Looks like the Republican leadership still wants to go "nookuler."

"The attempt to do away with the filibuster is nothing short of clearing the trees for the confirmation of an unacceptable nominee to the Supreme Court," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. He accused the president of an attempt to "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" with his demand for a yes-or-no vote on all nominees.

Republican Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania countered, "It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942." He said Democratic protests over Republican efforts to ensure confirmation votes would be like the Nazi dictator seizing Paris and then saying: "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

I know that Santorum is generally one of the biggest pricks to ever hold a seat in the senate, but what the hell? Does he even know what he's saying? Is he now saying that the filibuster is a Nazi tactic? I guess I missed that part of history where Hitler conquered Europe by waiting them out until they capitulated.

Or is it that maybe his subconscious realizes that he's the one acting like Adolf, and he's comparing the Republican hold on the senate to the Nazi occupation of France. Who knows what is going on in that Santorum-soaked brain of his?

I can't see how any intelligent person can't just love the little black/white view of the world that Bush, Cheney, and all their little toadies cling to. It's so pathetic that it's endearing.

Here's the new line of reasoning -- anywhere where the Constitution refers to the "advice and consent of the Senate", that means (1) that the Senate absolutely and without exception must have a vote on all nominees, regardless of any Senate rules or procedures, and (2) the outcome of that vote is to be decided by a simple majority. So the complex procedures that have been used and tweaked for over 200 years to confirm/reject nominees -- all unconstitutional. So we don't need to change the Senate rules (which would require a supermajority), we just need to have the VP declare that those parts of the Senate rules which we don't like are unconstitutional. And that decision only needs to be supported by a simple majority (and guess who gets to break the tie if it's a 50-50 vote!).

And of course, when Frist himself filibustered to block a nominee, that was a-ok!