The GOP liked a lot of what it heard in President Obama's address Tuesday night about deficit reduction and personal responsibility.

But Republicans didn't like what they didn't hear: talk about Social Security reform. Obama zipped past the issue with a one-line reference, saying, after a few lines about reforming health care, that "we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans."

The way to kill an issue in Washington is to suggest we begin to talk about it. Republicans took notice.

After hoping that Obama might be open to some sort of bipartisan reform that would reduce benefits and raise the eligibility age -- and perhaps plant the seeds for private accounts -- Republicans are now less hopeful that he'll come their way.

"I was not happy," Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told the Huffington Post. "That was the one area of his speech I was not happy with. He appears to be backing away from what I thought was an earlier commitment to tackling Social Security reform."

McConnell said that when Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, had previously spoken to Republicans, they struck a tone that indicated a willingness to work on Social Security. "That was the place that I hoped, based on what both he and the chief of staff had said earlier, we'd be able to move on a bipartisan basis. He kind of brushed over that issue" in his speech, said McConnell.

He said he has noticed a change in the administration's rhetoric over the last few weeks. "They seem to be kind of back-pedaling some," he said.

The back-pedaling McConnell sees comes after several weeks of intense lobbying from liberals concerned that Obama might be opening a door to weakening Social Security. And if the GOP isn't happy, it means the lobbying campaign has had an impact.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) noticed the shift in rhetoric, too. "I think they're getting pressure from the left," he said. "They're just going to have to look some of the unions in the eyes and some of the other groups and say that everything's on the table: benefit recalculation for high income Americans and realistic age adjustments."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) likewise heard the silence. "I would say from what I'm not hearing is, I'm not hearing a commitment to make Social Security more actuarially sound. They're talking a lot about health care," said Sessions. "Maybe because President Bush tried to do it and was met with a stonewall from the Democrats. They wouldn't even meet him in the room, much less halfway."

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said he wished there had been more talk about entitlement reform. "There's more of an opportunity for a Democrat president to deal with entitlements, because Republicans will join a Democrat president," he said. "I'm hoping that they'll get back to it." (Otherwise, said Ensign, the speech was "terrific.")

Graham, who was in Obama's Social Security breakout session on Monday at the White House, wished that the focus Obama put on health care had been given to Social Security. "I was very disappointed it wasn't mentioned more... It's the one entitlement reform that's achievable," he said.

"There were a couple of applause lines: 'We're not going to delay health care reform any longer.' I wish he'd said, 'We're not going to put off Social Security solvency any longer,'" Graham said.

Yeah, well, wish away Huckleberry.

I've said before that I think the administration made those promises before they had fully assessed the horrifying state of the economy and realized that talking about "entitlement reform" at a time of great economic insecurity would not be helpful to the recovery or be politically wise. (It was also before they understood that the Republicans had adopted the Kamikaze strategy.)

I do not believe that it was unhelpful to push hard on this and those that did were not being disloyal or hysterical in getting out front and making noise about it. There is clearly a faction in the administration who see social security "reform" as either something centrist technocrats believe they can take credit for "fixing" (Gene Sperling) and others who want to use it as a legislative bargaining chip (Rahm Emmanuel) . It's important that those who believe that there has never been a less propitious moment for mucking with the safety net (indeed, we think it should be expanded) are also part of the mix.

This idea that activists should just trust that their point of view is shared by the administration is naive. The administration is a collection of various points of influence and power, complicated by the need to compromise, bargain, punish and reward. It's not static and the views of one or two people you might know or see in the media are not capturing the whole picture, which doesn't even exist until a bill is signed or an order is executed. It's the way most organizations work, none more so than political bureaucracies.

The thing is, this isn't over. It's never over. Despite its fiscal soundness, "reforming" Social Security is still considered by villagers to be one of the main roads to "fiscal responsibility." (Even if the Obama team is now saying 'entitlement reform is health care reform," that isn't going to change as long as there are enemies of the system like Pete Peterson out there lying about it.)

Here's Michael Sherer, in a Time article from this week, writing about Obama's ambitious plans to banish fiscal irresponsibility once and for all.

The reasons for those unfulfilled promises are no secret. At bottom, entitlement reform means one of two things: less spending on things voters like, such as medical treatment or retirement checks, or unpopular higher taxes to pay for those things — and quite possibly it means both. Blocking each of those routes are powerful lobbies ready to whip supple members of Congress: antitax ideologues, liberal New Deal defenders, retiree groups, patient advocates, pharmaceutical companies and medical providers, to name a few. To make matters worse, while the financial crisis is both real and terrifying, it is not always apparent. Even as our fiscal position deteriorates, the world continues to buy U.S. government debt, allowing for magically low interest rates in spite of enormous deficit spending.

It is on this inhospitable terrain that President Barack Obama now plans to accomplish the impossible: reverse the trajectory of the political universe and make real progress on reforming Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

[...]

The effort to reform Social Security, which is generally seen as a less complex problem, is likely to take a backseat over the coming months to health-care efforts. This is partly because of resistance by many House liberals to the idea of reducing Social Security benefits. This group includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was able to take over the reins in Congress in part because of the resentment caused by Bush's failed reform effort. Although Administration officials don't like discussing the problem on the record, the White House has not yet ruled out the idea of establishing an independent commission (outside the congressional committee structure) to look at creating a specific reform plan, an approach supported by many experts as the best way to break the political deadlock.

Tennessee Representative Jim Cooper, a centrist Democrat, recently discussed his proposal for such a commission during a White House meeting with Obama and other moderate, so-called Blue Dog Democrats. "We have to approach the topic very gingerly," Cooper said in an interview, noting the concerns of certain congressional leaders that they will lose jurisdiction with an independent commission. "The key is going to be a required congressional vote, so we can't duck the problem any longer."

So the fight continues. And that's ok. But it is a fight -- it's always a fight.

.