Harry Reid (now Daily Kos and others) Going After Greenspan-For Real

When a person’s arguments don’t have merit or don’t exist, the best available (I didn’t say ethical) strategy is to attack the character of the accuser.

This appears to be the strategy of at least one prominent opponent of private accounts for Social Security. His target, though, leaves one wondering what in the world a character assassination attempt will accomplish:

Asked Thursday his reaction to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s insistence this week that Social Security must be transformed, preferably along lines urged by Bush, (Senate Minority Leader Harry) Reid replied (Hat tip to Drudge):

“I’m not a big Greenspan fan. … I voted against him two times. I think he’s one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington,” Reid said on CNN’s “Judy Woodruff’s Inside Politics.”

(Aside: Greenspan’s last confirmation was on an 89-4 vote. Who is out of touch here, Harry?)

Going after Alan Greenspan? Don Quixote had a better chance against the windmills.

Here is a strategy that probably isn’t that much better in the long run, but at least it isn’t suicidal: Ignore Greenspan’s testimony, which is what AARP’s Social Security blog managed to do on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. (Greenspan spoke to Congress? Who knew?)

UPDATE: Harry Reid will not be in his comfort zone if asked to explain how “political hack” Greenspan managed to win effusive praise from Bill Clinton….

“This chairman�s leadership has been good, not just for the American economy and the mavens of finance on Wall Street. It has been good for ordinary Americans.�

…. and Al Gore (same link):

“I am confident that Chairman Greenspan’s technical experience, common sense, and commitment to fiscal discipline will continue to expand our nation’s prosperity for all Americans,” Gore said in a statement.

UPDATE 2: It looks like a full-fledged smear effort is under way by Greenspan opponents at Daily Kos and elsewhere (sorry, I’m not linking, because as I noted above, character assassination to advance an argument isn’t ethical, and is an indication that you’re out of arguments).

Looks like they’re not satisfied going after just Alan:

We should hunt down anything Greenspan has ever written, said or done that reflects poorly on him. This would include erroneous predictions, older statements which contradict things he’s said recently, and anything that’s just plain wrong, venal or stupid. The only rules are that it has to be true (of course) and sourced (preferably with a link, but if you’re using Lexis, that’s cool too - just tell us where it’s from).

And for those of you who want to really get down & dirty in the trenches, we can turn this into a one-degree-of-separation venture. That is, if you can find similar material for anyone who is closely linked to Greenspan, that’s fair game, too. Good examples would be Greenie’s idol, the nutbag “objectivist” Ayn Rand, and Andrea Mitchell, his NBC reporter wife.

My, it’s a good thing Alan and Andrea don’t have any kids.

(HT: Instapundit, who apparently doesn’t do permalinks.)

UPDATE 3: Wizbang is all over this. I mean REALLY all over this.