I don't agree. But, even if I did agree that we won a battle in the short term, we have done irreprairable damage in the long term.
Regardless of what happens in the short term, the Dims believe they have won. They believe that pubs will blink (true), and they will act accordingly. Repeat after me....Perception is reality.
Again, even if you are right, which I dispute, so what? You can only screw the party base so many times. The real loss here is the damage to the party [faithful]. Which I believe will be appreciable.
How about another analogy? I (senate pub) come home every night to find a crook (senate Dim) banging my wife in the living room. I demand that he stop or I will engage him in fisticuffs. He responds, that will upset the children, they shouldn't see fighting. It ruins the decorum of the living room. We repeat this exchange several times and then I say OK, let's compromise. The Dim agrees to quit after another 20 minutes and then leave. He "promises" to not come back and do it again *unless* he gets too hor*y and just has to have it. Yeah, I won that exchange. I intimidated him
I am truly sorry to sound pessimistic. But I have been voting for conservative principles since 1970. I simply no longer have the heart to take abuse from ersatz pubs in the senate. Draw a line in the sand? Yeah, crap. Like that will ever happen. This ain't Pop Warner, it's the NFL. You gotta wear cleats, not tu tu's.
That is the best analogy of the situation I have read thus far.