On Monday, MSNBC host David Shuster insisted Democrats would never stoop to
Nazi analogies: "[W]henever we asked Democratic leaders, 'Look, do you support
using a Hitler moustache on a poster of George W. Bush?' Every single time, they
said 'Absolutely not, we do not approve of that. We want, of course, we want
people to protest. But not like that.'"
Shuster should take a nice look at the MSNBC archives - for Hardball on
March 4, 2005. Sen. Robert Byrd compared Senate Republicans to Hitler for
opposing the unprecedented use of the filibuster against Bush judicial nominees.
Chris Matthews and his Democrat guest Steve McMahon agreed this was a "fake
foul." Matthews suggested it was at best a "venial sin" and a "gotcha game," and
insisted that his Republican guest Charlie Black should also attack the pope or
Catholic cardinals for using the word "holocaust" to describe abortion. He even
suggested Byrd was sort of a religious interpreter:
Now, when that sacred thing to him, the filibuster, is threatened,
is it wrong for him, as a human being, to use over-the-top language? Don't you
cut him a little slack? To Bobby Byrd, the filibuster is almost religious. And
to have it broken by a bunch of new members of the Senate, who basically come in
and say, hey, we're here. We want to get this done. Let`s get rid of the rule.
To him, that is sacrilegious.
So in this Church of the Filibuster, it's apparently an acceptable sermon to
compare the Republicans to genocidal fascists. Halfway through the March 4, 2005
Hardball came this segment:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. West Virginia senior Senator Robert Byrd,
a Democrat, came under fire this week from Jewish groups and Republicans for
drawing an historical analogy, a comparison, between the tactics of Adolf Hitler
and Republicans in the Senate who want to end the practice on unlimited debate
known as a filibuster. Here is Senator Byrd from the United States Senate floor
this Tuesday.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship
rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law.
Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law. And he cajoled his opposition
in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that, 'Hitler was prepared to
promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality
preserved intact.' And he succeeded. [Edit] And that's what the nuclear option
seeks to do, to Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate.
MATTHEWS: Senator - Steve McMahon, by the way - I almost said senator -
Steve McMahon is a Democratic strategist. And Charlie Black is a Republican
strategist, both friends of the show. So, let's keep this on an even keel. I saw
that picture, gentlemen, and I saw a staffer about to get fired for suggesting
he use the comparison to Hitler when arguing whether about whether it's called
the nuclear option, which is basically to say no more filibusters. Steve, are
the Democrats right here? Are you guys right in saying this is a big issue, that
he did something really wrong here?
STEVE MCMAHON: Well, listen, I think he did something that was in poor
judgment and in poor taste. I can't imagine what Jimmy Carter would have done if
you had handed him a speech like that, but he probably wouldn`t have read it. I
don`t think, though, that Senator Byrd had a malevolent intent. He was making an
historical reference. He normally, Senator Byrd, quotes Cicero and Socrates.
MATTHEWS: Right.
MCMAHON: And nobody understands him. (Matthews laughs.) This time, he quotes
- he makes a metaphor, an unfortunate use of a metaphor, that I think he
probably wouldn't have used again today or tomorrow. And I don`t think you'll
much of that.
MATTHEWS: Charles Black, do you share that view, that it was a modest,
venial sin here?
CHARLIE BLACK: No, I think it was a terrible thing. And I agree with Abe
Foxman of the ADL, who said that Senator Byrd should apologize to the American
people.
MATTHEWS: What did he do that offended them? What's wrong? Who gets hurt
by this comment, that he said the Republicans here are using muscle tactics?
They're coming in. They're getting rid of the filibuster rule. They're
denying us to unlimited debate. And they're using this tough hardball technique
here. What's wrong with saying this is what Hitler did back in
'30-something?
BLACK: Well, to Jews, the Holocaust is the most unique thing in history.
MATTHEWS: Right.
BLACK: And Hitler is the worst guy in history. So, as Abe Foxman said, it`s a
complete misunderstanding of who Hitler was to compare that to changing the
rules of the Senate. And, by the way, it`s the Democrats who have changed the
rules by beginning for the first time in history to filibuster judges.
MATTHEWS: Right.
BLACK: To block judges who have a majority in committee and on the floor
MATTHEWS: So, it's any comparison - any comparison to the Holocaust in any
other reference is bad, offensive?
BLACK: Well, I think so, unless there's something...
MATTHEWS: Remember the pope? Remember the cardinal from New York used to do
this? He would say that the amount of babies or preborn children, or fetuses,
whatever you want to say, whatever language you use, are being killed every year
in abortion, that`s like the Holocaust? Was he wrong to do that? You want to
go after the pope now?
BLACK: I wouldn't do it. I think...
MATTHEWS: You wouldn't do it. It's not the same as saying something is
wrong.
BLACK: Well, I also think that the murder of millions of unborn babies is
more comparable than is changing the rules of the Senate. But I wouldn't use
metaphors about Hitler.
MATTHEWS: But he was talking, Steve - particularly, Charlie, he was talking
about a parliamentary maneuver that would change the name of the game. And he
compared it to Hitler's use of parliamentary tactics to get the law changed so
he could be a dictator.
BLACK: Well, nobody is trying to be a dictator here.
MATTHEWS: He`s not saying that they're gassing people or killing people or
even penalizing an ethnic group.
BLACK: Well, why did he bring Hitler up then? What is Hitler known for in
history?
MATTHEWS: He`s known for being a tyrant, as well as other things.
BLACK: ... inappropriate and offensive. He should apologize for it. If he
apologizes, I`ll get off his case.
MATTHEWS: Backing Charlie up, here`s a statement from a fellow I know pretty
well, Matt Brooks, the executive director from the Republican Jewish Coalition
- quote - "'With his knowledge of history and his own personal background" -
here it comes - "as a KKK member, Senator Byrd should be ashamed for implying
that his political opponents are using Nazi tactics." This is a Jewish
Republican guy. He's saying he's wrong on a number of accounts. One, he was
calling the kettle black, I guess, by using tactics against a fellow
right-winger, I guess he`s saying here, because he used to be in the
KKK.
MCMAHON: Well, listen, I'm not surprised that the Republicans are coming out
and attacking Senator Byrd and taking this, I think, a little out of context,
blowing it up. The next thing you know, they`ll be calling it a crisis and
saying he has weapons of mass destruction and calling in the Army.
Look, the guy made an unfortunate reference to the - the - to Hitler. And
you're right. He was talking about a parliamentary maneuver. And what the
Republicans don`t want to talk about is the assault on the filibuster, which has
been a tradition in the Senate. There are two 22 standing rules. You know, when
Bill Clinton was president, the Republicans had the opportunity to use the
filibuster. They chose not to. Charlie is right. The Democrats are now
accelerating their - their - - their opposition to some of the president`s
appointees. But, you know, the president, after they`re turned down one time,
just brings them back. So, you know...
BLACK: He brings them back because they have a majority of votes on the
floor. The Democrats are changing the tradition of not using the filibuster on
the floor against judicial nominees and executive appointments.
MCMAHON: But, Charlie...
BLACK: It's your side who is trying to change the rules.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you guys...
BLACK: We can have a civil debate. We don`t need to talk about Hitler
or...
MATTHEWS: Look, can we get back to Earth here? This guy, Senator Byrd, may be
a bit out of date. He may be anachronistic. And, as you point out, he`s always
quoting Cicero. He's been in the Senate. It has been his life since the
mid-'50s, his life. And he believes dearly, almost in a religious sense, in
these rules. He believes dearly in the rules of the Senate, which say any member
can filibuster. Now, when that sacred thing to him, the filibuster, is
threatened, is it wrong for him, as a human being, to use over-the-top language?
Don't you cut him a little slack? To Bobby Byrd, the filibuster is almost
religious. And to have it broken by a bunch of new members of the Senate, who
basically come in and say, hey, we`re here. We want to get this done. Let`s get
rid of the rule. To him, that is sacrilegious.
BLACK: Chris, let me tell you something.
MATTHEWS: I mean, if you want to understand Byrd. If you don`t want to
understand Byrd, why argue about it?
BLACK: I do understand what you`re saying, but I ask for consistency in
Senator Byrd. In the '70s, when you and I both worked on Capitol Hill, the
Senate changed the filibuster rule. They moved it from a two-thirds vote...
MATTHEWS: To 60.
BLACK: To 60. That was at the initiation of liberals. Byrd was against it
then. But he didn`t compare any of these liberals to Hitler.
MATTHEWS: Right. By the way, you know who really tried to get rid of the
filibuster rule, Richard Nixon, vice president, president of the Senate in 1957.
Came in the second term and had the guts to try to get rid of the filibuster
rule. And guess who wouldn`t back him up? The liberal Democrats, who said they
wanted civil rights. They wouldn`t back him.
BLACK: That`s right.
MATTHEWS: Even though he was trying to fight for civil rights. That was a
good day of Dick Nixon.
MCMAHON: That was a good day. There weren't very many. But that was one of
them. And, you know, you know, Charlie - Charlie's asking for consistency.
Senator Byrd has been perfectly consistent. And the one thing you can count on
Senator Byrd to oppose is anything that diminishes the power of the United
States Senate. He views the Bush administration, I believe, as a bunch of folks
who came to town and think they own the government, instead of are entrusted
with it. And they want to change all the rules that are inconvenient for them.
The filibuster has been available, Charlie, when Bill Clinton was president. The
Republicans had the opportunity to use the filibuster.
BLACK: Nobody tried it on the floor on judicial nominees.
MCMAHON: Nobody tried to take it away from them because they didn`t like what
they do with it.
BLACK: Byrd was majority leader. And he wanted to govern. Every time he had
51 votes, he wanted to pass something.
MATTHEWS: Right.
BLACK: And that`s all we`re asking. We got the votes on the floor for these
nominees. If we didn't, we'll shut up.
MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a yes-or-no question? Are we now in an era where the
only purpose of politics or journalism is to wait for somebody to say something
and then jump on them for two or three weeks? Is that what it`s about?
So the guys, the nobodies on Capitol Hill, the bureaucrats, the politician
who never say a word on any issue of any importance, the nobodies, the 400 of
them on the Hill you never hear of on television, they're the winners, because
the guys that speak out, like Byrd, they're the bad guys, because they might
just offend. And, in fact, I bet in West Virginia, he doesn`t get a vote against
him on this. Do you think he will? Do you think you guys are going to beat
him in West Virginia on this?
BLACK: I hope it's not just a gotcha game.
MATTHEWS: I think it's a gotcha game.
BLACK: There are some very serious, important issues out here.
BLACK: This one was way over the line.
MATTHEWS: I think it's been way overplayed. But you might be right.
And if people are offended by it, they have a right to raise hell with the guy.
Do you think this was a fair issue?
MCMAHON: I think - I'm not surprised that the Republicans did what they did.
I think it`s been taken out context and overplayed.
MATTHEWS: Is it a fake foul?
MCMAHON: It's a fake foul.
Matthews closed the segment by joking to McMahon "I'll give you some more
lines next time."
-Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research
Center.
