« Home | Is it bad that this seems normal now? » | In plain language » | Sounds about right » | Barkley and Limbaugh » | Overruled?!? » | Hillary gets religion ... » | Hillary-ous » | Black Sheep » | They're coming to get us » | Too bad no one said this coke bottle activity was ... » 

Friday, May 20, 2005 

Help me out, am I wrong?

I really think there is a distinction between the Hitler remarks made by Byrd and Santorum. Byrd makes a decent, if awkward, reductio ad absurdam-esque type point, while Santorum makes a completely gratuitous comparison between two unrelated things.

Santorum said on the Senate floor May 19 that Democratic complaints about the "nuclear option" to ban judicial filibusters are "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." Even after co-host Alan Colmes quoted the remark on the May 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes and former Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who appeared as a guest on the show, called it inappropriate, Hannity declined to condemn it. Rather, he accused Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) of having a "meltdown" for declaring in Senate debate that the "radical right" is seeking to "take over the independent judiciary," and rehashed disparaging remarks Kennedy made about Bork in 1987.

Byrd referenced Hitler in the filibuster debate on March 1 by exclaiming that, like proposed Republican efforts to ban judicial filibusters, "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. ... Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal." Hannity responded on the March 2 edition of Hannity & Colmes by calling Byrd "unhinged," condemning his Hitler remarks as "atrocious" and "disgraceful," asking, "Could a Republican ever get away with comparing Democrats to Adolf Hitler?"