One TPM Reader stepped far enough back to pose what should be an obvious question: Why did David Broder think only to suggest a 'compromise' to the Democrats on judicial nominations?
Not only does his suggested 'compromise' come almost wholly out of the Democrats' collective hide, he also puts it entirely to the Democrats to give way, rather than the Majority Republicans.
I think the answer is obvious.
Like most of Washington's permanent class (perhaps we might call it, The Permanency), Broder has a soft spot for power. Or perhaps just, force.
As noted earlier, Broder could make an argument on the merits in the Republicans' favor: one on the basis of simple majoritarianism (a not insubstantial argument). But this point only holds his attention for two sentences before he wades into a longer discussion of the Democrats' need to trust and the Republicans' ability to retaliate.
I think Broder sees the Republicans as strong and assertive and the Democrats as weak and conciliating (not an altogether unrealistic perception). And power counts to these folks because it's attractive, admirable, alluring.
Seems harsh, I know. Even to me. But I think it's true.