Not Lose, For Once?

There's been significant -- and justified -- pleasure among Democrats due to this Congressional Quarterly snippet excerpted by Joshua Micah Marshall:

Not a single Senate Democrat will support President Bush’s proposal to divert a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to personal investment accounts, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday.

If he is right, Bush’s plan will be dead on arrival in the Senate, where a supermajority of 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster by opponents. Republicans have 55 seats.

...

“We want to make sure that the American people understand that we’re not for benefit cuts and we’re not for privatization,” Reid said. “There’s no crisis in Soc>ial Security.”

I uttered a "Whew" when I read this.

A few caveats:

1. "Democrat" is from the Greek for "failing when success is assured." Vigilance is a must.
   
2. I am still curious for the real reason for trying to diminish Social Security. As Kevin Drum asked "But here's the funny thing: surely Karl Rove knows this [riffle: that this SS ploy is a loser]? Unless I'm missing something, it seems like a no brainer. So what's the point?" So I'm waiting for the third shoe to drop. Yes, they're true believers, but look at the approach to abortion and gay rights -- it's not a full court press to change the laws in those (admittedly social, not economic) areas. So, still, what gives? It kinda gives me the willies.
   
3. If this holds, it should be good for the Democrats, but they have to extend this and not be blindsided on other issues. Good luck to us all on that score.