Josh Marshall has it right on this. The Republicans INVENTED the phrase the "nuclear option" and now they are trying to weasel out of it by calling it a Democratic phrase. And the SCLM, as usual, goes along with it, the stupid, spineless incompetents:
We also noted one first small success in this new Republican lexical jihad. Today's Times notes that when discussing the abolishing of the filibuster: "Democrats call this the nuclear option, while Republicans call this a constitutional option."
As we went on to explain, this is pure crap. Republicans call it the "nuclear option" all the time. Or at least they did until a couple days ago when some as yet undocumented focus group showed it didn't poll well. Indeed, Republicans have seemed most to relish the term, gleefully relishing its aura of threat and intimidation. Such was the case for instance when the Rev. Jerry Falwell told Ralph Neas on Crossfire on February 16th that if the Democrats persisted in not approving all of President Bush's nominees "he [i.e., Sen. Frist] will in fact impose the nuclear option. And there will be a 51-vote necessity only. When that happens, you guys are dead in the water, and you ought to be."
... In fact, as many of you have now written in, it seems that the guy who came up with this notorious Democratic smear was none other than its prime proponent, Sen. Trent Lott (R) of Mississippi. For more on this we listen in on Jeffrey Toobin's piece from March 7th issue of The New Yorker ...
"Changing the Senate's rules on judicial filibustering was first addressed in 2003, during the successful Democratic filibuster against Miguel Estrada, whom Bush had nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Ted Stevens, a Republican Senate veteran from Alaska, was complaining in the cloakroom that the Democratic tactic should simply be declared out of order, and, soon enough, a group of Republican aides began to talk about changing the rules. It was understood at once that such a change would be explosive; Senator Trent Lott, the former Majority Leader, came up with "nuclear option," and the term stuck.
You might have thought getting gamed on 'privatization' might have led some of these newshounds to a greater skepticism the next time those RNC operatives came calling. But it seems we have not yet plumbed the depths of the 'spank me, spank me' journalistic ethic.
So here's the deal for journalists. If you get bamboozled one more time on this - we will be left with only two possibilities in thinking about you: (1) you are a bought and paid-for GOP whore; or (2) you are a hopeless incompetent.
Update [2005-4-23 17:14:56 by Armando]: CNN, already a recognized GOP Whore, does not disappoint, as pointed out in comments below:
Frist's plan has been dubbed the "nuclear option" because Democrats have promised to retaliate by blocking the rest of Bush's legislative agenda -- excluding spending and highway bills and national security measures.
Yep, CNN is an incompetent GOP Whore. No news there. But the funny thing is how bad the whoredom is. Even Nedra Pickler is 10 times fairer:
[Sen.] Reid said the White House was "shattering the checks and balances in our government in order to put radical judges on the bench." The Nevada senator said Bush was making it clear he no longer wanted to work with Democrats. "Last week, I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved in Republican efforts to break the Senate rules," Reid said. "Now, it appears he was not being honest, and that the White House is encouraging this raw abuse of power."
Reid does not get quoted in the CNN version of the AP article.
Update [2005-4-23 17:32:27 by Armando]: William F. Buckley, who supports the "nuclear option," has this to say about the use and origin of the phrase:
Changing that rule would mean that the two or three contentious candidates would be awarded their judgeships by a simple majority vote. Viewing the process beginning to end, you have the nominee appointed by the president, submitting to examination by a Senate committee, and voted into office by the majority of the senators.
That doesn't smell nuclear, but everyone uses the term because changing the number of votes required to end a filibuster means shredding the sheet anchor to windward. The filibuster is held in high esteem as the last refuge against plebiscitary williwaws that storm the popular will, sweeping away venerable threads of sobriety and caution.
Hell, if Buckley accepts the term as Republican in origin, you would hope the f-ing Media could to.
Update [2005-4-23 19:50:19 by Armando]: Newsweek is at it too:
Now Republicans are considering what Democrats call "the nuclear option"—a parliamentary move that would end the filibusters and force a vote on the Senate floor.
Incompetent or whores?