Tim Blair

If there was a way to support a Democrat without indirectly supporting the Legion of Amoral Asshats (TM), I would. Sadly, there seems to be no such option.

Bush served as a combat pilot, though in the reserves and his unit was on alert: in other words,for Bush, at the time,along with his fellow pilots of the squadron, air combat was no hazy possibility of some distant future day.

Walkom forgot to mention that Hitler fed meatless soup and a hunk of bread each day to workers in his slave labor camps and that's more nutritional than Bush's plastic turkey.

Poor old Hitler, he really does have a bad name doesn't he? We really do need to find another archetype for evil.

Obviously Walcom hasn't heard of Godwin's law.

Nice article on the lefts attack on cars and who will suffer most!

http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,02624.cfm

To utilise one of the quotes "The increasing affordability of cars " menas that by Bush being more free market (only just) than the LunarBat party he is promoting cheaper (and larger!) cars.

Of course, like all socialists Hitler included our "Academic"s interest in choices ends when others choose for themselves.

----------

Just noticed a bit of hidden conspiracy theory in the piece...

"the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush"

Hitler ordered the fire, by implication do you think she is suggesting that Bush was behind 9/11?

If so she's a sicko!

While we're at it, let's just flesh out all the Hitler postives.

He was an artist.

He was a philosopher.

He was a writer.

He was a moralist.

He was a humanist.

He was a patriot.

He restored the pride of his people (so Reaganesque, that Hitler is).

He miraculously restored the national economy.

He dramatically lowered the unemployment rate in Germany.

He brought law and order to an anarchic society.

He was a visionary. (So JFK!)

He believed in the manifest destiny of Germany and the Third Reich (so Jeffersonian, and even Rooseveltian, as in Teddy)

He was a Great Communicator (there's that Reaganesque quality again.)

He was a true believer.

He was a socialist. Social Justice was his rallying cry. (So FDR!)

He emancipated germanic peoples from the oppression of Austria and Poland. (So Lincolnesque)

He hated Communism. (So Truman like.)

He was the father of his party (So Jacksonian)

Gosh. Golly. Gee Wiz. Sign me up. I just can't wait to vote for the man.

Sheesh.

'(although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters)'.

How does that work out to be true?

One of the falsisms leftists in Australia have , as would it appear, America, is this view that the person they do not ,like was elected 'by a minority'.

The problem exists in their own minds. They dont get the fact that they, themselves, ARE the minority. Howard, Bush etc, HAVE the support of the majority, which is how they were elected in the first place.

For a leftist the alternatives are too difficult to contemplate

Don't be schtupid,
Be a schmartie,
Kum und join zer nazi party!

Concentration camps are a British invention, by the way.

Guantanamo isn't actually a concentration camp. It is a prison, for prisoners.

Basically what the British invented was the strategy of setting up a camp where one "concentrates" an enemy population to keep them away from mischief, like the British did to the Boers.

The term was taken up for outdoor temporary prisons in WWII, hence allied prisoners or war were held in "concentration camps".

The British may have invented the civilian-oriented concentration camp strategy, but makeshift outdoor prisons are not new at all - there were certainly notorious examples in the US Civil War.

nc,

Bush did get less overall votes than Gore by about 500,000 out of 100,000,000 votes cast. But elections in the USA are not about popular majority. Originally, American states were independent, only loosely joined. In order to become one nation, each state retained a portion of their individual sovreignty.

Presidential elections in the USA are actually 50 seperate state elections that occur on the same day. Unlike the undemocratic European Union, where each state receives only one vote regardless of population differences, the votes each state gets in US elections is weighted by population. But each state gets a minimum of three votes.

How those votes are allocated is up to the individual states. 48 of the fifty states give all of their votes to whoever wins a plurality of the vote in their state. Two, Maine and Nebraska, allocate their votes by Congressional district.

Each state has the sovreign right to determine how to use its votes. The states are not even required to submit their votes to the general public. They can, like the EU, let the state legislatures choose who to support without asking the people to vote. In practice, they do not do this.

The problem in Florida occured when the Florida Supreme Court began to change election rules AFTER THE VOTE. That is why the Florida Legislature threatened to ignore the Florida Supreme Court and cast their electoral votes according to the desire of the Legislature and ignore the Florida Supreme Court.

And they would have had every right to do so. The US Constitution specifically gives total and complete control over how to cast those votes to the Legislatures of the respective states. The State governors, and the state courts have NO Constitutional rights in this matter. The only rights the state governors, and state courts have are delegated by the individual state legislatures, and they can be revoked by those same legislatures.

The decision in the US Supreme court should have been to tell the Florida Supreme Court that it had no Constitutional jurisdiction over the vote in Florida, and therefore no right to meddle in the election. They messed up horribly in their reasoning, but the result was correct.

Bush won 30 states and Gore won only 20. Because of the population weighting factor in electoral votes, Gore almost still won the election. But he didn't. Bush won fair and square.

The important thing to understand is that this entire system of voting is based on the American distrust in centralized government. The federal government is divided into three co-equal branches. Each state remains partially sovreign, and retains real governmental authority that cannot be encroached upon by the federal government.

This approach is called Federalism. And we Americans like it. It insulates us from the tyranny of the state. A quote from Daniel Webster (a prominent historical American) illustrates this point.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

Scott, good explanation -- and it did need to be noted that Gore got a popular vote majority. But this actually correct fact can only be considered an anomaly in the ludicrous litany of the writer being considered.

Speaking of litanies, I believe Hitler was also a vegetarian; he also abhorred and ridiculed hunters (such as Reichsmarschall Goering). This according to Albert Speer's first book of memoirs. Presumably this makes all manner of enlightened sensitive anti-war types suitable fodder for Hitler comparisons too, under the current "loose" standards.

Cathy says "No more Nazi or Hitler analogies to describe policies or politicians you dislike. Unless, of course, those policies include actual mass murder and torture, or those politicians who engage in such acts".

That would make Saddam Hussein eligible for comparison with Hitler under the Cathy Rule.

And yet that is one comparison the people who compare Bush to Hitler never make.

Curious.

"The federal government is divided into three co-equal branches."

The co-equality of the three branches (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary) is a nice little myth.

In reality the Supreme Court is "more equal" than the others.

Peggy,

That is a very recent anomaly which can be corrected very easily with a couple of example setting impeachments. The judiciary was supposed to be insulated from the popular temper, not be immune from it. The imperial judiciary needs to be reigned in. And if we make it a primary issue with our legislature, it can happen.

A bigger cause for concern is the unelected bureaucracy which creates regulations without any significant Congressional review. But even here, our instincts serve us well. There is a public review process for changing regulations that is arduous, though not paid close attention to by the public.

What's neat is that the same people who do Bush=Hitler oppose removing Franklin Delano Roosevelt from the dime in favor or Reagan.

(You know, the FDR who oversaw the construction of a system of concentration camps for Americans of Japanese descent; the FDR who, like Hitler, formed a pact with Stalin to divide Europe; the FDR who, like Hitler, held office until he died in it . . .)

let us not forget Hitler's greatest contribution. loved and driven by hippies and lefty idiots everywhere, vee gif you der VOLKS-VAGEN! YOU VILL DRIFE IT!

Didn't Hitler live with Eva Braun outside the bonds of marriage. (Shock) That makes every male partner in a cohabiting relationships JUST LIKE HITLER!

Scott, a very nice explanation.

It got me wondering, though -- if you don't mind a personal question...

Did you find this out through personal investigation, studying for the citizenship exam, through private schooling, as a major field of study....?

'Cause I can't see you getting it from the national media.

"'(although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters)'."

Clinton also won election and re-election "with the support of only a minority of voters", as Al Gore would have as well if he had won Florida in 2000. Nazis!

The last Presidents to win elections with true majorities, which I guess makes them non-Nazis, were Reagan and Bush 41.

I learned it in elementary school during Social Studies class. It used to be regularly taught as part of elementary education.

Maybe also, Schoolhouse Rock commercials during Saturday morning cartoons??? I can't quite remember for sure.

Then also, High School Civics class. Then the American History and Political Science requirements to get a college degree.

In 2000, Chretien was elected PM with 40.8% of the vote. In 1997 he won with only 38.5%. In 1993 he won with 41.3%. In 1988, Brian Mulroney won with 42.9%. You have to go back to 1984 to find a Canadian who managed to get a majority - if you count 50% as a majority.

Bush in 2000 received 47.9% of the vote, a much higher total than Chretien ever received.

So dipshit Canadian journalists can shut the f up about "only a minority of voters".

Hitler was also alleged to be keen on coprophilia and even coprophagia, according to TISM; a Hitler/Dean comparison would be more accurate in these circumstances than the Bush=Hitler anology, given the constant idiotic shit-eating grin on Howard Dean's mush.

Mao tse tung loved fresh air and simple, healthy living - he sent millions of Chinese to work on communes. Pol Pot, likewise.

Idi Amin cared deeply for African wildlife - he fed only the choicest Ugandans to the crocodiles.

So you see there's a good side to every leader.

Scott and IceCold,

Actually, it is NOT clear Bush got fewer votes than Gore. States count the poll votes first, then start opening absentee ballots. If at any point too few unopened absentee ballots remain to affect the outcome of the election, they stop opening them. (Yes, absentee voters TRULY have votes that don't count!) In California, approx. two million absentee ballots were chucked out unopened, because Gore had a lead over Bush greater than that number.

This matters because, historically, absentee ballots have been about two-thirds Republican. Something like 3 million ballots nationwide went unopened; count that as 1 million for Gore and 2 million for Bush, and Bush wins the popular vote.

But, we'll never know.... (insert kooky conspiracy music here)

Shelby

Actually, the media did a pretty fair job of presenting the facts I summarized above during the whole Florida fiasco. The left-wing and right-wing pundits tried to ignore it. But the information was very clearly presented in that national media, both print and television during 2000.

I learned about the Maine and Nebraska differences in 2000. And the coverage of the Florida Legislature's indignation over the meddling of the FSC did mention the legislature's pre-eminent Constitutional position.

The problem in the media was the focus on what Amendments might come into play in the dispute - Equal protection and all that. But the third sentence of Article II in the main body of the US Constitution resolves the issue without getting into the hairy issues of individual rights.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress:"

Indeed there is no individual Federal right to vote for President at all. So appealing to individual rights outlined in the Amendments to the Constitution should have been a non-starter. The only requirements for popular voting in Presidential elections are enshrined in the respective state laws and constitutions, not the Federal Constitution.

I will agree that the US Supreme Court acted shamefully in the whole Florida mess. They should have rejected the Bush v. Gore case completely on the grounds that they were not the proper complaintants.

The proper complaintaints should have been The Florida Legislature v. The Florida Supreme Court. The proper basis for the complaint should have concerned jurisdiction, not individual rights.

The US Supreme Court didn't want to go there, I think because they did not want to issue a ruling which eroded judicial superiority. If they had ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, and proper jurisdiction over the election rested with the Florida Legislature, as the US Constitution clearly states, then they would be implying that there are some issues which are NOT subject to judicial review.

This ruling would have been a landmark ruling, and might have resulted in people reevaluating the proper role of the US Supreme Court in a way that diminished their de facto power. It would have revolutionized the way we look at the power of judicial review on all levels.

It might have emboldened the Federal Legislature and the Federal Executive to ignore US Supreme Court rulings that they deemed outside the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court - similar to what President Andrew Jackson actually did in the 1830's. We must remember, the Courts actually have no actual enforcement power. They are totally dependent upon the willing compliance of the Legislative and Executive branches.

Any suggestion that ignoring Supreme Court rulings might actually be valid ran the real risk of substantially diminishing real judicial power. That was a risk they were unwilling to take. So they ruled on a case they should not have taken in an utterly incoherent decision arguiung about individual rights which were actually totally irrelevant to the real Constitutional dispute at hand. Disgraceful!

Glad to see cthulhu posting. I still have a campaign button somewhere that says "Vote CTHULHU if you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils"

Let's hear it for real evil.

"Cuthulhu for President. Why settle for the lesser evil?"

The US Supreme Court has brecome congenitally unable to decide a case based merely on the way the Constitution or the law is written and what it plainly means. It must dress up everything in "due process" or "equal protection" clothing, even if the latter are threadbare rags.

One other point on the popular vote: The candidates know it doesn't count and plan their campaigns accordingly. Thus, if Bush had spent more time in Texas (which he was going to carry no matter what) and in New York (which he was going to lose no matter what) he could have pushed up his popular vote. (Gore would have had similar options).

Oh, also I think the Supreme Court decided the Florida SC was a bunch of incompetents and that influenced their eventual actions. Remember when they demanded an explanation of a ruling from the Florida SC and it just blew them off? You don't blow off the US Supreme Court..

LISTEN UP EVERYONE!

Hitler was vegetarian, non-smoker, alternative medicine, astrology, animal rights and gave the world the VW ...

HITLER WAS A NEW-AGE GUY!

(does that mean suddenly Hitler's a good guy ? - or does it mean now New-Age guys are evil ? help ...)

Hitler had only ball.

That makes him just like the editorial floor at the Sydney Morning Herald -- but only when the cleaner is on the premises.

Shelby:

"If at any point too few unopened absentee ballots remain to affect the outcome of the election, they stop opening them. ... In California, approx. two million absentee ballots were chucked out unopened, because Gore had a lead over Bush greater than that number."

Hogwash! (I'd use a stronger term, but I'm trying to keep it clean.) I don't know about the ballot where you live, but here in California, we get to vote for more than just President. We've got state and local elections, too, and we care about the outcomes of those elections as well.

So we count our absentee ballots, even if the only race that still matters is for county sheriff. In 2000, there were over a million uncounted absenteed ballots as of election night, but they kept getting counted over the next few days. That was the key reason that Gore's (admittedly irrelevant) lead in the national popular vote kept growing.

Before Hitler the archetype of evil was Bonaparte. If you went to a music hall around the start of the twentieth century, no doubt the character playing the inmate of a mental asylum would be afflicted with the belief that he was Napoleon - a swipe at Napoleon's insane despotism.

These days you can speak highly of Napoleon and no-one will so much as wince.

Given how long Napoleon hatred lasted, I figure we've got about forty to fifty years of Hitler hatred left. And who will the left compare the right to then?

How about a belated New Year's resolution for 2004? No more Nazi or Hitler analogies to describe policies or politicians you dislike. Unless, of course, those policies include actual mass murder and torture, or those politicians who engage in such acts.

The only problem with this resolution is that the radical left will still say, "But Bush is a mass-murderer; think of all those Iraqi war dead! And if trying to live on the salary of a Walmart cashier isn't a form of torture, I don't know what is!" And so on and so forth.

Unfortunately in some minds there is no distinction between 'actual' and 'metaphorical'. They are that divorced from reality. They'd probably be able to justify, at least in their own minds, branding Bush as a forger, a rapist and a paedophile if they wanted to.

Bonehead just got this in his in-box:

Some random thoughts on Tuesday's column:

Some refer to George W. Bush as another Hitler. This is a gross exaggeration. He has constructed no death camps and only one concentration camp — at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
While it does seem, in Nuremberg terms, that Bush could be called a war criminal (invading other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts), he has not engaged in genocide. Nor, unlike Volkswagen supporter Hitler, does he promote the production of small, cheap cars.

Ah, Bush is but Hitler Lite: less killing, tastes great. But on the other hand, Hitler was a greenie, what with the ubersmall people's car and all. Bush, Hitler, Bush, Hitler, ohh it's just so hard to choose!

True, both came to power constitutionally (although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters). True, both masterfully used traumatic events at home (the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush) to make a frightened and resentful populace accept restrictions on civil liberties.
True, also, that the U.S. leader shares Hitler's taste for military costumes — although to be fair to the German dictator, he did serve on active duty in wartime.

How could you miss all the other similarities between Hitler and Hitler Lite? Both Bush and Hitler were directly responsible for the "traumatic events" that lead to their rise to total, unchecked power (except for Bush). Both Bush and Hitler used their dubious, though constitutional, election to consolidate their power and prevent further elections (except for Bush: oh, wait, I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one, eh?). Oh and I especiallly loved the Colonel Gaddafi get-up that Bush wore in his last State of the Union speech; I'm waiting with baited breath for him to unveil the latest in military chic though I personally think that he would look so fetching in the standard Fidelista outfit. What's your choice?

[continued]

But overall, the comparison is far from exact, lending credence to Karl Marx's famous comment that when history repeats itself, the first time is tragedy, the second, farce.

Sorry, no more "President Bushitler" for you, Mr. Chimp-in-Chief. You're not worthy, to paraphrase another Canadian comedian.

Still, for Canada and novice Prime Minister Paul Martin — currently trying to engage Bush in Monterrey, Mexico — there are certain similarities. Like central European nations of the 1930s, Canada finds itself next door to a powerful nation led by an unusually aggressive and perhaps slightly unhinged man. What to do?

Worse even than that, Canada finds itself next door to 280 million unusually aggressive and perhaps slightly unhinged Americans who appear ready to re-elect Hitler Lite. What to do, indeed!

It's generally forgotten now, but in the mid-'30s Hitler was not universally condemned as evil personified. Indeed, he had many admirers in Europe and North America — people who lauded his "leadership," who lionized his moral certainty (no namby-pamby moral relativism there) and who either forgave, or actively applauded, what was then called anti-Semitism and today would be labelled racial profiling.

What with all those bomb-throwing anarchist Jews running around Europe, what's a poor Hitler to do? Do what Bush did (if Hitler had a time machine and could copy his perfect student), throw up Muslim concentration camps in Area 51 complete with Gideon bibles under each bunk and roast pork for dinner every night. Oh, wait, you already said Hitler Lite's only concentration camp is in Cuba. Hey, isn't that the concentration camp where the average inmate gained 13 pounds since the hood came off? Or maybe I'm thinking of Buchenwald; oh, it's all the same anyway, right?

/random thoughts

Walkom is a clapped out old pinko who's been typing at the Star for far too long. Because of Perot, i don't think Clinton got a majority in an election either. Liberals HATE being reminded of that.

Bush is but Hitler Lite: less killing, tastes great.

Too much!!! Best fisking of the (very young) year, TB.

Thanks, R.C., but hold the gravy on that praise. Fisking Wolkon is rather like a cat having fun with the chicks while momma bird is away. Still, jolly good fun nonetheless for a brain addled by a sleepless night.

Getting back to the first point - Playboy bunnies. I agree completely that the bunny suit is an egregious form of patriarchial oppression.

C'mon, girls, LOSE THE BUNNY SUITS!

Then let's have drink and chat...

How many of the Bush = Hitler crowd actually voted for Nader? Nader received 2.5% of the popular vote nationwide, and caused Gore to lose both New Hampshire and Florida, either of which would have turned the election. Then we would have heard "Stop Uday from Raping Women" instead of "Stop Bombing Babies".

I was quite unaware that my Playboy t-shirt was a brave and defiant reclaiming of power from the patriarchy. I was under the impression that it was pretty much a pure expression of "I like Playboy".

Hey, I read it for the articles.

Don't forget the autobahns!

Even Hamas has appropriated the Playboy logo.

The last Democrat to get a popular majority: LBJ in 1964. Before that: FDR, 1944.