Home > Perspective

Who's the real political hack?

by John F. Tamburo, Editor in Chief, Publisher
Originally Posted: 3/4/2005 9:13:53 AM

Knight-Ridder, in a sycophantic piece about the Senate shrinking minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, noted that he recently labeled Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, as "...one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."  Why this attack on the Fed Chairman?  He supported our wonderful President’s plan to make Social Security actually work.  Senator Reid, you see, knows that his party is speeding out of control into the canyon of utter ruin.  Social Security is the last big liberal program that the GOP has not touched.  Now, our President is out there with a mandate to fix the program, and to remove the shackles of utter dependency that this program imposes (by the design of FDR’s successors).

"Sen. Reid’s attack is the typical liberal M.O. -- if someone disagrees with you, immediately engage in ad hominem attacks against the person, don’t try to address the merits of the other side’s position."

Sen. Reid’s attack is the typical liberal M.O. -- if someone disagrees with you, immediately engage in ad hominem attacks against the person, don’t try to address the merits of the other side’s position.  They know that they have no actual logical argument against reforming the program.  So, who is the hack?  The Fed Chairman, who did his homework and realized that the liberals’ numbers cannot continue to add up?  Or the Senator who in essence went onto CNN, blew a raspberry and called him a name?  I think that the people can see through this unmitigated garbage.  Senator Reid engages in projection; he is the political hack.

And the hacking will continue.  Sen. Reid is preparing for an all out obstructionist war.  Dr. Frist, our heroic majority leader, tried to work things out to get judicial nominees a vote, but Sen. Reid is using the threat of the filibuster to block all nominees that liberals don’t like (that means minorities and women who don’t toe the liberal line).  I agree with Rush Limbaugh:  The first thing to do is to make the Democrats hold the floor for as long as possible.  No threatened filibusters; go for the real thing.  And do it with a minority and/or female judicial appointee, so the world can see the GOP going to the mat to put women and minorities on the bench (as they always have), and the Democrats doing all in their power to block any woman or minority who does not worship at the altar of forcing the people to be dependent on the government (as they always have, in fact they used to oppose all female and minority rights).

Then, when the Democrats are truly worn from holding the Senate floor to espouse their pretentious racism, the GOP can give them one last chance to obey the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold and protect, and allow the vote called for by the Constitution.  They will refuse, because they know the last hope they have of imposing their brand of totalitarianism on the people is the judiciary.  Without the courts to force people to live under a governmental iron boot, true freedom will break out.

Then Dr. Frist can do what he has prepared to do:  Go Nuclear.

An aside:  Rush has taken to the air to strongly object to the term "nuclear option" as used by the liberals, meaning the use of the point of order to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees.  Rush maintains that the liberals already have gone nuclear, by using the filibuster to utterly destroy the Constitution’s intent that a simple majority vote to confirm presidential nominees.  The liberals, claiming a non-existent "minority right," have insinuated a three-fifths majority requirement on presidential nominees, and have thus flouted the Constitution they swore to uphold.

Sean Hannity and others call this the "Constitutional" option, which is a correct description, but begs the question of why Dr. Frist would not simply unconditionally use the option, since the Democrats have already shown that they are not honorable when it comes to the Constitution (so how on Earth can any promise they might make to allow up/down votes on presidential nominees ever be trusted?).

I’ll continue to use the word "Nuclear" because I have used it all along.  Consider it my advocacy of nuking all dishonor to the Constitution.

O Senator Reid, you use the term "hack,"
But isn’t that the pot calling the kettle "Black?"