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.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich must really have a lot of time on his hands.  First was the royal decree forcing pharmacists to sell contraceptives, now he wants to restrict the kinds of video games sold by businesses to children.

At first, the legislature was going to give jail time to anyone who violated the law, but the Senate pulled that proposal.  And note; this is despite several other courts having ruled against these kinds of laws in the past.

One senator was very honest as to why he voted for the bill:

Still, even some critics said they would not vote against the measure for fear it would be used against them politically.

"I'm going to vote for this bill, but I'm voting for it for one reason — because this is a political bill," said Sen. Mike Jacobs. "If I vote against it, it will show up in a campaign mail piece."

Well, at least people can't say he isn't honest.

I suppose there isn't any pressing issues to discuss, and everything is going great in Illinois, hence they can deal with pressing issues like this.  I only wish they would be as interested in saving taxpayers a little money in the process. 

Reggie Miller is done after the Pacers fell 88-79 to the Detroit Pistons tonight.  He left the game with 15.9 seconds left, and Pistons coach Larry Brown called a time out in order to give the Fieldhouse enough time to give Miller a standing ovation.

That's how a player and future Hall of Famer should go out.  He shouldn't go out through an injury, or after a miserable season.  After the infamous Indiana/Detroit brawl, it would have been easy for Indiana to give up on this season.  Instead, Indiana toppled Boston in seven games and sent the defending world champions to the limit.  Miller closed the night with 27 points in 33 minutes, doing absolutely everything he could to force a Game 7, but he couldn't get it done.

I've always been a fan of Miller.  He's always been a competitive, yet humble person.  Reggie has always been the prototype for what an NBA player should be, and those are slowly disappearing.  As Reggie said in an interview on TNT, during the summers when he first started guys like Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and others took him under their wing and showed him how to play "the right way".

I was working at a sports bar the night that Miller made the play of a lifetime; down by two against the then-champion Chicago Bulls, he gave Michael Jordan a shove, jetted to the wing and hit the huge three to force a Game 7 in that series.  Many people still think that was one of the best playoff series in NBA history, and I agree.  The whole restaurant went nuts when they saw that shot, including me.  It was definitely one of the NBA's greatest moments.

Every kid that wanted to shoot out of the gym had Reggie Miller on their short list as one of their NBA heroes.  And now that hero will take those shoes off for the last time.  I'm sure he'll have a great retirement, as a number of NBA legends have.  However, will another player in the league step up and fill Miller's shoes?  The answer is the same as when the question is posed to other stars that have hung up the shoes; it's doubtful.

---

Ed Brayton over at In The Agora writes a good tribute as well.

Robert Novak points to a worrying Democratic Party as their chairman, Howard Dean, faces off with Tim Russert this weekend.

The truth is, Democratic Party members would rather have Dean appear on camera less than more, and Russert emasculating him almost two years ago in one of the more memorable shows in MTP's history makes it even worse. 

This should be fun to watch.  I might have an excuse to wake up early on Sunday morning now.

It sure looks like it.

According to the Washington Post, there have been a number of meetings to try to undermine the agendas of the Republicans.  As the media has focused on, Ben Nelson along with Mr. Spotlight, John McCain, has been trying to get six Republicans and six Democrats to join them in order to make a deal that would end the filibuster fight.  The six Democrats would join the Republicans in breaking the filibuster of a handful of judicial nominees in order to appoint them, and the six Republicans would join the Democrats in making sure the judicial filibuster will not end.

This was fast.  Harry Reid has already refused to give consent for the continuation of Senate business, which means the Senate is virtually shut down.  No committees can meet, which means the Senate is pretty much deadlocked until the Democrats finally stop their temper tantrum.

There is more to this than Democratic obstruction.  When the minority party is able to stop progress in the Senate based on one issue, there is a need for Senate reform.  The Senate rules allow too much power to be placed into the hands of a few, and considering the minority party consists of a group that will do anything they possibly can in order to seize power, the rules are totally being abused.  When the intentions of the Senate sessions in the past are being exploited, it's time to change the rules; not just the judicial filibuster, but a number of them as well.

There are simply too many ways to block legislation, block nominees, and circumvent committees.  If you don't like legislation, you can place a hold on it.  If you don't like a nominee that comes from your state, you can place a blue card on them.  Why should a senator be able to hold up Senate business in any manner? 

When the Republicans shut down the government in the 90's, politicial analysts stated they would pay at the ballot box, and they did.  Will the Democrats pay for shutting down the Senate?  It's possible.

This is going to be an interesting day, as George Galloway, the British parliamentarian that is accused of taking kickbacks from Saddam Hussein in the Oil For Food Scandal, is testifying in front of the Senate Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs Committee headed by Norm Coleman.  Galloway has a long and confrontational opening statement.  I'm sure Coleman will respond in kind.

CNN is broadcasting the hearing live, but if you can't get to it, then go here for an internet webcast. (hat tip: Powerline)

---

UPDATE:  Those sneaky S.O.B.'s at CNN only broadcasted Galloway's opening statement, yet turned away once Coleman started his questioning.  That is a crying shame to only give people Galloway's side of events as well as his rant, but not to provide a contrary opinion.

UPDATE 2:  After watching this event, once you got past the smoke and mirrors provided by Galloway's opening statement there was nothing of substance that he brought to refute the charges made.  He admitted he took payments from a oil trader in Iraq for his campaign, and both Sens. Coleman and Carl Levin showed proof that he had taken money, as Galloway demanded in his opening statement.

Levin even asked Galloway would he have taken the money if he knew prior to doing so that the trader was exploiting the Oil For Food program, and Galloway couldn't even answer that question.  When Levin stated that it is a normal custom of American legislators to give back money donated by questionable contributors, Galloway never responded that he would do so.

Galloway thought he could come overseas and grandstand in front of the committee.  CNN helped him out a bit, but at the end he looked more guilty than he did before he flew into Washington.  Style over substance won't help Galloway gain more favor with our senators, and I hope Parliament will deal with him as soon as he decides to go home.

Senate Republicans and Democrats broke talks of a compromise on the judicial filibuster conflict yesterday.  That's a good thing, since there's no doubt that any deal Harry Reid proposed would block a number of the current filibustered judges.  The last offer the Democrats proposed to the Republicans would have sent five judges to the floor - Richard Griffin, David McKeague, Susan Nielsen, William Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown - while the remaining three - Henry Saad, William Myers, and Priscilla Owen - would continue to be blocked.

There are simply some things you can't compromise on.  This is one of them.  If you allow the Democrats, a clear minority in the Senate, to dictate who is nominated and who isn't, then what's the point of the Republicans holding the majority?  As I said last week, thank goodness it's Bill Frist leading the way and not Trent Lott, because the Republicans would have been seen as weak in the face of the American people.  We need senators who are willing to do the right thing rather than just being satisfied with doing something.

As Ed Morrissey notes, it's interesting how the Democrats now consider Pryor and Brown fit to sit on the federal bench all of a sudden.  The mere fact that the Democrats are starting to slowly cede ground is a sign that they know their backs are against the wall, and more than likely judicial filibusters will be killed if it ever comes to a vote.  Not to mention that a number of Democrats in red-leaning states are on the chopping block if they decide to stick with the party line.  That's why Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) is working so hard to make a deal, because this could decide if he is reelected in a very strong-leaning Bush state next year.  A battle on the floor of the Senate could cost him his seat.

The battle can start as soon as tomorrow, as Frist has already announced that he will send Brown and Owen's nominations to the floor of the Senate.  Nelson is working with the spotlight-grabbing John McCain and others to undermine the Republicans' attempts at ending the filibuster, but they might not have enough time to do it. 

With three factions fighting for power in the Senate, CSpan might have the best drama on television.  CSI and Law and Order might have to take a backseat for the next few weeks.

Previous Posts:

1. Frist to throw down gauntlet next week.
2. John McCain and the Mavericks
3. It's time to show Trent Lott the door
4. Democrats looking to compromise on nuclear option

I'm not going to go into too many details about Newsweek's admission on Sunday that they inaccurately reported that Qurans were being desecrated and flushed down the toilet at Quantanamo Bay.  After all, plenty. of. people. have. talked. this. subject. to. death.  They are accurate in their criticisms towards Newsweek in that they used shoddy journalism on a very sensitive story.

But contrary to what a number of bloggers are saying today, Newsweek doesn't have blood on their hands.  The rioters do.  As Jay Tea states over at Wizbang (which I'm becoming a fan of more and more every day):

I willingly grant the "predictable" element, but I draw the line at "reasonable." The use of that is to justify the unjustifiable. The riots were a completely irrational and wrong response, and Newsweek should not be held responsible for what a bunch of religious, West-hating whackos do. Those lunatics are simply atrocities waiting to happen, and anything -- anything -- can be the trigger. One might as well find the woman who rejected Ted Bundy and blame her for all the women he subsequently murdered.

The fact is, these were feeble-minded people (and yes, I do believe people who riot due to a book being flushed down the toilet on the other side of the globe are feeble-minded) who rioted and created the violence.  They're the only ones who have blood on their hands, not Newsweek.  Newsweek shouldn't be blamed for the actions of these idiots.

Why are we constantly making excuses for barbarian behavior in the Middle East?  If we won't condone this sort of behavior from a child, why are we making excuses for the actions of grown people that have the mental capacity to distinguish from right and wrong?  This is not the type of actions that civilized societies should support or rationalize.  Only when others start taking a stand against this behavior will nations in the Middle East become productive assets of the civilized world and will be known more for what's above ground rather than what's underground.

(Photo: Yahoo's The Contender Page)

Due to travelling this weekend, I didn't get home in time to watch The Contender last night.  Therefore, I will only sum up what went down prior to the fight and my analysis of the fight itself, which an extended version of is online at their Yahoo website.

Last week, we saw a great fight end in a surprising ref stoppage.  Anthony Bosante was winning the fight handily, but two big uppercuts from Jesse Brinkley floored him.  He made it to his feet, but it was obvious that he never recovered and couldn't defend himself.

There were only four fighters left:  Jesse, Alfonso, Sergio, and Peter.  After having a cookout on a California beach with their families, the boxers were informed by Stallone that the semifinal fights would be seven rounds instead of five, and the boxers would decide for themselves who was fighting who, and when.  After talking it over, Peter vs. Alfonso would be first, and the next round would be Sergio vs. Jesse.

If you don't remember, Peter and Alfonso faced off in the first Contender fight, with Alfonso pulling it out in the last rounds for a victory.  However, Peter returned after Jeff Fraza was disqualified due to having chicken pox.  Peter defeated Miguel Espino and Joey Gilbert to get to the semifinals, so he had recovered from his only loss to get back to this spot.  Now the bout has been extended, which should work for Peter's favor, since he is more experienced and probably the better athlete of the two.  It will be interesting to see how all four fighters change their styles in order to keep pace.

The first round started out at a pretty fast pace.  As Stallone noted, they didn't seem to change their plans at all and worked at a five round pace.  That six extra minutes can be a difference maker.  Both guys threw good punches, but Peter got some of the better shots and was able to get some good counters.  Alfonso kept busy and hit Peter with a couple of shots.  I give it a 10-10 round, with the edge going to Peter.

For some reason, Jeremy, trainer extrodinaire that his is, told Alfonso to get busier.  Well we know what his advice did last week.  In this round, it was Alfonso landing the cleaner shots, but neither had been hurt yet.  The ref ruled Peter taking a knee a slip, but I couldn't tell from the camera angle if it really was.  The fathers of both guys, who were former boxers as well, are barking more orders than the trainers are.  Alfonso's mother is getting into it as well.  Alfonso barely wins this round.

We finally saw a clear cut round in the third.  Peter hit Alfonso with some jarring shots, and Alfonso didn't do a good job of covering up as his hands were too far apart and was leaving him open to uppercuts.  Although he never had Alfonso in trouble, Peter landed some mean punches that rocked Alfonso's dome.  Peter won that round for sure.

Alfonso wasn't done yet.  In the fourth, they made some decent exchanges, and Alfonso hits him with this uppercut that Peter never really saw coming.  He was hurt a bit, as Alfonso threw in some good shots and loaded up on the combinations to finish the round.  Round goes to Alfonso.

Alfonso carried that energy into Round 5, and it paid dividends.  Peter looked a bit off in this round, as he was missing some good shots to the body, yet Alfonso was on contact.  He was working those same combinations that were giving Peter fits in the first fight.  Alfonso pretty much won Round 5 in the same fashion he did in the first fight.  I don't know what it is with Peter.  Alfonso won this round.

There's just one little problem:  this fight goes seven rounds instead of five.  And after a decent exchange that Alfonso saw the better of, Peter hit him with a beautiful uppercut that looked like Alfonso's head would twist like Polterguiest.  Peter unloaded on him, throwing some good combinations and forcing Alfonso to cover up at the end.  This is probably the first time that we've seen Alfonso truly hurt in this competition.  Peter by a mile.

The final round was simply a toe-to-toe exchange with Peter consistently getting the better of it.  Alfonso was on his last legs, his face had swollen up, and he looked really tired.  Alfonso worked hard though, and never stopped throwing punches.  However, he got tagged at will by that reaching jab of Peter's which connected right in the middle of the face.  What happened in the first fight didn't happen for Peter in the second one.

Peter won, which is the right decision.  All I can say is that Peter should be thanking his lucky stars that it was a seven round fight instead of the original five round fight we've been seeing.  Alfonso had enough gas for five rounds.  On that sixth round, he became unglued by some wicked hands and the pace they were going.

Next week it's Jesse vs. Sergio, with the winner to face Peter at Caesar's Palace for the million dollars.  See ya next week.