OK, so I'll write a little bit about Social Security again. It's been a while, and I've been feeling like people might think I forgot about it. Truth is that I've been reading a lot, but haven't really had that much to say on the subject.
But then I found this article on CNN talking about the GOP's strategy with dealing with the Social Security problem. They're ramping up the rhetoric, claiming a partial victory, a foothold if you will, in the reclassification of the Social Security battle. They say that their elections prove that Social Security is no longer the "third rail" of American politics. Since GOP congressmen have been elected despite advocating "personal accounts," they want to claim that this is a victory for them, and proof positive that the American people are starting to "get it," as they say.
But then down at the bottom they tear a sheet out of their strategy guide and read it verbatim, clear as anything, for everyone who's listening and paying attention to hear (though most won't, probably).
Coleman said he was attacked during his 2002 campaign for favoring privatization. "I countered it by being very clear that I supported personal accounts and opposed privatization," he said.
It is a distinction Sununu sought to make in 2002, and one Republicans have been told they will have to make successfully in 2006 if they are to be successful.
"We win if the issue is defined as personal accounts. We lose if it is defined as privatization," pollster David Winston wrote recently in a presentation for Senate Republicans.
So just what is "privatization"? Is it the word that they so vehemently oppose? Is it anything that anybody's actually proposed? How can they say that they're against it if they don't even say what it is?
And how can they say that they're against it if it's the word they themselves were using not too long ago?