Proliferation
Republicans have yet again pulled the wool over the public's eyes.
The most recent ploy in Dr. Frist's snake oil sales tour has branded Democrats' threatened response to changing Senate rules--to bring legislation to a standstill--the "nuclear option". The term "nuclear option" was coined by arch-conservative Trent Lott (R-MS), and it means eliminating the filibuster, not the response. Lott said so himself on Stephanopolous Sunday when Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called him out.
Somehow this change in terminology, which has only happened in the last few weeks, and only in Republican rhetoric, has tricked several mainstream media outlets and commentators. Seems like the media lately is more gullible than liberal.
The most recent ploy in Dr. Frist's snake oil sales tour has branded Democrats' threatened response to changing Senate rules--to bring legislation to a standstill--the "nuclear option". The term "nuclear option" was coined by arch-conservative Trent Lott (R-MS), and it means eliminating the filibuster, not the response. Lott said so himself on Stephanopolous Sunday when Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called him out.
Somehow this change in terminology, which has only happened in the last few weeks, and only in Republican rhetoric, has tricked several mainstream media outlets and commentators. Seems like the media lately is more gullible than liberal.
6 Comments:
Not sure how this is an example of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. It's just a clever argument.
What's more nuclear: changing an archaic and possibly unconstitutional Senate rule or shutting down the entire Senate? Recall the last such ploy by Newt Gingrich: it didn't work.
I think Dr. Frist is merely looking at the two "options" and describing one as far more extreme-- nuclear-- than the other.
PS: Lott is no longer the majority leader. He's the disgraced majority leader, and more than a little bitter.
By Ben Polidore, At 10:34 PM EDT
Nuclear was coined years ago, and was about the filibuster rule. Frist knows he'll be murdered by the far right if he doesn't go nuclear. I'm also remarking on the language, not the policy.
And today's Republicans could probably learn a thing or 2 from Newt's mistakes, as support for most of their core agenda continues to lose ground.
By Tim McGuire, At 11:31 PM EDT
OK.. I mean, do you think he should take some negative term for what he's trying to do and use it to describe his actions? What if he was trying to pass a tax cut and he described himself as heartless? I mean, you don't use the language of those who disagree with you to promote what you're trying to do. You turn it back on them: that's politics.
"My fellow americans, it is time that we issued the nuclear option....."
Many Americans believe the filibuster is in itself a nuclear option. The Constitution offers specific instances when a supermajority is required, and judicial confirmations is not one of them.
By Ben Polidore, At 8:11 AM EDT
Right, but the filibuster is a loooooongstanding rule in the Senate. Republicans who for so long talk limited government, limited government once in the majority are trying to consolidate more and more power. That's politics, sure, but if Democrats had gone nuclear when they were in the majority, Republicans would have had a fit. I'm not surprised Republicans are using a different term to describe their action, I am surprised that they have actually started calling Democrats' response the nuclear option--and that the media is buying it.
By Tim McGuire, At 10:16 AM EDT
Limited government? Yes. One of the ways to achieve limited government is to confirm some judges who believe in the Constitution. The Democrats don't want that and are using the filibuster in a way that's never been done before.
And the only filibuster at stake is the filibuster for judicial nominations. The Democrats can still block as many standard bills as they please.
The Senate was never supposed to debate the politics of an appointed judge, only his qualification. If a judge gets a perfect rating from the ABA and is then filibustered, we've got a problem. When you have a problem, you change something. The Democrats were asking for this.
By Ben Polidore, At 10:46 AM EDT
The same percentage of appellate judge nominations have been blocked during both the Clinton and Bush administration. Overall, only a few of Bush's 200+ nominees have been blocked.
Every political issue eventually becomes a legal issue. And when the fabric of government is at stake in many of the cases appellate judges hear, ideology has to be a concern. I wouldn't want a socialist judge on the federal bench, but I also don't want far-right Charles Pickering.
The "activist judge" argument is weak. Conservatives like activists who will overturn state laws and decisions when they don't like the laws or decisions being overturned.
Can't we just split the difference and nominate a clone of O'Connor?
By Tim McGuire, At 2:25 PM EDT
Post a Comment
<< Home