Weeping Senators, Part II
I've been following CRB's advice and not watching C-SPAN, so you'll have to help me out here. Is it true that Dick Durbin actually turned on the water works during his "apology?" If so, why? Is he weeping at the enormity of his blunder? The content of the apology itself doesn't seem to say so. Is he crying because he got caught? Because he thinks it will make him seem more "sincere?"
I don't know about you guys, but I've had about enough of the Senate floor turning into a goddamn blubberfest. For the love of God, people, pull yourselves together! Look, I'm not completely a cold-hearted bastard, but it's not like you're talking about how stem cells are needed to help people like your little nephew Billy, who's suffering from some dreadful, fatal disease that modern science lacks a treatment for. You're talking about a U.N. ambassador, for Christ's sake! Or the fact that a terrorist had to listen to Christina Aguilera! Good God, men, get it together! What are the terrorists going to think when they see our nation's leaders on Al Jazeera every night, mewling like jilted schoolgirls?
And for those of you who think I'm being too tough here, I will leave you with the immortal words of Jack Handy: "It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
Comments
Yep, he did indeed choke up, Barry.
My guess is that he was not prepared for the anger his staffers received from callers as well as the anger it created among Jewish groups who yet again, have witnessed the trivializing of Hitler and Nazis by some idiot politician trying to score style points.
BTW, he gave a classic DC non-apology when he indicated that if others felt he had gone over the line...rather than saying that, indeed, he had done exactly that.
Posted by: mal | June 22, 2005 06:45 PM
For once, I will emulate friend PE and post back to back as I just had to share Jona Goldberg's thoughts on this which are echo my thoughts but are expressed far better:
In recent years, liberals have taken the lead in the practice of arguing ad hitlerum. In the lead-up the war, George W. Bush was constantly compared to Hitler. More recently, Sen. Robert Byrd likened proposed filibuster reform to Hitler’s rise to power. In the 1990s, the Contract With America was barraged with Nazi allusions. “When I compare this to what happened in Germany, I hope that you will see the similarities to what is happening to us,” Rep. Charlie Rangel declared. “Hitler wasn’t even talking about doing these things.”
Factually, that’s true. Hitler wasn’t talking about term limits for committee chairs or tax cuts.
In fairness, folks across the aisle from Durbin can’t resist the temptation either. During the Clinton years, Hitler and Nazi analogies were far too popular on the right, and they still pop up too often.
This is a more serious problem than mere partisan excess or Durbin’s jackassery. Hitler holds our fascination because of his singular villainy. But this shouldn’t crowd out our ability to make distinctions. Hitler is supposed to define the outer limits of evil, not the lowest threshold. Something can be very, very bad and be far “better” than the Holocaust.
The mere fact that Durbin and his fans don’t understand this is no reason to excuse it.
Posted by: mal | June 22, 2005 10:34 PM