stakes on them dramatically. Then the demise of Social Security becomes a Republican deed through and through. All the political coverage of the Social Security debate will center on divisions among the Republicans, their internal discussions of strategy, who has cold feet about the phase-out and who's pushing full steam ahead.

Josh Marshall

I'm generally a supporter of the 'big tent' version of the Democratic Party. We can and should tolerate a reasonably broad range of positions on a wide range of issues. Still, there are lines that must be drawn.

Protection of Social Security is a bedrock Democratic issue. Signing on to the Bushco plan to eliminate (and that's what it is - don't doubt it for a minute) Social Security crosses a defining line. Any Democrat who does so should be considered ineligible for Party, Caucus or Committee leadership roles of any kind, or for any higher office they may seek in the future.

Of course, there's a certain level of risk involved in demanding partisan fealty on this issue. There's even a remote possibility it could cost us a couple of seats in the short term. It's a price worth paying, though, when the alternative is the sacrifice of our souls as Democrats, and the security of the aged and disabled the program has effectively provided and will effectively for decades.

Any necessary reforms, and there's a reasonable argument that some minor adjustments will be needed some time in the future, can wait for a Democratic majority to craft them.