Via Brodkorb, the Holocaust Museum condemns Rep. Ellison’s “Reichstag Fire” gaffe:
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum also issued a statement Tuesday, saying: “Nazi Germany committed unprecedented crimes against Europe’s Jews and others. Invoking the Holocaust to make a point about the United States is unfounded, minimizes the evil of Nazism, and is an offense to its victims.”
But what would they know about Nazis, right?
Abe Foxman piles on:
“Whatever his views may be on the administration’s response to 9/11 and the conduct of the war on terrorism, likening it to Hitler’s rise to power and Nazism is odious and demeans the victims of 9/11 and the brave American men and women engaged in the war on terror,” Foxman said. “Furthermore, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and his Nazi regime perpetrated.”
I’d say “make sure plenty of signs with this gaffe are printed and distributed in ’08”, but frankly I think Ellison could advocate another Holocaust and he’d still get re-elected in the 5th CD.
I’d actually like to interview Rep. Ellison about this.
I wonder what the odds are?
Probably better than one would think, although not good. Back before Ellison was nominated for CongressmanForLife — let’s face it; that’s what happens with the white smoke puffs out of the chimneys in the 5th CD DFL meeting — he’d talk to anybody. It once took me about three seconds to set up and interview for NRA News, when they were up at the Capitol covering the repassage of the MCPPA — I went up to him, asked him, “Would you have a minute to be interviewed on this by NRA News?” (I’m soooo sneaky), and he said, “sure.”
He likes cameras and microphones pointed at him.
These days, not so much, unless he knows that they’re friendly cameras and mikes; he carefully slow-rolled Joel Mowbray when JM was doing a story on his longtime association with the Nation of Islam.
But his tendency — and I think that, like duct tape and The Force, there’s a dark side and a light side to it — is to talk to anybody.
The trick will be, I suspect, to persuade his staff that nobody will ever listen to the interview, and they areway otnay ootay ightbray.
This is completely absurd.
Ellison referenced the Reichstag fire example to address the gain of powers and the sudden curtailing of civil liberties.
From there we arrive at,
“Nazi Germany committed unprecedented crimes against Europe’s Jews and others. Invoking the Holocaust to make a point about the United States is unfounded, minimizes the evil of Nazism, and is an offense to its victims.”
Are you people really that stupid as to believe that he was invoking the holocaust or comparing Bush to Hitler?
Seriously. do you actually believe that?
And for the record, the event that you are all screaming about happened at a public forum. Go to Ellisons website and under services you’ll find these other events;
7/14 Consumer Justice
7/28 Single-Payer Universal Health Care
8/8 Iraq War
8/9 Home Foreclosures
8/27 East Africa
9/8 Safe Schools, Healthy Kids
10/30 Voting Rights
Now stroll over to my representative, Michele Bachmann’s website and tell me when her public forums are? See any? Any at all?
Also, She has four hours of in kind contribution on KTLK where she was the host and she gets weekly slots on Lewis’s show and on the local religious stations and she can’t even take phone calls from viewers. She doesn’t respond to emails, phone calls or letters.
She makes appearances in Mac Hammonds church and I’m sure she’s been making the rounds in local parades but I’ll be damned if I can find her anywhere near a community center where she will have to face her constituents.
But never mind that.. Keith Ellison dared invoke the Reichstag Fire when discussing the administrations power grab.
Ellison referenced the Reichstag fire example to address the gain of powers and the sudden curtailing of civil liberties.
Doug, I’ll burn through a couple of months’ ration of civility and ask you this: What do the following have in common:
1) FDR’s packing of the Supreme Court
2) FDR’s charter of the National Recovery Administration
3) Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon’s invocations of national security in using the FBI and CIA to spy on Americans
4) McCain-Feingold
5) The 1994 Crime Bill
6) The 1996 Counterterrorism Act
They have two things in common: They were all power grabs that suddenly curtailed civil liberties, and none of them involved systems of extermination camps, industrialized murder, and the starting of a war that killed tens of millions and dragged twelve million Americans away from home, leaving 300,000 in graves on foreign soil or under the sea.
So Ellison could have picked quite a few “power grabs” much more analogous with (for sake of argument) the Administration’s alleged grab. But no. He picked the big kahuna.
People – people who aren’t fecking stupid and thuddlingly insensitive, anyway – know there’s a difference between “power grab” in the sense in which it’s alleged at the moment, and “ADOLPH HITLER”. Those who aren’t obtuse to the point of being sociallly dysfunctional, anyway.
Are you people really that stupid as to believe that he was invoking the holocaust or comparing Bush to Hitler?
Doug, are you big enough a moron to think that evoking ADOLPH FECKING HITLER doesn’t have emotional baggage for people? Because when Abe Foxman and Michael Savage are on the same side of an issue, you know there’s a broad consensus.
(Oh, and “are you people stupid…” isn’t really a convincing argument, especially when your own case is so very very weak).
But never mind that.. Keith Ellison dared invoke the Reichstag Fire when discussing the administrations power grab.
You are to debate what Custer was to tactics.
Oh, wait. Now maybe you get it.
Then again, being Doug, maybe not.
In today’s St Paul paper, letter to the editor. Liberal comparing Bush to Nazis.
What is it about Democrats and Nazi’s?
It is their way (Ellison and Doug, to name a few) of silencing and dehumanizing their opposition.
Doug can’t even find a good analogy… just go look in the thread from a couple of days ago. Callers to talk radio become Talk Radio and then become analogous with DFL candidates.
“What is it about Democrats and Nazi’s?”
Because if you turn your political opponents into Nazis, you can rhetorically justify snuffing out their rights to free speech? Because if you turn your political opponents into Nazis you can dismiss everything they say without having to rethink your own propaganda? Because the left has no sense of decency or proportion? Because it’s so damned easy to do?
My guess: all of the above…
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a far better analogy. Civil rights were curtailed, war declared, etc.
Ellison chose the “Reichstag fire” analogy because it fits his view and the views of his supporters better — it was a nazi-created hoax for the benefit of nazis.
Can Doug really be that stupid?
Can Doug really be that stupid?
Can every CD5 DFL voter be that stupid>
Mitch said,
“Doug, are you big enough a moron to think that evoking ADOLPH FECKING HITLER doesn’t have emotional baggage for people?”
Mitch. I get that there’s emotional baggage. I also get that you and MDE are taking a stupid throw away analogy and creating a matched set of Louis Vuitton luggage out of that baggage.
You’re taken the emotionalism and sensitivity of that subject to build irrational anger and fury and you’ve taken the game of telephone and turned it into an artform.
…after being called a bunch of Nazis, Doug. Get it straight.
“Mitch. I get that there’s emotional baggage. I also get that you and MDE are taking a stupid throw away analogy and creating a matched set of Louis Vuitton luggage out of that baggage.
You’re taken the emotionalism and sensitivity of that subject to build irrational anger and fury and you’ve taken the game of telephone and turned it into an artform.
I never knew the game of telephone was to repeat verbatim what one person said to a number of people so that the exact thing came out in the end. We must have been playing it wrong in my younger years. Much the same way “Swiftboating” (ie telling the truth about someone) has been turned into an pejorative.
Mitch, I’d like to point out that not all CD5 voters cast their votes for Mr. Ellison.
Case in point – from the other “nazi” thread…
Mitch says,
Lourey comparing legal wrangling over the legal definition of marriage to loading gays into boxcars and pushing them into the gas chambers
Lourey citing the the Niemöller piece and Mitch concluding that it really meant she was really comparing legal definitions to exterminating gays… Brilliant.
And the surprising thing is that you get away with this crap.
FYI, here’s the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on the Reichstag fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire)
don’t do FYI’s Doug doesn’t like FYI’s
Doug gasped “You’re taken the emotionalism and sensitivity of that subject to build irrational anger and fury…”
As a resident of the 5th, I experienced a good deal of very rational anger towards this moron that my idiot neighbors sent to Washington.
Yes, I used idiot and moron in the same sentence, deservedly. I called the Congressman’s office and talked to a nice man named Mark, expressing my belief that Mr. Ellison is a nut job and a Mark Dayton-like embarrassment to Minnesota.
Since he apologized the next day, I can only assume mine was not the only expression of incredulity.
Kermit said,
“Since he apologized the next day, I can only assume mine was not the only expression of incredulity.”
Wow. Your representative apologized? Mine made up some cockamamie story about an agreement reached to divide Iraq and she responded by blaming me for misunderstanding her very specific and detailed description.
Well Kermit, at least we can take up our disagreements with our respective reps at their frequent townhall meetings and forums…
Oh, that’s right. My Rep is too chicken to appear in public.
What is it about Democrats and Nazi’s?
Nostalgia
she responded by blaming me for misunderstanding her very specific and detailed description
Judging by what I read here, she was probably being charitable.
NUMBNUTS! IT WAS LOUREY’S POINT!
MY GOD, YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON.
Go play election judge or something.
Not that you deserve a reply, but…
a stupid throw away analogy and creating a matched set of Louis Vuitton luggage out of that baggage.
Leave the analogies to the pros.
You’re taken the emotionalism and sensitivity of that subject to build irrational anger and fury and you’ve taken the game of telephone and turned it into an artform
Tell it to Abe Foxman. Tell it to the Holocaust Museum (hardly a tool of the anti-Ellison right).
You are even farther from “smart” than usual on this one, Doug.
Mitch bellowed,
“NUMBNUTS! IT WAS LOUREY’S POINT!
MY GOD, YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON.”
Show me where Lourey compared legal wrangling over the legal definition of marriage to loading gays into boxcars and pushing them into the gas chambers.
Mitch: Sorry I failed my reading comprehension test this afternoon. Excuse: busy as hell.
Doug: Would it do any good?
From the FOX News website: Via link from Lassie…
“Rep. Ellison Compares President Bush to Hitler”
From Drudge: Via link from MDE
“Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress…”
Of course Ellison never compared Bush to Hitler and he never said Bush was like Hitler but that doesn’t stop you and your band of loony co-propagandists from spreading the distortions.
Repeat a Big Lie Often Enough indeed…
Hey Mitch, since you’re such an aggressive watchdog of shoddy journalism, maybe you can get right on those distortions made by FOX News (I know how much you defend their fair and balanced approach to news…) and Drudge.
And with the wonders of the google, I’ve typed in Lourey +boxcar +gays +gas +chamber and I get this;
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t
One hit… and it is an empty page. But since I’m just a fucking moron, maybe you can tell me what I’m missing.
Doug: You know you are winning by the increasing personal attacks against you (I count 8 from Mitch – must’ve really struck a nerve), plus the fact the anklebiters are in a frenzy too (that one from Thorleywinston – you must be devastated!).
Good tactic to compare the open-meeting approach of Ellison to the I-get my-input-from-my-own-personal-Jesus approach of the Anointed One. It has no direct bearing on the Reichstag analogy, but it does show an essential difference in both Representives behavior and approach to their job. That matters because we are all in for the long haul.
Mitch: So you would “actually” like to interview him – are you sure? Its a LOT different than fingerfuming, and not only that, it may be “actually” possible if you go one of his open meetings. Pretend you are a constituent of his, or pretend you are a journalist.
Anyone who actually thinks that is as bad as Hitler probably cannot write a whole paragraph anyway. And anyone who thinks there are no lessons to be learned, (or behavior to be feared) from Hitler’s astounding rise to power is either a fool or a moron or a hyperventalating partisan on the defensive.
coldeye said,
“It has no direct bearing on the Reichstag analogy”
Not directly, no but it’s important in the sense that Ellison is out there doing meetings and offering his constituents an opportunity to challenge his positions and express themselves. That’s exactly what an elected representative should be doing. The fact is, if you put yourself out there and make yourself that accessible, eventually, you’re going to say or do something that will bite you in the ass.
You should be able to address the situation – explain it, defend it, retract it, apologize for it – whatever but then move on.
When you’re a opportunist partisan hack like “he who will remain nameless”, you’re job is to take a situation like Ellison’s public forum statement and reduce what he said down to a easily transportable, easily digestible tidbit like “Ellison says, “Bush like Hitler”
You know you’ve hit the goal when you’ve bounced that crap back and forth among your fellow propagandists enough to get it at Drudge or better yet, FOX – all the while bitching and complaining about the mainstream media and their silence on such an important issue.
Thank God though for FOX News for telling the “truth” though eh Mitch?
Mitch,
If you ever get an opportunity to interview Ellison ask him if he is aware of Islam’s role in supporting and advising Nazi leadership.
According to Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trikovic the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time corresponded and met with Himmler regularly. And according to Wiki also recruited Muslims for the SS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni
Thus it would seem that Muslims are more comparable to NAZI s and fought alongside them, than the enemy of Islamic extremism………the U.S.
One might say by extension then that the war on terrorism is a continuation of the hostilities of WWII. A stretch you say?….
And please read this in the context of this thread…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
maybe you can get right on those distortions made by FOX News
No, that would be a tangent from the topic of this thread.
I know how much you defend their fair and balanced approach to news…)
Doug, you are making stuff up again. I don’t watch Fox news (or any other TV newscast or cable news channel) other than in passing.
“Coldeye”,
As a rule, I only get “personal” when someone else has done it first. Doug has a long history of snide condescenscion, including in this thread.
So you would “actually” like to interview him – are you sure? Its a LOT different than fingerfuming, and not only that, it may be “actually” possible if you go one of his open meetings.
I’ve interviewed a lot of people in my life, “Cold”. When you’re qualified to condescend, I’ll let you know.
When you’re a opportunist partisan hack like “he who will remain nameless”, you’re job is to take a situation like Ellison’s public forum statement…
…and try to make his critics look like the bad guys.
I repeat, when Michael Savage and Abe Foxman agree, you know there’s something there.
No matter how hard you sycophants chant “the emperor’s clothes look fabulous.
(and the idea that either of you think you can lecture me about German history – I, who minored in German and History, speak the language fairly fluently, and have read just about everything that matters on the subject, in both languages, is as funny as a self-appointed election judge).
Doug commiserated “Well Kermit, at least we can take up our disagreements with our respective reps at their frequent townhall meetings and forums…”
To which Kermit reflects:
While my previous “representative” (Martin Sabo) may have actually considered my opposition to his Marxist inclinations, I am fairly certain Mr. Ellison not only discounts his position as a representative, given his history would likely apply an attitude of extreme prejudice to any opinion I may have.
Ain’t democracy grand?
In regards to ignorantly twisting a statement grossly and DELIBERATELY out of context, I only have one word to say:
Niggardly.
Pot, kettle on line one.
Mitch said,
“As a rule, I only get “personal” when someone else has done it first.”
As a rule, Mitch selects which of his rules he chooses to follow. He went personal. Not I…
“Doug has a long history of snide condescenscion, including in this thread.”
And Mitch is spotless and clean as pure driven snow. See? “Doug, are you big enough a moron to think that evoking ADOLPH FECKING HITLER doesn’t have emotional baggage for people?”
“I, who minored in German and History, speak the language fairly fluently, and have read just about everything that matters on the subject, in both languages…”
Maybe you should have focused on basic English comprehension instead? Ellison didn’t call Bush Hitler and as far I can tell, Lourey didn’t compare the DOMA proceedings to packing gays into boxcars headed for the gas chamber.
Ellison didn’t call Bush Hitler
No, he merely invoked Hitler’s first great ghastly act of subterfuge that slid a weak democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship virtually overnight, to describe his view of Bush.
Totally different, right?
As a rule, Mitch selects which of his rules he chooses to follow.
No, Doug, there are a few rules about which I am inflexible. Lying is one; I don’t.
He went personal.
For three years, you’ve been calling those with whom you disagree “stupid”, and implying varying degrees of addlement. You’ve also called me a liar, for which I’ve banned others. I didn’t ban you because, frankly, your writing is its own punishment. So far.
For that matter, since we’ve never met, it’s impossible for me to go “personal”; since you are utterly anonymous, and can in fact pretend to be anything you want (say, an “election observer”), you really are not personally exposed on this site.
No, nobody went “personal”; I merely called your argument – “Ellison didn’t invoke Hitler!” – stupid.
Because – y’know – it is.
Here’s the original Ellison quote:
He was talking in front of a bunch of leftoid atheists.
And I repeat:
ABE FOXMAN AND MICHAEL SAVAGE (to say nothing of Mitch Berg) AGREE.
It really doesn’t get a lot more stark than that.
Doug: You know you’re wasting your (virtual) breath when they’re just pounding their spears on the ground, and do not respond to your arguments (if they do, they might realize they lost this one).You defend Ellison for choosing an analogy that is logical when deconstructed, but only applies to the preliminary steps in a larger process. (Probably) sensing the valid comparison of those early events, they unconsciouly but naturally choose to extend the process out to where it has not been reached (and we hope never will be). Now, they have an argument, but of cousre it is wy beyond what you or Ellison posited: Bush has not done those things AND Hitler was terrible, so you are wrong and terrible yourself. This seems to them like they won. They would get a C- in a logic class (F if a graduate class). But why woud you expect critical thinking skills be demonstrated in a partisan blog?
Mitch: I minored in Philosophy (where logic is taught) and micro-minored in Venn diagrams, so I cannot even cobble the logic you use to “actally like to interview Ellison” but respond to a challenge to do so then with “I’ve interviewed a lot of people in my life,…” end of argument (except for the irony,but that doeesn’t qualify either). SO I’ll justawait your permission for further comment, as you instruct.
The incredible credentials of Coldeye:
“I minored in Philosophy (where logic is taught) and micro-minored in Venn diagrams”.
“You defend Ellison for choosing an analogy that is logical when deconstructed, but only applies to the preliminary steps in a larger process.”
Hey Mr philosophy minor, the sentence makes no sense. You don’t seem to know what ‘deconstructed” means.
Coldeye said:
(Probably) sensing the valid comparison of those early events, they unconsciously but naturally choose to extend the process out to where it has not been reached (and we hope never will be).
Care to explain what that “valid comparison of those early events” is? I can’t wait to see what you come up with.
Yeah, Cold. You’re big on snarky heckling, but not so much on actually stating your case.
Show us some logic, bigfella.
Coldeye,
Projecting much?
do not respond to your arguments
I responded to, and shredded, his argument.
You, on the other hand, have yet to make one.
What the heck is a “micro-minor”? a singe class? A single unit within a class? A quick browse of a wikipedia article?
I call humbug. Coldeye is a fraud.
Mitch:
You shredded his argument? Your only reply that is not just ad hominem is:
“So Ellison could have picked quite a few “power grabs” much more analogous with (for sake of argument) the Administration’s alleged grab. But no. He picked the big kahuna.”
People – people who aren’t fecking stupid and thuddlingly insensitive, anyway – know there’s a difference between “power grab” in the sense in which it’s alleged at the moment, and “ADOLPH HITLER”. Those who aren’t obtuse to the point of being sociallly dysfunctional, anyway.”
Insisting that Ellison should choose analogies that you think are more accurate is “shredding his argument”?? (In addition, only one of your alternatives did not involve an Act of Congress, as oppposed to executive orders, signing statements, secret memos and startling Constitutional interpretations). You must be quite a shredder by that standard.
BUT, my point was you and the anklebiters went from arguing the point to ad hominem howling. Of course, as you pointed out, it is justified.
Snarky posts are bad things here huh? I did not know, could not guess actually – just assumed they were the norm from reading the blog. Of course, nothing snarky but from me and Doug in this thread.
Terry; “micro-minor” was tongue-in-cheek, parody, a direct reaction to the fustian tone of a preceeding thread. For further example, your reply is perfect; based on your posts you seem to have micro-minored in wikipedian. I thought it a good reaction to the churlishness the thread had taken (still do), but also, I regret having defrauded you.
All right, Coldeye, this is the second time I’ve asked: what is that “valid comparison of those early events?”
Apparently studying philosophy as a minor didn’t teach you how to back up your arguments with facts, something a good logic and critical thinking prof would call a unsubstantiated allegation.
I didn’t say you were defrauding anyone, Coldeye. I said you _are_ a fraud. This is based on: your touting of credentials which are A) impossible to check as well as irrelevant, B) your inability to compose a clear sentence and your, shall we say, unorthodox use of parenthesis and C) the fact that anyone with training in philosophy would know that you can’t “deconstruct” anything to determine whether or not it is “logical”.
Mitch said,
“No, nobody went “personal”; I merely called your argument – “Ellison didn’t invoke Hitler!” – stupid.
Because – y’know – it is. “
Hey Numb Nutz, what I said was, “Are you people really that stupid as to believe that he was invoking the holocaust or comparing Bush to Hitler?”
From that, you arrive at, “I merely called your argument – “Ellison didn’t invoke Hitler!” “
You’re the WWF of the Blogosphere.