Bush is still seeking his
one Democrat.
The debate over changing Social Security can be a mind-numbing actuarial exercise, with calculations and projections that reach into the trillions of dollars and unfold over decades. But for President Bush, the most important number right now might be one.
That's how many Democrats he needs - and still lacks - to claim that his plan is bipartisan.
"This can't be done without Democrats," says Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank here. "They need the political cover of both parties."
Every Democrat who has provided the administration with "political cover" has been targetted for political assasination, like Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland. Rove sees compromise as weakness -- a sign that the compromising Democrat faces domestic pressures to play nice with the president.
But some moderates who have voted at times with the president, such as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, may be wary of crossing party lines again. Landrieu was one of nine Senate Democrats to vote for Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001. The next year, Republicans spent millions - unsuccessfully - to oust her.
If there was some political benefit from such cooperation, perhaps we could look the other way. But that hasn't been the history. This administration will try and destroy anything that lies in its path. The AARP, which played nice with Bush last year, is currently learning that lesson the hard way.
Social security is a core Democratic principle, and beyond that, wildly popular with the public. There is no need to compromise on the topic. Republicans want to dismantle it ("Hey hey, ho ho, social security has got to go"), Democrats want to protect it from the privateers. There is no reason to provide Republicans for political cover for their losing efforts.