No, They’re Really Not Like Hitler
It’s still the rule that if you compare your opponent to Hitler in an argument, you’ve ceded your part of the argument, even if you do so just a little bit.
The blogosphere buzz today is about Senator Rick Santorum’s comparison of his Democratic opponents in the Senate to Hitler and how terrible a thing that is. Here’s what Santorum says, according to the story:
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.
Well, okay, he does have a point. The Democrats are showing remarkable hubris by insisting that they have a right to filibuster these judicial nominees. Unfortunately, their hubris isn’t Hitler’s hubris. That, I’m afraid, is giving them a lot more credit than they deserve here. Santorum’s comparison is a really bad one and I feel that he used the dreaded H-word just for the effect it would have as opposed to any sort of actual parallel it has to what’s happening in Congress today.
Santorum ought to issue an immediate apology for his comment ad clarify what he intended to say. Until then, he needs to be out of the discussion on this issue – in the Hitler Comparison Penalty Box.
As a side note, though, I want to point out that using such comparisons has not stopped Robert Byrd from holding forth on the Senate floor. In this case, though, I believe the Republicans ought to get well above the fray and leave the reckless Hitler-comparisons to the Demorcats.
(ht to Memeorandum)
No related posts.
Category: The Good Old US of A
<!– spamk : Failed Discussion tab checks. –>
<!– spamk : KARMA: -4 –>
<!– spamk : Treatment: purgatory –>
Hubris. That's what it is this time around when the minority is using filibusters to block extreme appointments, huh? What was it when your boys were filibustering Clinton's appointees?
You conservative meatheads are shameless. Cheat and steal to win, change the rules if you have to to get your way. How proud you must be.
Chuck – Can you provide one example when the Republicans have filibustered any judicial nominee? I'm netting you can't because it has never, ever happened. No judicial nomination has ever been filibustered by a single minority party, ever, until the Democrats did it in 2002.
You keep using the word "extreme" but you have to know that t least two of those "extreme" nominees were voted to their current judicial positions by popular vote. Are you then calling the majority of Texas and California voters "extreme" also?
You ought to be a bit more careful in your rhetoric. The facts, and the electorate, don't appear to speak the same language as you.