Filibuster Busters

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Honestly, I wasn't even aware that Byrd had made some sort of Nazi comparison.

Well, this is what Byrd actually said that prompted the response from Santorum.

With no right of debate, what will forestall plain muscle and mob rule? Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

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 Law.

Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that: "Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact." And he succeeded.

"Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."

That is what the nuclear option seeks to do to rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

I'm not so sure that Byrd was that far off the mark.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I'm not so sure that Byrd was that far off the mark.

So what you are then saying is that comparisons to Hitler are OK if the politics behind the statement agree with your politics? If you see a connection and a similarity, it's OK then? I would suppose there are those who would suggest that Frist isn't that far off.

I'm surprised at you, MBC.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So what you are then saying is that comparisons to Hitler are OK if the politics behind the statement agree with your politics? If you see a connection and a similarity, it's OK then? I would suppose there are those who would suggest that Frist isn't that far off.

I'm surprised at you, MBC.

Well, for starters, Frist's comparison makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it. So far, I haven't seen anyone decipher it.

Second, I'm no fan of Senator Byrd and not enamored with anyone that chooses to use the Nazis to bolster their argument. I think it is hyperbole that is best not brought up. All I am saying is that it is not hard to see some similarities of the scenario Byrd describes and what is going on, IMO. And I also believe it is important to note that he was quoting a historian, these weren't his ideas being put forth. Regardless, at least his statement has a point to it, whether you agree with it or not. For the life of me, I have no idea what Frist's point was other than to be inflammatory.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Well, for starters, Frist's comparison makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it. So far, I haven't seen anyone decipher it.

It is a mystery, no doubt. But I have a theory.

He is comparing Hitler's arrogance to the arrogance of the democratic senators. Hitler believed the Germans were superior, that his way was the superior way, that what he thought were the superior thoughts. So any attempt to liberate France and fight back was an affront to him, as he was superior.

I think what Frist is saying is that the dems are the same way. Their way is best. How dare the republicans challange them or change the rules. The dems don't want a vote - who are the republicans to say we should have one?

That's about the best I can make of it.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But I have a theory.

You always do. That's one of the reasons I'm so fond of you and your posts. Seriously.

I think what Frist is saying

Santorum

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Santorum

All those white boy senators in suits look the same to me.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I think what Frist is saying is that the dems are the same way. Their way is best. How dare the republicans challange them or change the rules. The dems don't want a vote - who are the republicans to say we should have one?

That's about the best I can make of it.

Plausable, I suppose, but a tad hypocritical. These rules didn't seem so bad to the Republicans when they were the minority. Also, the dems most likely at the time had the same power to change the rules and yet, they didn't. And for that reason, it isn't the democrats that seem arrogant to me at all.

Rather, it is the the republican party who feels that they should be able to appoint the most ultra right-wing people that they can find, people whose records are downright scary, without any opposition at all from the democratic party. They are actually offended that people would even question them. Surely they know what is best for this country and everyone should just trust them. Now that, my friend, is arrogance.