It's gotta be Bush's fault, right?

Just yesterday, I noted that the GOP has put forward some new Social Security reform plans, some entirely without private-account provisions, and yet the Democrats showed no signs of budging from their inaction-and-invective approach. I'll repeat this quote just to make things clearer:

Top Democrats yesterday reiterated their demand that Mr. Bush not only take private accounts off the table before they will consider negotiating, but also that he disavow supporting them in a final House-Senate compromise. "Until the president and the Republican leadership agree that their misguided attempt to privatize Social Security is over, and they will no longer pursue their previously announced bait-and-switch strategy, Democrats will continue to refuse to enter negotiations over Social Security," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. (Source: Wall Street Journal, 6/22/05. Emphasis mine.)

So today I notice a strange headline from Reuters: "Bush points finger at Democrats on Social Security." Apparently, the uptick in rhetorical intensity is entirely Bush's fault:

"I was pleased to see some Republican members of the House and the Senate have started laying out ideas. I've been laying out ideas. I think it's time for the leadership in the Democrat party to start laying out ideas," Bush said at a high school in the Washington suburb of Silver Spring, Maryland.

"See, the American people expect those of us who come to Washington, D.C., to negotiate in good faith on behalf of the people. If there's a problem, people ought to say, 'here's what I'm for,' not what they're against."

Bush's accusations that Democrats were refusing to negotiate in good faith marked a sharpening of his rhetoric and a shift from an approach of trying to reach out to members of the opposing party to forge a bipartisan compromise.

OK, so immediately after the White House annouces that, despite its own preferences, it will support Sen. Bennett's efforts at reforming Social Security without private accounts, Democratic leadership makes it clear--very clear--that it is not ready to negotiate. Bush is the only one giving ground, and Reuters believes that this is a shift away from compromise??

And let's sample some other Democratic reactions to the new GOP proposals (some of which, it should be noted, do include stripped-down private account provisions):

• From Sen. Chuck Schumer: "They can twist themselves into any pretzel shape they want...as long as privatization is on the table, there will be no compromise on Social Security." He certainly sounds ready to sit down at a table.
  
• Rep. Charlie Rangel is clearly ready to discuss meeting the Republicans halfway: "Their plan would raid the Social Security Trust Fund in order to fund their private accounts. That's privatization! Private accounts are not Social Security."
  
• Sen. Max Baucus apparently believes that he's going to be tricked into voting for something: "Until the president publicly takes private accounts off the table, bait and switch is still a real possibility."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I have to ask: which party is doing the negotiating here? And can you explain to me how a party which refuses to budge or offer substantive alternatives isn't considered obstructionist?