who happens to be a US senator, over his invocation of Godwin's Law on the senate floor. First, the speech and the response
You forgot to add who said that last part: Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. In other words, Byrd doesn't "have to do" anything but I agree, what he said was dumb, even if I agree with his general stance in opposition to the rule change.
Sen. Byrd is one given to flower and hyperbolic language but I would agre with his comparisson to an extent. I don't think in regards to scope this rises to the Nazis but he is correct in noting that implementing the nuclear option gives one party with a very narrow majority the ability to shape and control all three branches of government. I don't believe the Republicans will act like Nazis or Mussolini Fascist but in terms of how much they can dominate the federal government this will be overwhelming one party control. Something that I don't believe most Americans want or was what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they set up our system of checks and balances.
one wonders why people feel the need to defend byrd's comments. if trent lott has said something like this, conservatives would have been calling for his head.
I don't see what the problem is with what Byrd said. It was a fairly accurate representation of Nazi history. The parallel he draws is pretty clear. I think his only error is in making out the tactic of stalling votes to be more democratic than it really is. As for the ADL's complaint, it's beyond weak. It makes no argument at all and relies entirely on the visceral reaction the word Nazi usually begets. The ADL thinks that nothing ever warrants any comparison to the Nazis because the Nazis were so evil, it's an insult to them to make any comparison. Well, it's intellectually dishonest, and tired.
he used the word NAZI that is all i can see I didn't think he said the Republicans were Nazis but using a tactic that Hitler used. Rocket River
I couldn't agree more. And basso, conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming to condemn Lott after he said a much, much worse thing than Byrd did.
Actually that's not entirely true - in the spirit of righteousness and damage control, some right wing bloggers made a big deal out of that first.
I don't see the Lott comparison? I guess I missed the part where Byrd said "if the Nazis had won WWII, this world would be a lot better."
I'll echo Batman, and also say I agree, although not completely. It is a valid comparison. He doesn't call the Republican Party Facists, or Frist a Nazi. I think the destruction of any hint of comity in the US Senate, having, by the way, already occurred in the Texas Senate, by the radical Republican Leadership, is an abomination that will, someday, come back to bite them on the butt, badly. I look foreword to the day when the Republicans, after losing their majority, start whinning about being "steamrolled' by the Democrats. If they are lucky, Democrats will restore the civility being thrown out so cavalierly. These Senates rules, having been used for generations, being tossed out like so much bath water, just because "they can," have existed for so long because of the collective wisdom of Senate, garnered from the consequences brought on by not having them. This apparent attempt by the Republicans is another example of how civility is being spit on by their Leadership, and this Administration. Civility matters. You have to have a structure that allows the opposition to have some say in how things are done, so when you are the opposition, you will too. Keep D&D Civil!!
here's a video link http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/03/video_scarborou.html to a joe scarborogh story on byrd's rant. some of byrd's past comments are pretty extradordinary. interesting to watch you guys try ad defend the indefensible. it goes back to a point i made in the McCain thread. the democratic party's problem today is that it is perceived as being entirely negative. the perception is it stands for nothing but rabid republican hatred. byrd's comments, and the mindless support thereof by people like ted kennedy, only serves to reinforce that perception. i'm not suggesting it's necessarily accurate, but in politics, perception is reality. a further example can be found in a comedy central interview w/ nancy sodeburgh http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/ transcript below. it's hard to tell how seriously she's hoping for failure, but really, It's scary for Democrats, I have to say... ...there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. ...There's always hope that this might not work. gee, where would americans get the idea democrats don't want the US to be sucessful? american men and women are dying fighting to free one of the most oppressed societies on earth. i mean, i'm not questioning anyone's patriotism here, but, to paraphrase John Kay, you can almost hear her singing "America, where are ya now We don't care about Your sons and daughters. Don't cha know Who needs ya now You can fight alone Against the monster" -- Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that-- Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding. Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily. Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something. Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them. Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings. Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole-- Stewart: This could be unbelievable! Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's-- Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's-- Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say. Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it. Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region. Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had-- Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow! Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is-- Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs? Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah. Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive? Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see. Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes.
I'm still trying to figure out what the attack is before a defense is even necessary. He compared a Republican tactic to a tactic used by Hitler? Is that all? He warned that the move the Republicans are contemplating would undermine democracy? Is that it? What's there that needs defending?
Why do you keep defending the indefensible, Juan? Why are you so full of hate? Stupid lib hatas. He said Nazi!! And he's a Klansman!! By the way, would it be okay from now on to refer to Bush as an ex-cokehead alkie (who happens to be president)? You got it right. Nothing to it but that. Byrd criticized a Republican tactic and that's supposed to somehow equal insinuating the country would have been better off without the civil rights movement and equal rights for blacks. Good one.
and you can keep right on not getting. just don't expect to have your righteous indignation cake and eat electoral victories too.
This one's especially funny. This whole thread, this whole story, is nothing but puffed up righteous indignation. What I really love is how a story about how Byrd went too far engenders a comparison between criticizing a party tactic and criticizing equal rights for blacks. Babies, that's irony. But you're right. Since the D's lost, they don't "get" anything. Maybe that nuclear option's a good idea after all. D congressmen are wasting national bandwidth. They should shut up until they're replaced by Republicans.
batman, what i've been trying to do, here and in other threads, is engage you in a conversation about why there's seems to be a disconnect between the broad acceptance of the democratic party's views on a range of issues, and the failure of that accpetance to translate into victory at the polls. recent polls show americans favor abortion choice, gay marriage, etc. these are democratic positions. screaming that republicans are lying, fear-mongering, and that this somehow explains dem losses, is just bull****. americans aren't as dumb or guillible as you seem to think they are. in fact, i'd posit that that's yet another reason democrats are losing. americans don't like being condesended to. in my opinion, other reasons are democrats are overwhelmingly negative in their outlook, (the parties are probably equally negative in campaigning). the american people prefer optimism- perhaps mindlessly so, but there it is. lastly, and perhaps most importantly now, there's the failure of the democratic party to field anyone remotely creditable on national security issues. this is the democratic electoral loss trifecta: condesendsion (sp?), negativity, and passivity. you've got the issues, lose the attitude and you might get somewhere. i don't think hillary can pull it off. she's got national security cred, but scores pretty low on the other two. i mean this sincerely- this nation is best served by two strong, vital parties. don't mistake my criticism of the party for personal criticism. i'd like to see the democrats do better, provided they can get their collective heads out of their asses and recognize why they lost.
It's hard sometimes to know whether I'm talking to the basso that wants to have a reasoned discussion or the one that talks about how bummed I and people like me must be that more American soldiers aren't dying. My apologies. I'll ignore the basso that's posted in this thread up until this most recent post until further notice and have a sincere discussion of where the parties are at now. I gotta say though, you really can flip flop. You insinuate that my answer for recent Dem losses is that people are ignorant. I've said voters were ignorant, yes, but I haven't cited that as a major reason Bush won. You're mixing up ignorance with bigotry (most Americans are FOR gay marriage??? whaaa??? and p.s. abortion's not doing so hot in polls either). I've also said, more loudly and way more times, that the American people will vote for a guy they disagree with if they feel he's being straight with them over a guy they agree with whom they feel isn't. The Dem's have lost on character and likeability first and failure to stand up for what they believe in second. I don't know why you act like this is the first time we've discussed this and I don't know why you misrepresent my take on the D losses, but I've been nigh MacBethian in explaining my take on the problems of the D party. You think the D's lose on negativity. I wholly disagree. The R's have proven again and again negativity's a winning strategy, but even if it weren't, even if the D's were perceived as being overwhelmingly negative (they're not by the by -- they're winning all pre-06 party polls re: Congress, but whatever), that wouldn't mean squat next to them fielding a candidate that so many people look at and say, I just don't like him and I don't trust him either. D's need to stop running away from what they believe in (since, apart from social wedge issues like gay rights, abortion, god and guns, you're right, they are in the mainstream) and start telling the truth about their core principles. Elections are not won or lost on ideology (Bush proves you can be a radical and win), they are won by likeable true believers and lost by cynical, manipulative DLC style campaigns organized around the idea of being everything to everyone and simultaneously failing to be anything to anyone.
p.s. I agree with you that the Democratic party has tended to treat the electorate as ignorant, hence the use of 'cynical' in my description of the DLC/DNC strategy, but there is a difference between cynicism in politics and pessimism in policy.
p.p.s. The only meaningful distinction between Bush's toughness on national security and Kerry's is the relative believability of Bush's squint. If you're talking credentials, Kerry was far more credentialed.
from a recent times/wapo poll: 26. Regardless of how you usually vote, which party comes closer to sharing your view on the legal recognition of gay couples, the Democratic party or the Republican party? Democratic: 42%, Republican: 37% http://nytimes.com/2005/03/03/polit...&en=1b7c8514d044e85b&ei=5094&partner=homepage i'm slightly confused here. in the first part of this paragraph i think you're confusing negative campaigning w/ a pessimistic outlook about the country in general. later, you seem to agree that the DLC is being cynical compared to...i suppose the true believers at moveon, etc. my point is, if the true believers act like the country's going to hell, no one is going to vote for them. i made this point elsewhere, but carter (in '76), reagan, clinton, and W all share a common trait, and that's optimism about this country's future. i don't see a democrat on the horizon that can pull that act off.
