Any regular reader of this site, or most other lefty-blogs knows that it is the Republicans who coined the term "Nuclear Option" for the elimination of the filibuster.
Since the term "Nuclear Option" started polling poorly, and hurting support for the Republican's position (and really, the lack of support has to do with much more than what term the tactic goes by... the lack of support is for the tactic itself!), the Republicans have tried to claim that "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term. We know better.
Now, I see via an MSNBC article (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7831384/) that the Republican's are now framing it as the "Constitutional Option", and so far, it seems that the media is complacent in adopting this term.
My question to you: How should Dems best respond? I think, if we keep using the term "Nuclear Option", and they call it the "Constitutional Option", people might forget that Nuclear is a Republican term.
I think we need to respond. I think we need to have our own Fairness/Constitutional Option... The Republicans blocked 62 Clinton appointments. I think we need to make that front-and-center in our debate.
If they are going to bring Republican candidates to the Senate for a vote, we must demand that Bush nominate an equal number of Clinton nominees who were blocked before. And these nominees shouldn't just have a vote (which they would likely lose), they should be GUARENTEED confirmation by a Reid-negotiated agreement.