Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.
Yesterday, I reported that a new video ad from Dirk Adams’ campaign left me wondering whether Sen. John Walsh, who promises not to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for seniors now receiving them, supports Social Security for young people not yet in the work force.
Information that arrived in this morning’s email traffic provided context that improved my understanding of Walsh’s remarks, but still left me uneasy about his long-term commitment to the programs. I’ll start with the additional information, and conclude with analysis and comments.
According to Walsh’s campaign, the video was shot by Brian O’Leary, a Bozeman based “tracker/field research analyst” for America Rising, LLC, a South Carolina based opposition research group started by former staffers for George Romney and George W. Bush. Trackers follow the opposition’s candidates with a video camera, hoping to record damaging utterances. Sometimes they do; ask George Allen.
Walsh was in Great Falls at his 17 April roundtable with seniors, answering a television reporter’s question, when O’Leary recorded the video used in Adams’ ad. Here, courtesy of Walsh’s campaign, is a transcript of the question and Walsh’s full answer. I’ve highlighted in yellow the part of the answer that Adams’ ad omits:
Q. Congress Ryan is still sort of pushing for the privatization of Social Security. Do you think there would ever be a circumstance where the privatization of Social Security would make sense?
A. You know, I’d have to take a look at all the options — but not for those that are currently in Social Security right now. I can see maybe there may be an option where they look at it for new employees coming into the workforce — that they may look at that — but it’s not something that I’m going to support with those that are currently on the program or currently working in the program.
You be the judge. I think the omitted phrase underscores the last clause of the first sentence, “but not for those that are currently in Social Security right now,” but does not negate “I can see maybe there may be an option where they look at it for new employees comings into the workforce —.”
KRTV in Great Falls broadcast a brief report on the roundtable that night. The money quote is approximately 35 seconds into the report:
Transcript, money quote:
What I’m taking away from this is that Montana seniors are really against cutting Social Security and cutting Medicare, and I’m with them and I will go back to Washington D.C. and do everything I possibly can to make sure we are not cutting Social Security or Medicare.
That’s well and good. And it would be better were he to support the efforts of Sens. Harkin, Sanders, and Warren, to expand Social Security. Perhaps he does, but I haven’t been able to find a statement to that effect.
But his willingness to consider all options, including the option of something other than Social Security for people not yet in the workforce, is not good. His campaign is spinning that as “Looking at ‘all the options’ to sustain Social Security for future generations is an answer to be expected of any thoughtful, responsible leader.” That’s how I’d spin it, too. But I wouldn’t believe any of the spin, and neither should you. He’s opened a door best nailed shut, and in doing so raising questions about his long-term commitment to Social Security. That may not be his intent — over-qualifying one’s words can have that effect. But he’s also a member of the Democratic Party, the party of President Obama. And Obama, as I noted yesterday, is no friend of Social Security. Therefore, a Democratic candidate who speaks awkwardly on the subject no longer can be given the benefit of the doubt.