Can We Knock It Off With the Hitler Comparisons?

There's a storm brewing in the Senate with each side comparing the other to Hitler:

The Senate debate over judicial filibusters has inflamed passions on both sides of the aisle, leading members of both parties to compare the other to Nazis. Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum (search) is now apologizing for calling Democratic rhetoric, "the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying 'I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me.'"

Santorum says, "Referencing Hitler was meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues." Santorum's remarks come two months after West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd compared Republican tactics to a Nazi power-play, saying, "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality...instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal. And that's what the nuclear option seeks to do."

Of course, various Democratic support groups have been equating President Bush with Hitler for years, but that doesn't seem to get much attention from the Senate Dems.

All of these comparisons are nonsense. Can't we all agree that on the scale of human depravity, Hitler is pretty much in a class by himself? Comparisons to Hitler do not serve to elevate the evilness of the target, but simply minimize the evil of Hitler. If you say Bush = Hitler and you apply any sort of reasonable thought to the president, you have to realize that though you may not agree with some of the things he does, overall he's not that bad a guy. Therefore if Bush = Hitler, Hitler was not that bad a guy either. You see how that works? (It looks like I'm finally getting to use my high school algebra.)

How about if we all acknowledge that Hitler was the personification of evil in the modern world and leave him out of future comparisons. The comparisons only serve to elevate Hitler.