I'm not arguing it needs to be preserved PERMANENTLY
What I am arguing is, we could do it now, but we would seriously risk losing Congress next year, and therefore, it is smarter to wait until we can drum up more public support for this (say post 2012) so we don't have to worry about any political backlash
I support getting rid of it entirely, however, I don't want us going into the 2006 elections as the party that wants to "eliminate Social Security", it sends a bad message.
I understand this mentality of holding onto power when you've got it, I just don't agree with it.
If you throw out your principles to hold onto power what good is the power? You end up as a RINO, a Democrat-Lite. Worthless and pathetic. And you've sold out the people who supported you, but then tell them they have to continue to support you because the alternative is worse.
This breaking on Drudge: "The president, who has spent the last several months seeking consensus on his Social Security reform package"
So the president is still touting Social Security reform, but the GOP senators have bailed the ship. If these "key Republican senators" want to continue to get support from me and those like me, they will start assisting the president in seeking consensus and getting SS reform passed. Otherwise, I'll find a candidate who does believe in reducing the size and scope of the federal government.