As Barack Obama’s bus cruised through the heartland last week, the media told us a fair amount about what the president said. In Alpha, Illinois, Obama gave a less-than-clear explanation of the amount of wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax, and then let it slip that apparently he supports a change in the way cost of living benefits are calculated, most likely using the so-called chained CPI. In Cannon Falls, Minnesota, the president said that Social Security is “one of our most important social insurance programs that we have,” and argued against calling it an entitlement, since people earn their benefits through deductions from their paychecks. He repeated what he had said in the past: “Social Security is not the cause of our debt and our deficit.” In St. Louis, he told NBC affiliate KSDK that “we could have had a grand bargain that would have reduced our deficit a lot more than the deal that actually emerged.”
And so it went as the president tried to connect with voters. While he was meeting and greeting outside the Beltway, I was in Columbia, Missouri, holding one of CJR’s own periodic town halls. My takeaway from seniors at the Columbia Activity Senior Center: Pols beware! Connecting with voters might be hard no matter what you say. The people with whom I chatted said they had an uneasy feeling about both Democrat Claire McCaskill, who is up for reelection next year, and Republican congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer, who represents Columbia. They were not sure if either of them had their constituents’ interests at heart. Seventy-seven-year-old Dorothy Kyger, a volunteer in the Center’s gift shop, was almost apologetic as she described how she felt. “I feel they should represent us,” she told me. “But, no, they are not representing my ideas. I have felt this way a long time.” Still, she hoped that “people in Congress would come to their senses and think about the people they are representing.”
Kyger considers herself an independent; she was leaning more Democratic now, but wasn’t sure she would vote for McCaskill. She is unsure that McCaskill stands for what matters to her. As for Luetkemeyer, she had heard him talk recently and was not impressed. “He’s trying to read some economics books to figure out what to do,” she said. “He was essentially saying he didn’t know what to do. His feeling is nobody helped him, and he got where he got himself, meaning he didn’t get any government subsidies.”
Kyger is concerned about Medicare, but says she has not panicked about it yet. “I have been on the recipient end of Medicare and am very grateful. I hear Medicare is going broke, and I hear both positive and negative things and don’t know who to believe which is why I don’t get super hyper about it.” Although Kyger has been involved in community meetings in an effort to learn more, she admits sometimes she simply doesn’t listen to what the pols say. “I just turn off,” she says. “Finding all those dirty things about people. It’s demoralizing. It’s just nasty and too many people get hurt.”
Sixty-two-year old Mike McMillen was on his way to a bridge game at the Center when he pulled up a chair to talk. He said he was semi-retired and receiving about $1500 a month from Social Security. He believed in privatizing the system because that way his family could get his benefit. He admitted he knew “very little” about Social Security and Medicare and had some misconceptions. “They’ve taken our money and have expanded the original role for Social Security,” he said. In particular, disability benefits bothered him. I explained that both survivors’ benefits and disability benefits had long been part of the program and that Social Security protects families from loss of income in old age, from a disability, or when the breadwinner dies. This is not well understood by the public. The only thing he knew about Medicare came from taking care of his mother. “Every month I get a ton of paper. I bet they kill a forest whenever they send out that stuff.” Some doctors, he said, would not take Medicare.

Who does represent the voters, then? The Columbia Journalism Review? Trudy Leiberman? Some of the left-wing complaints are starting to recall their extra-parliamentary theories of political action. And I don't recall CJR holding a Town Hall meeting when Town Hall meetings in 2009-10 were warning lazy journalists of serious opposition to the Obama program, especially his health-care program. Leiberman was busy at that time protecting the Administrations left flank by asserting how moderate it was.
In a related development, Gallup now has the President in close matchups not only with Mitt Romney and Rick Perry - but with Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann, in spite of the media blackout on the former and the entertainment/media rage against the latter. There is still a lot that the establishment media (including CJR) does not get about itself and its limitations.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 23 Aug 2011 at 11:52 AM
FYI, Trudy did at least six town hall meetings in the summer/fall of 2009:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/cjrs_town_hall_archive.php
And she did several in 2010, too:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/cjr_holds_a_town_hall_meeting_1.php
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/cjr_holds_a_missouri_town_hall_meeting.php
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/a_cjr_town_hall_in_the_badger_state.php
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/another_cjr_town_hall_in_the_badger_state.php
#2 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Tue 23 Aug 2011 at 01:47 PM
To Justin - You are right. I suppose those Town Hall meetings are what I had in mind when I noted Leiberman's protection of the Administration's left flank. The people she talked to in those town meetings invariably reflected Trudy Leiberman's hoped-for policies. You got no sense that the health care plan was going to be a big problem for the Administration in the 2010 elections.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 23 Aug 2011 at 04:54 PM
I find it fascinating that Richard and Anne identify as Republicans, yet don't want to see their Social Security and Medicare touched. Is this not now the main platform of the Republican Party? To dramatically scale back on social services, the safety net, and government in general; while maintaining defense spending and reducing taxes? Anybody who votes Republican in order to secure Social Security and Medicare is just not paying attention.
#4 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Wed 24 Aug 2011 at 12:23 PM
Mark: Maybe that's how it reads, but, as her editor, I'm pretty sure that Trudy just shows up in these places and interviews whoever will talk to her. I don't get the sense that she subjects her interviewees to any sort of ideological litmus test before proceeding. And I don't have the citations immediately at hand, but I know that Trudy hasn't been shy about criticizing Obama and the left.
#5 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Wed 24 Aug 2011 at 12:48 PM