Reason No. 4,216 Santorum bugs me
It's no secret I'm not the biggest fan of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), seeing how he's a member of the worst part of the extreme Right ... the part which tramples moderates and lacks the ability to engage in any sort of civilized or logical discourse.
Case in point is this gem he uttered during a floor debate on the filibuster yesterday:
What the Democrats are doing is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster.
Comparing Democrats to Nazism. Hmmm ... seems like there was a big to-do about a liberal drawing a comparison between Republicans and Nazism a while back ... and that Santorum had some problems with that:
Senator (Robert) Byrd's inappropriate remarks comparing his Republican colleagues with Nazis are inexcusable. These comments lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate. He should retract his statement and ask for pardon.
Not mention that whole Move On thing which the senator did not care for either.
So let's assume this - anyone from any party who starts comparing the trivial actions of their opponents to the Nazis isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be, oh I don't know, not comparing either political party to a murderous regime hellbent on exterminating numerous races of people and conquering the world.
Case in point is this gem he uttered during a floor debate on the filibuster yesterday:
What the Democrats are doing is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster.
Comparing Democrats to Nazism. Hmmm ... seems like there was a big to-do about a liberal drawing a comparison between Republicans and Nazism a while back ... and that Santorum had some problems with that:
Senator (Robert) Byrd's inappropriate remarks comparing his Republican colleagues with Nazis are inexcusable. These comments lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate. He should retract his statement and ask for pardon.
Not mention that whole Move On thing which the senator did not care for either.
So let's assume this - anyone from any party who starts comparing the trivial actions of their opponents to the Nazis isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be, oh I don't know, not comparing either political party to a murderous regime hellbent on exterminating numerous races of people and conquering the world.
posted by Jmac at 11:06 AM
5 Comments:
I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a moratorium on any and all comparisons to Hitler.
When I first heard Santorum's quote, I also winced. But then I tried to think of a better historical example, and it was difficult. The idea he was trying to communicate is that if anyone has "changed the rules", it's the Democrats because fillibustering judicial nominees has historically not been something that was done. (I'm not saying Santorum is correct to assert this; I don't know about that). It was just recently that this came to be thought of (by Dems) as something that could be done. So, for the Dems to act as though some sacred rule is being broken is bogus, just like if some invading army acted as though it had always been in the country it invaded.
What is another good historical example to illustrate this idea of one country invading another and acting as though its rule over the invaded country was some kind of "tradition" or "rule" that could not be broken? Hitler and France is a good example here. But I agree, he should have thought of a different one just for appearance's sake. (Saddam and Kuwait in 1990? Not really, because Iraq HAS historically had a lot of influence and control over Kuwait...)
What about China and Tibet or something?
I suppose what's important to consider is why use a historical analogy at all? It seems to me it would have been just as appropriate to the scenario you discuss if Santorum had created a fictional analogy that could illustrate his point. He knew he could get a rise out of folks by playing the Hitler card, and that's what he went for. It says a lot about his character, or his lack of it, in my opinion.
With regard to whether or not Santorum is correct to assert that filibustering judical nominees is unprecendented ... the senator's claim is wholly false. Both sides have engaged in parlimantarian tactics in the past, and Republicans - traditionally - have used it more often than not when it comes to blocking judicial nominees.
The obvious instance that comes to mind is the Republican filibuster of Abe Fortas' appointment to Supreme Court in the late 1960s, but there are other instances as well ... the litany of blocked Clinton appointments in the 1990s come to mind.
Another of the main concerns Democrats and moderates have right now is the impact these actions could have on the future of the Senate. In order for Senate Republicans to overcome the filibuster, they need more than a simple majority. They don't have that simple majority, so they are threatening the fabled 'nuclear option.'
Of course, this move would violate Senate rules which have existed since the 1700s, considering that existing Senate rules can only be changed by a 2/3 vote.
I heard Sen. John McCain talking about this earlier today and found the transcript:
Look, we're talking about changing the rules of the Senate with 51 votes, which has never happened in the history of the United States Senate. The Democrats have tried to change the rules when they were in the majority. They tried to get a two-thirds vote.
If you have 51 votes, changing the rules of the Senate, nominations of the president is next, and then legislation follows that. And we will now become an institution exactly like the House of Representatives.
Saw this in the CNN story today:
Republicans have said no judicial nominee has been filibustered in the Senate's history, although they filibustered the nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice in 1968.
Republicans also say all the president's nominees deserve a vote on the Senate floor, although they kept more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees from reaching the full Senate during his eight years in office.
A better example?
How about the Native Americans and the U.S. Government. Before colonists arived there was no property law, the colonists imported their laws of property and used them to "buy" Native land and then when the Natives didn't want to go, the U.S. Government throught its courts claimed that property law was some sort of natural right.
I'm so glad I figured out how to be not Anonymous in BloggerWorld.
Post a Comment
<< Home