COLUMBIA - South Carolinians have had an appetite for sending Social Security system reformers to Washington for a decade.

That makes it a safe bet that Gov. Mark Sanford and U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint will be beaming as President Bush comes to the Statehouse today to sing a song they've belted out for years.

Halfway through his 60-stop tour to underscore Social Security's problems, Bush might find his most receptive audience to date on an issue he's made central to his second term.

Sanford served three terms in the U.S. House. Apart for his sleeping on a futon in his office, Sanford was known as the well-tanned guy proclaiming that Americans deserved the ability to grow wealth by socking away part of their Social Security into private accounts.

In his last House term, Sanford pushed three Social Security bills, including one that returned the system's surpluses to workers through vouchers they could invest.

"We were definitely country when country wasn't cool," Sanford said.

Sanford honored a term limit pledge in 2000 and was running for governor the next year. After winning the primary, Sanford faced ads saying "Wrong on Social Security. Wrong for South Carolina."

But Sanford defeated Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges with 53 percent of the vote.

Why are South Carolinians so tolerant of politicians who want to change Social Security?

"We're a close-knit state," Sanford says. Families stick together and generations come to the Sunday table to eat and talk about problems, he said. Social Security's shortcomings easily come into focus around those dinner tables, he said.

Graham says voters here "understand that Washington, D.C. has a lot of problems and we've ignored Social Security too long. ... And then when young South Carolinians step forth with bold ideas, you get rewarded and not flamed in South Carolina."

Neal Thigpen, a Francis Marion University political science professor, has a simple explanation.

"The Republicans are so strong here they can talk about annexing Chile to the United States or something and probably not be at that much of a risk," he said.

Thirty years ago, it was different. In 1974, U.S. Rep. Ed Young, a Republican, voted against a Social Security benefit increase and lost his 6th District seat later that year to Democrat John Jenrette, who used the vote as a wedge to win votes, Thigpen said.

Social Security was a losing issue for Bush, too, when he lost his bid for the U.S. House in 1978, Thigpen notes.

But Democrats lately have had a tough time exploiting the issue.

In 2002, Graham, who also served in the U.S. House for three terms, faced former Judge Alex Sanders in the contest to replace retiring Republican U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond. Sanders blasted Graham's efforts on personal savings accounts as trying to save Social Security "by gambling a third of the money" and called it "the worst idea for modification of Social Security." Graham faced ads saying he wanted Social Security money to be invested in companies like Enron.

Graham won the contest by a 55-44 margin and now is seen as the Social Security overhaul consensus builder on Capitol Hill.

DeMint also pushed private accounts in his three U.S. House terms.

When he honored a term limit pledge and ran for the U.S. Senate last year to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, DeMint, too, faced criticism from his Democratic opponent. Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum said DeMint was pushing a "risky scheme" and promised to "protect Social Security, not privatize it."

DeMint won 54 percent of the vote.

Since their elections, Graham and DeMint have taken leading roles in the debate. They both want private accounts, but they disagree on how to pay for it.

DeMint hasn't said how he will pay for the transition costs.

Graham wants to change an index used to calculate benefits for higher-income retirees that would tie their checks to inflation instead of wage growth. He also wants to raise a cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes.