Let there be no misunderstanding

This is not an "ideological debate." This is about those who want social security to stay and those who want it to go. From the WSJ's John Harwood (subscription only):

It is an ideological debate about whether Social Security remains a social insurance safety net, which redistributes a modest amount of income from rich to poor, or moves toward greater individual opportunity, risk and reward. Bubbling with enthusiasm, Mr. Bush casts his effort to transform the Mideast as the 'philosophical argument of the age.' In U.S. domestic politics, the argument of the age concerns Social Security.

WRONG. It's not 'the' argument, it's Bush's argument and if John Harwood cared about doing his job, he would say two things:

1) There is no evidence, either in the public polling or anecdotally, to suggest that Americans are concerned about Social Security and even less to suggest they think it's an important and immediate crisis.
2)Bush's non-proposal proposal makes no sense. If the "crisis is now", as the President said, why let younger workers divert some of their payroll tax money? This only weakens the system and forces the government to borrow to pay current retirees.

IT MAKES NO SENSE.

When The Note says:

The commentariat on the left is working overdrive on the "there is no crisis" theme.

It isn't those on the 'left' it is the truth goddamn it. There still is such a thing isn't there? Or is The Note so cynical, it can only accept leftist "truth" and rightist "truth" but not "absolute" truth?

No. What this is about is a media that thinks it can fool us and an administration that still thinks its opposition can be cowed.