Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Keith Ellison States The Obvious. Right-Wingers Go Bananas.

Posted by Phoenix Woman on July 14, 2007


 This week, Keith Ellison stated what we all knew — that Bush politically exploited the tragedy of 9/11 the same way that Hitler politically exploited the Reichstag Fire.

And of course, right-wing bloggies and AM radio goons nearly wet their diapers in faux outrage.

Of course, when they make their own comparisons to Nazism and Hitler, they prefer them to be utterly specious, such as when they call women who aren’t doormats “feminazis”, or people who would like to breathe clean air “environazis”. 

10 Responses to “Keith Ellison States The Obvious. Right-Wingers Go Bananas.”

  1. Eli said

    Well, everyone knows Hitler was a socialist, so it makes no sense to compare him to conservatives.

  2. Most thoughtful right-of-center commentators can come up with something more compelling the “enviro” nazis or “feminazis” to make their case. Keith Ellison’s a Member of Congress, though. He’s not making a great name for himself! The response to 9/11, especially the legislative authorization for the use of force following the terrorist attacks, had nearly unanimous bipartisan support. Seconding Ellison’s points only illustrates how whack-out leftist commentary has become.

  3. Gee, and I thought I was being nice to you cons by not bothering to mention all the times that your spokespeople such as Ann Coulter and Michael “Savage” Weiner made specious comparisons of people they didn’t like to “Nazis” — even of course as cons like you go out and attack people like Ellison for making accurate and apposite comparisons.

    Can you honestly say that Bush and Cheney and their fellow travelers weren’t running around trying to justify invading Iraq by pretending that Saddam caused 9/11? (In fact, Bush is still spinning nonsense about Iraq to this day.) Of course you can’t — which is why you immediately go into Huffy Faux-Outrage Mode, the preferred course of action for right-wingers who don’t want to admit that they’re in the wrong.

    I guess then I shouldn’t mention to you that the BushCo-approved term for its brands of torture, “enhanced interrogation techniques”, is a pretty close rendering of the term used by the Gestapo for its own brands of torture. Because then it would hurt your poor hypocritical feelings, you delicate little flower, you.

  4. Charles said

    Donald is just trying to demonstrate how many tons of manure can be put in a 10 pound sack, PW. For example:

    “Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho), commenting on one of Clinton’s national monument designations, said, ‘This president is engaging in the largest land grab since the invasion of Poland.'”

    “Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) went a bit further a couple of weeks ago when Clinton designated Arizona’s Ironwood Forest a national monument. ‘I would draw a parallel to Hitler,’ Shadegg said. ‘He eroded the will of the German people to resist evil.'”

    And then there’s the famous comment by Gingrich calling Clinton a “scumbag.” A bit less historic, but a bit more personally offensive.

    And how many senior Republicans talked about “Hitlery.”

    C’mon, Doug. Others may have short memories. We do not. If you want to criticize both sides, fine. But as long as you attack Ellison while denying what Republicans did, well, I will know exactly how much manure you’ve got in that bag.

  5. I said thoughtful commentators (you can have Coulter and Savage). Nazi as a term of political derision is despicable – it demeans the atrocities committed against world civilization by German totalitarianism.

    I said no such thing about Bush and Saddam. If you want go off that way, be my guest. Name-calling’s the first indication that one’s packing no intellectual firepower. And don’t be trying to pigeonhole! Speak plain old English, in any case – “Huffy Faux Outrage”? Sheesh!

    For the record, I don’t oppose the selective use of torture. To get to that point of argument requires a long analysis of costs and benefits, which I’ve blogged about.

    Now, would you like to go back and discuss that idiot Ellison. He’s over the line, no two ways about it – and changing the subject with anti-neocon atttacks doesn’t change the fact.

  6. Charles, with all due respect, you might have “short” reading skills. Gingrich is an ad hominem attack king. I don’t love it, but he represented moderate mainstreamers in Congress, before the takeover in 1994, because the GOP was oppresed under Jim Wright’s speakership.

    You want more memory? Bring on the examples all you want. Helen Chenowith – God, couldn’t you fill a book with the junk she’s spewed? Start with dumb old Ellison if you must — why’s he so worthy of respecting — and have a little respect for those with whom you’re addressing in debate.

  7. Just checking in to see if Donald’s disproved anything I’ve said so far.

    He hasn’t. :-)

    But I think he’ll want The Last Word, because then he can say that he “won”. So he has the floor. Last Word away, Donald!

  8. Charles said

    Douglas, 1 million people have died in Iraq as a consequence of this war. By the time we’re done figuring out that one doesn’t win hearts and minds with cluster bombs, the number may be many higher. In fact, this could easily turn into a regional war.

    I don’t think it’s at all inappropriate for people to recall the Holocaust.

    It was inappropriate for people like Shadegg and Chenoweth– and countless other GOP congressmen– to use the comparison because, after all, where are the million people killed by Bill and Monica?

    As for respect, it’s a funny thing, but you have to earn it. For example, by knowing the facts, by refraining from spewing ridiculously partisan history, and by weighing your team with the same balances you use on others.

  9. It was inappropriate for people like Shadegg and Chenoweth– and countless other GOP congressmen– to use the comparison because, after all, where are the million people killed by Bill and Monica?

    Not to mention that Helen Chenoweth, even as she was attacking Bill Clinton for having an affair and concealing it, was herself having affairs and concealing them to the extent that Clinton looked like a virgin in comparison. She’s been linked to a non-trivial portion of the movers and shakers (pardon the pun) in the local party, including her former boss, retired U.S. Senator Steve Symms — so much so that a fellow Idaho Republican once said of Chenoweth, “Helen is living proof that you can f— your brains out.”

  10. Charles said

    Oh, there’s so much more, PW, that one hardly knows where to start. The line about Gingrich representing “the moderate mainstreamers” resisting “the GOP being oppressed by Jim Wright” is at least 500 pounds of horse manure on its own.

    Gingrich was a pure opportunist who saw a chance to make his bones by using ethics against the Democrats. Democrats appear to be the only ones who care about ethics, and it was they– not Gingrich– who insulted Jim Wright to the point he stepped down. The irony here is that Wright stepped down because there was the appearance of wrongdoing in the bulk purchase by one of his backers of a vanity book he wrote– but no evidence of a quid pro quo. The total amount involved was several thousand dollars.

    Gingrich, on the other hand, accepted a $4.5 million advance on a book that was rapidly remaindered– from Rupert Murdoch, at precisely the time that the Telecomm Bill came under consideration.

    Weigh those two cases in an equal balance, and no fair person can conclude other than that Wright, if guilty of wrongdoing, was far less guilty than Newt, and that Wright was judged far more severely.

    Gingrich then went on to smear a second House Speaker, Tom Foley, with a false charge that Foley was gay and then to plan the impeachment of both Gore and Clinton with the goal of installing himself as president.

    That’s what’s underneath that 500 pounds of manure.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: