aw.
Yesterday during his time on the Senate floor, Rick Santorum said
this:
Some are suggesting we're trying to change the law, we're trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 "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. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused. . . .
Now, Santorum could have used another example other than Hitler in Paris; no question about it. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing people bring up Hitler and the Nazis every time they confront opponents, as I've been likened to Hitler myself. But rather than deal with that on it's points, there are a number of people screaming bloody murder claiming he's likening Democrats to Hitler. As Santorum stated when
clarifying his remarks, that's ridiculous:
"Referencing Hitler was meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues," Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the GOP leadership in the Senate, said of his remarks Thursday.
Santorum never called what the Democrats were doing Nazi-like or compared their actions to Nazis.
A number of people, including
Morning Call, mentioned Santorum's denouncement of Robert Byrd's statement more than a year ago. Here's what Byrd stated (and oddly, what USA Today's
DeWayne Wickham actually defended):
"We, unlike Nazi Germany or (Benito) Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men," Byrd said. "But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Act."
Of course, Wickham never took Byrd to task for his
railroading of the Republican minority when he was Senate Majority Leader in the 1970's, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that Robert Byrd likened Republican
actions to Nazi tactics, while Santorum only used a statement by Hitler to underline the silliness of the Democratic Party's arguments of ending judicial filibusters.
Indeed, Santorum was correct in his assertion, albeit he could have used a better example. The fact that Democrats can only find one legitimate filibuster that was ever levied on a judicial nominee - Abe Fortas, which was a bipartisan one due largely to corruption charges - in the 214 years prior to the Democratic filibusters being used now speaks mainly for itself.
The fact is that Democrats see that statement as a way to galvanize the Jewish lobby onto their side, but it won't work. Nevermind the fact that Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klansman, never apologized for his comparison to the GOP to Nazis; in fact his spokesperson
denied he ever did so.
You see, when Republicans make any kind of offensive statement, they must apologize immediately or be considered a racist or a bigot. The Democrats make statements with impunity, and rarely apologize for them because their inclusiveness is taken for granted.
A perfect example is
Eleanor Holmes-Norton, who stated today that pro-gun lobby groups "want to see to it that more children get killed." You think she'll apologize for that? Don't hold your breath. Protected black legislators don't have to apologize for anything. See Cynthia McKinney.
UPDATE:
Oliver Willis (And LaShawn's mad you didn't link to her. Awww puddin!) claimed Santorum called all Democrats Nazis. Willis is lying and he knows it; anyone that has readable eyesight or could hear clearly knows Santorum never stated or implied that all Democrats are Nazis.
Also, where's Willis's criticism for Robert Byrd? Don't bother to look on his site for it, because it's not there.
