First:  how can we exploit the unpopularity of the Social Security initiative, and effectively target all those who supported the idea?  I agree that it's an urgently necessary task, but also think it could still be a tough sell for Dems.  As we all know, the President had some success advancing the idea that a "problem" existed, even though he couldn't bring the public all the way around to his kind of solution.

The public had already tentatively accepted the idea of a long-term problem, because of groundwork laid over many years.  The statistical/demographic case, or some bastardized version of it, is pretty much a cliche.  As for the President himself, as a salesman for change, I think there was always a widely held (except among the Dem base), basic willingness to assume good intentions on his part.

The President appealed to this sense of trust and attempted to build it further.  When he told people about the "problem," I think he was careful to say things that most people already suspected were true.  If anything, it probably added something to his credibility (although not enough for the public to actually embrace his radical "solution").

Bush and Rove weren't wrong about the importance of appealing to the public's belief in the problem.  It appears likely to shield the President, and Republicans, from the political consequences of the initiative's failure.

It's been frustrating.  There's no real secret about Bush and Rove's real reason for taking on Social Security -- as part of their long-term political project.  But this insight has remained lost on most of the public, largely because of the President's apparent sincerity and degree of candor.

But what if the President isn't so trustworthy?  If Bush and other Republicans were believed to be working on Social Security changes (scary as they sounded) out of a desire to do the right thing -- then what if they can be shown up for playing a different game all along?  What else have they been up to, after all?

If Dems succeed (with the Republicans' own help) in publicizing the "culture of corruption," then all kinds of things will appear to the public in a new light.  Already the shameless work of the party leaders in Congress is getting new scrutiny (the highway bill, "Porkbusters" etc.).  This makes for a newly target-rich environment.  How about that CPA in Baghdad, after all?  Some people may be less inclined to tune out when Democrats start in on Halliburton.

But think Social Security first, and above all.  The Dems must work Social Security "reform" into the context of the culture of corruption.  In fact, it should be shown as a fundamental part of it.  People are going to start hearing more about things like the K Street Project.  Social Security "reform" should be made to fit into the same category in people's minds.  Instead of Bush the sincere advocate of change, it should be turned into a symbol of Bush and Rove (and DeLay too), with their unrelenting narrow partisanship and contempt for scruples.

If we can tie Social Security to the scandals, then every time Social Security comes up, then the scandals will be there too, hanging in the air.  This would be a kind of "force multiplier" in the war on Republicans in 2006.

We need a strategy to bring this about.  Some time soon, a Democrat who commands both media coverage and broad credibility (please, not Howard Dean this time) should stand up and make the case:

Social Security "reform" was never about what Bush claimed.  It was all about grasping for political power, on behalf of a corrupt political establishment, just like the shenanigans of a DeLay or an Abramoff.  It is part and parcel of the culture of corruption.