A Frist-rate hypocrite

In early March, when Democratic Senator Robert Byrd compared the Republican anti-filibuster campaign to Nazi tactics, fellow senator Rick Santorum demanded that Byrd retract his comments because they "lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate."

Naturally, Santorum himself has now compared Democrats to Nazis: "[The Dems' nuclear opposition] is 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.’” The senator later said he didn’t mean to offend and his comments were only intended "to dramatize the principle of an argument."

Mr. Santorum, I don’t need to “dramatize” the argument I’m about to make, because you -- as the Senate majority’s No. 3 guy and No. 1 hypocrite -- made it for me. But do feel free to take offense. It’s meant that way.

When you launched your Senate campaign in 1993, you defended your minority party’s tactics of delay, obstructionism and filibustering -- with a twist, of course. To a group of retired steel workers you said the Republican strategy of balling up Clinton’s programs was nothing like “gridlock” (USA Today, April 16, 1993). No, you in the House (then) and your GOP playmates in the Senate were just “trying to let the American public have a voice in what's happening," which is precisely what the Dems are now doing and you’re dead against, on “principle.”

The next year a bipartisan group of noted politicos (e.g. Barry Goldwater and Elliott Richardson), who were sick of the obstructionism your party favored, got together to do some math. ''Action, Not Gridlock!'' as this group called itself, “compiled all the Senate votes on ‘cloture,’ the procedure to end debate on a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass, and came up with ‘democracy scores’ [up to 100 percent] for every member…. 32 Republicans had ratings below 20 percent” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 30, 1994). Thirty-two of your ideological pals, Rick, pro-filibuster all the way.

A bit later, after your November ’94 election to the Senate, the Post-Gazette noted that “in the past year, Republicans in the Senate, despite being a minority, have managed to block much of Clinton's agenda by starting filibusters that Democrats couldn't muster 60 votes to stop.” But you, being you, once again took a hypocritical tack in defense of filibustering. Well, sure, you had said your party didn’t do “gridlock,” but on the other hand, ''Republican leaders in the past have had to play guerrilla warfare in order to accomplish things'' (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 10, 1994). The English language is a marvelous tool for smarmy distortion, don’t you agree?

Next, Rick, let’s take a brief look at your own filibuster record.

“Following is the 57-to-43 roll-call vote by which the Senate today defeated a move to close debate on the nomination of Dr. Henry W. Foster Jr. to be Surgeon General… Forty-six Democrats and 11 Republicans voted yes; 43 Republicans voted no.

“Pennsylvania: Santorum (R) No” (The New York Times, June 22, 1995).

Here we are again three days later:

“Dr. Henry Foster's nomination as surgeon general appears dead after two successive attempts to end a filibuster against him in the Senate failed.

“Voting against: Rick Santorum, R-Pa” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 25, 1995).

And here we are yet again on yet another up-or-down matter:

“Following is the 54-to-46 roll-call by which the Senate voted today on ending a filibuster on campaign finance legislation.

“NO … Santorum, Pa” (The New York Times, June 26, 1996).

That’s your record through only mid-1996. But it’s enough.

We know what you’d say to this, Rick. You’d say these votes aren’t fair comparisons because the nuclear option detonates only on judicial nominations -- not surgeons general or campaign finance legislation. But we also know that’s a pile of hooey.

Had today’s urgent GOP concern been a Democratic blockade against an ultraconservative surgeon general, let’s say, then you and your friends would be protesting that the nuclear option would be limited to that case. We both know you would. We all know it.

And don’t think we don’t also know that after successfully dismantling judicial filibusters that you won’t go after every unwanted filibuster.

We’re braced for it, because “it” is what makes you who you are, Rick -- a class-A, over-the-top, Frist-rate hypocrite.

Comments

[Susan]

This is the type of thing that corporate news media's refuse to print....you can only find this type of "outing" of the wild-eyed hypocrites who are bent on a "fascist regime" a "dictatorship", worshiped by the hard-right neo con...why not in the news?...Because the corporate media is one of the bigger proponents of a plutocracy, one their money can control(not the reportes..they just work for a living, like the rest of us and want to keep their jobs)why can't the average American connect the dots..? Its all about money, who has it and who wants it

[wtmoore]

i hope a copy of this article was sent to santorum and every newspaper in santorum's district. add keith olberman.

santorum is a whore...

[La Mouche]

To wtmoore: Why not send the article to Santorum yourself? Google his name & you'll find his website & there you can find his telephone number & his email & postal addresses. His fax number is 202-228-0604.

[Tony]

If the votes are actually counted, Santorum is out on his keester come '06. Bringing home a stillborn baby to so his kids can "meet their brother." Eeeew! What a scumbag freak.