Posted on 05/20/2005 9:47:04 AM PDT by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Rick Santorum says he "meant no offense" by referring to Adolf Hitler while defending the GOP's right to ban judicial filibusters as Senate leaders prepared to start a countdown Friday to a vote over whether to stop minority senators from blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.
"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.
Passions have been running high as senators argue over whether Republicans should allow the out-of-power Democrats to use Senate filibusters to effectively thwart President Bush from reshaping the nation's courts to his liking.
Republican John Warner and Democrat Robert Byrd are trying to avert that showdown, but Senate centrists have not been able to compromise on controversial nominees like Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.
Byrd came under fire in March for comparing Hitler's Nazis and the Senate GOP plan to block Democrats from filibustering. Santorum, a Pennsylvanian, criticized Byrd's remarks at the time, saying the Nazi references "lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate."
But on Thursday, Santorum said that Democratic protests over Republican efforts to ensure confirmation votes would be like the Nazi dictator seizing Paris and then saying: "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."
Santorum later said in a release that his remark "was a mistake and I meant no offense."
The Republican Jewish Coalition applauded the statement. "Sen. Santorum is sensitive to the effect of his words and the inappropriateness of the analogy," Executive Director Matthew Brooks said.
If senators are forced to vote next week on Owen's nomination to the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, centrists say a historic confrontation is sure to follow over whether filibusters of appellate and Supreme Court nominees should be prohibited during the rest of the Bush presidency.
"Once you start into the procedural votes, the real procedural votes on the first judge, then it's going to be very difficult to put the genie back into the bottle," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio. "I think most of us look at that as once you have that first vote, it's going to be very difficult to get a deal done."
Republicans were expected to announce Friday that the Senate would hold a test vote on Owen on Tuesday, and if she doesn't garner 60 votes - the threshold for overcoming a filibuster - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., then would move to have the Senate declare filibusters out of order for Supreme Court and federal appellate court nominees - a change that has been labeled the "nuclear option."
The Republican-controlled Senate has been debating Owen's nomination since Wednesday. "We will continue that debate," Frist said. "Ten hours, 20 hours, 30 hours, as many hours as it takes for senators to air their views. But at some point, that debate should end and there should be a vote."
While it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, Republicans intend to supersede the rule by a simple majority vote. With 55 seats, Republicans could afford five defections if all 100 members vote and still prevail on the strength of Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break ties.
Democrats have threatened to slow the Senate's business to a crawl if Republicans prevail, and they served up a preview this week by invoking a rule that prevented some committees from meeting.
"The attempt to do away with the filibuster is nothing short of clearing the trees for the confirmation of an unacceptable nominee to the Supreme Court," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. He accused the president of an attempt to "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" with his demand for a yes-or-no vote on all nominees.
Democrats already have blocked seven Bush nominees, including Owen, with filibusters. Centrists hope to strike a deal that would stop Frist from banning judicial filibusters while blocking Reid from filibustering all of Bush's most controversial nominees at the same time.
Liberals compare us to Hilter all the time. What's the big deal?
What's wrong is that such talk puts us on their level. And that's not good. But I know what you mean.
Difference is a Repub said it. Don't cha know the Repubs can't say or do anything that is not PC or they get tossed out without giving a fight. Dems can do and say anything they want.
If Byrd or Kennedy said it, they'd be hailed, or heiled. Whatever......
whoever uses Hitler/Nazis in any discussion to prove/disprove a position...loses the argument.
Ah, a rare voice of reason.
I disagree. There are arguments where a comparison of circumstance to a past circumstance are entirely appropriate.
In fact, the comparison Santorum was making was a good one. The Germans had invaded France, and installed a government. That government claimed it was the legitimate government of France, and made an alliance with Germany.
And remember that before the invasion of Normandy, the Allies worked very hard to get a representative of France to give them permission to invade the country, because they DID see it was the rule of law to respect the borders -- but from the original government, not the new invalid government.
So Santorum was saying that in the same way, the Republicans DID have to follow the rules and tradition, but it would be the TRUE ones, not the invalid ones that only existed for 2 years. We were going to remove the invalid and put back the invalid, just like the allies were removing the invalid rulers of France and restoring the valid ones.
I have used the comparison to Nazi Germany when discussing the problem of allowing HUMANS to define what is and is not life. In Germany they decided that the majority in power could decide who was a "person", and who should be "eliminated". Likewise in our early history our country let some people decide which other humans were "persons", and which could be treated like property. In this context, the comparison to Hitler is appropriate -- those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
There is a substantive difference between saying that a person's act is analogous to the act of Hitler, and saying that a person is worse than Hitler, or like Hitler, or as bad as Hitler.
Rick never compared the minority Senators to Adolph Hitler. He said that their PROTESTs about republicans changing the rules was similar to Hitler claiming that we could not invade France.
It only "loses" if we abandon rational thought and give in to the thought police.
Yeah, besides, this was an apt comparison. Santorum should retract his apology.
I heard him say it and KNEW there would be an apology upcoming. You see he is a Republican and ONLY DIMS can say such things.
bump
Just called Senator Santorum and told them I was not the least bit offended by his comment. That the only thing that offends me these days is Senator Bryd.
It was really pretty mild.
It's about time you people on the left come to understand that you tied your tail onto the Nazi can ~ you got people you admire like George Galloway taking bribes from the Islamofascists and Ba'athists, and the whole lot of you are all the time out there seig heiling the latest campaign to kick around the Jews, whether in this country, or in Israel, or even in France.
What's the problem? I didn't think he said anything wrong.
One entirely baseless personal smear by the Senator from Tyson's Corner deserves another, doesn't it?
Santorum was 100% right and his reference was harmless.
The Democraps just don't like the TRUTH to be told.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.