The Senate in Decline

There are a couple of good columns today on the decline of Senate decorum, and common sense when it comes to the Democratic leadership. George Will writing in Newsweek talks about Harry Reid's "Roulette":

In December, Reid, speaking about President Bush's proposal for Social Security reform—a proposal Bush had not yet announced—said: "[Republicans] are trying to destroy Social Security by giving this money to the fat cats on Wall Street." Good grief. "Destroy"? The "fat cats" will not get fatter from the estimated 0.3 percent cost of handling the funds.

Reid's hyperbole suggests that Deanspeak is contagious. In Reid's televised "response" to the president's State of the Union address—written before the address—he disparaged the idea of voluntary personal retirement accounts funded by portions of individuals' Social Security taxes as "Social Security roulette." This is the crux of the Democrats' argument against Bush's plan: Equities markets are terribly risky—indeed, are as irrational and risky as roulette. Think about that.

Bob Novak in the Chicago Sun-Times has even less respect for the current Democratic leadership and the way they've chosen to break Senate precedent and filibuster judicial nominations.

When I first covered the Senate 45 years ago, confirmation battles were rare. It was considered a stain on the Senate in 1959 when President Dwight Eisenhower's nominee for secretary of commerce was rejected because of one powerful Democratic senator's personal animus. Today, nothing is personal. Bush's 2001 nominees were attacked because of their opinions and his 2005 nominees because of administration policies. The decline of the Senate continues.