Vague deal nearing on FinReg bill?

My first thought on this Wall Street Journal article suggesting that Sens. Richard Shelby and Chris Dodd are nearing a bipartisan bill was that it was very, very vague. In fact, the only specific policy it mentions is "the provision in the bill that would create a $50 billion fund to help close down failed firms."

But on reflection, it's actually Republicans who've been very vague on this. The only specific policy they've mentioned has been the $50 billion liquidation fund. And though I think the fund good policy, you could remove or restructure it without doing much harm to the rest of the bill. So as with a lot of these legislative battles, we're not really having a policy argument here. Republican policy objections are vague enough that it'd be easy for them to change the bill slightly and declare victory. Simultaneously, their objections are vague enough that it'd be way for them to continue opposing the bill because it's a permanent bailout for reasons they never really explain. What matters here is whether they think the politics of fighting the bill are better than the politics of supporting it. That, and not policy disputes, is what's driving this process.