This new proposal from the House suggests that the Senate strategy is effective. Americans predominantly blame Republicans for the shutdown (for good reason). The images of veterans swarming the World War II memorial, for example, proved irresistible to the media and media-friendly Republicans. The Republicans have gone from saying, in essence, "we're fine with no government at all" to "well, OK, this part of government is important and we will fight for it." It's an erosion of their own position, similar to their perceived backtracking from a full defunding of Obamacare in early budget proposals to a one-year delay in the most recent iteration. The Senate, by just saying no, is forcing the House to step away from its positions.

But if the House passes these resolutions, it could be tricky for the Senate. While at least one Senate aide told MSNBC's Benjy Sarlin that there was "no chance" of the Senate approving the bills, it risks making them the bad guys. After all, Americans blame Republicans for the shutdown. If the Senate says, No, we won't fund the national parks, it allows Republicans to turn that denial into a point of focus. "We wanted to fund veterans' services," they will certainly argue, "but the Democrats in the Senate said no." As we noted earlier, any fracturing of Senate opposition dramatically changes the calculus of resolving the shutdown.

From a policy standpoint, the idea of switching on the lights in one government agency at a time is a particularly bad idea. Who's the last to get funding back? Republicans certainly won't prioritize the Environmental Protection Agency, so would Democrats have to negotiate, agency-by-agency, for their priorities? What incentive would there be for Republicans to provide funding to agencies and programs they dislike — like the IRS or Obamacare? And even within the Republican Party, where are the priorities? Defense intelligence departments have furloughed 70 percent of their civilian staff. That's surely a higher priority for the GOP, policy-wise, but it's far less appealing politically. It's like donations to endangered polar bears versus the at-risk blob fish. Choosing which agencies you want to save a la carte, based on political appeal, is tremendously bad precedent. But the Republicans need all the political help they can get.

Senate Democrats will likely get some backup from the termed-out guy in the White House. During Tuesday's press briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked if President Obama would sign the new proposals. "You know, daily now, hourly, we're asked to respond to floated proposals, some of which never come to fruition," Carney responded. Without addressing the specific programs at play, he offered the president's guiding principle: "If [Republicans] want to open the government then they should open the government." In total. If you want ESPN, you gotta fund C-SPAN, too.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.