[txrangerette]

A hack acts on behalf of someone else or something else at all times, while appearing to be independently motivated. Who is Rand Paul a hack for? What is he a hack for?

I actually disagree with Rand, and am in support of Ted Cruz’s votes against Kerry and against Hagel. But Rand believes that any President deserves great deference in his appointments. Therefore he votes for them because he can’t seem to justify voting against them under that all due deference standard.

I’m with Cruz. Kerry is the last person who should represent the country as its Secretary of State. For personal and for policy reasons. He’s THAT bad. Hagel is totally unqualified for SecDef. He’s THAT bad.

But in Kerry’s case, Cruz was one of only THREE senators who was willing to vote against him.

So I just see a difference of opinion on what the advise and consent roll of the Senate means in these singular instances.

I don’t know who Rand is a hack for? Or what he is a hack for? Therefore, I don’t see him as a hack, at all. And if you’re not up there acting on behalf of a puppet master, then you are not a hack. You could just be mistaken in your views.

[Cyber Liberty]

I get it. You can’t see something, so it doesn’t exist. Well, we’re just going to have to wait to find out for sure.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Reject Kerry and Hagel and you would end up getting a couple of think tank Leftists who could do a lot more damage - and would be very difficult for the Senate to reject.

Paul and others probably just figured those two buffoons are too vainglorious and stupid to do any long-term damage - better to just confirm them quickly and move on to more important issues. Brennan, however, is a much more dangerous man - and worth fighting to stop.