Nuclear option clown show: Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum distinguishes himself once again:

Santorum said the suggestion that Republicans were trying to break the rules was "remarkable hubris."

"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 saying '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."

In early March, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W. Va., linked the threat by Republicans to use the majority to bar judicial filibusters to the Nazi's use of majority power to push through their agenda in the 1930s.

Santorum called on Byrd to retract his remarks at that time, stating that the words lessened "the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate" and that he should ask for pardon.

Santorum issued his own clarification yesterday evening, stating that the reference to Hitler was "meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues."

"My point was that it is preposterous for someone to trample a well-established principle, and then accuse his opponents of acting unlawfully when they try to reestablish that principle," Santorum said. "Nevertheless, it was a mistake and I meant no offense."

You can see Quicktime video of the speech here. And it's worth noting that the Allies didn't bomb Paris, as Matthew Yglesias pointed out.

(For all my posts on the nuclear option clown show, click here.)

Update 5/20: Apparently the Allies bombed a factory just outside Paris -- see Jon Henke's post at Q&O, which he links below in comments.

Update 5/25: Also see this speech (Quicktime movie) in which Santorum links the New York Times to Communists, Nazis, etc.

Comments

[Jon Henke]

Actually, the Allies did bomb Paris in both '42 and 43. They hit a factory in the suburbs.

Naturally, that doesn't make Santorum's comments any less objectionable.

[LaurenceB]

Historical interpretations aside, I see no more harm in Santorum's comments than I saw in Byrd's. The rule, as I see it, goes something like this:

When a politician brings up Hitler to villify his opponents, I think that is bad. But when he is simply using a WWII analogy involving Hitler to explain his position, I don't have a problem with that.

In my judgement (and I admit that it can be difficult to judge), neither Byrd nor Santorum stepped over the line. That having been said, Santorum's earlier self-serving condemnation of Byrd, makes Sen. Santorum's behavior look particularly bad.

And finally -
Brendan, didn't you call for Byrd's head when he committed this offense? Why such mild condemnation for Santorum? (Not accusing you of bias or anything, just wondering what your reasoning is.)

[Brendan Nyhan]

Um, I did -- see http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/03/putting_byrd_ou.html.