What’s in a name?

May 16, 2005

Josh Marshall noted yesterday that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was on Fox News Sunday, discussing the nuclear option and the likely showdown this week (C&L has the video). In describing the GOP tactic, McConnell used his personal favorite: the “Byrd Option.”

Noting that Republicans have already relied on “nuclear option” and “constitutional option,” Josh suggested this is the third GOP-approved word for abolishing the filibuster. As it turns out, we’d be lucky if there were only three. At this point, by my count, Republicans have used six different names to describe the same tactic. Let’s take them one at a time, in the order in which the GOP crafted them:

1. Nuclear Option — Coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in 2003, the phrase was embraced by the Republican caucus until they decided it didn’t poll well.

2. Constitutional Option — Crafted by Republican staffers shortly after the 2004 election, when GOP lawmakers started getting serious about executing the plan and realized they wanted something that sounded less apocalyptic than “nuclear.”

3. Byrd Option — A favorite of McConnell’s, it’s based on an inaccurate description of Sen. Robert Byrd’s efforts in the 1970s. It’s never really caught on, but it lingers as a nonsensical rhetorical device.

4. Filibuster Reform — This one seems to be particularly popular with the religious right and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It started popping up in March.

5. Fairness Option — The Weekly Standard came up with this gem about a month ago, saying it’s the “proper name” for the tactic. No one else seems to agree, since no one else has used it.

6. Majority Rules Option — John Cornyn coined this clunker in April, but since it seems to run into the Dems’ argument about preserving Senate respect for minority rights, Cornyn didn’t convince any of his colleagues to use it. (It appeared in a CQ article, so there’s no link available.)

Please note, we’re not talking about six different ideas with subtle differences; these are competing labels to describe the exact same tactic. And because Orwellian lawmakers believe poll-tested rhetoric is the key to all policy disputes, we’re treated to this wide variety of descriptions. What a treat for us all.

What’s the matter, did the “Fuck You Option” poll badly?

  • I first saw “Cry Baby Option” on TalkingpointsMemo.com
    I believe the rationale is — “I only got 95% of what I wanted, so “WAH” I’m changing the rules.

  • McConnell managed to say “Byrd Option” about 6 times within one minute on Fox. I was disappointed, though, by Durbin’s failure to call him on it (as well as Durbin’s failure to say more to rebut host Wallace’s comments about the bogus charges against Reid for his mention of the FBI file.

  • I guess the “If you don’t want to play the game according to our ever-changing rules, then we’ll just take our ball and go home” option is too much of a mouthful.

  • What about the “I flunked constitutional law” option?

    Or perhaps the “I’m so retarded I think the filibuster is unconstitutional” option?

  • Enough talk about changing the rules: either change them or don’t, either you have the votes or you don’t. But if the Republicans change the Senate rules then they need to stuff it later, when the Democrats hold a majority and occupy the White House.

  • What about the truly honest “Fascist Option,” since that is what the Repugnant Party has turned into?

  • … when the fascists come for me they will come disguised as anti-fascists said the ole’ man … but how will you know them the young boy asked … they will be cloaked in religion and righteousness even though their hearts are filled with intolerance and ignorance …

  • For chrissakes– Frist wants to be President someday. Hang the damn albatross around his neck and start calling it The Frist Option. Kill his campaign now.

  • I like the “CRY BABY” option best. These lying bastards are dispicable! I am so sad that Senator Domenici, NM, who use to be an honorable guy has become a bitter old man who is despoiling his legacy and will put the party of liars, perverts, theo-cons, neo-con, and sociopaths ahead of his (and mine, & my Grandson’s) country!

  • Here is the deal…if people are informed that for 214 years filibusters were not used to deny judicial appointees a vote they overwhelmingly support giving the judges an up and down vote….

    Reid has caved in further today and is now ready to approve 5 while rejecting 3…he will cave further so what is the point…this is going to be a huge debacle for Democrats who should have saved their ammo for very specific cases and Supreme Court nominees…never for a sitting African American woman who is a California Supreme Court justice elected with 75% of the vote.

    Janice Rogers Brown
    • Associate Justice, California Supreme Court, San Francisco since 1996
    • Nominated to seat on U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
    • Fast Facts: Born 1949 in Alabama; raised a child as single mother while attending UCLA law school; mentor of former Gov. Pete Wilson, who nominated her to state’s highest court; first African-American woman on California Supreme Court

  • Give them a vote said:

    “…never for a sitting African American woman who is a California Supreme Court justice elected with 75% of the vote”

    There wasn’t a campaign against Judge Brown and still one quarter of California’s electorate voted against her. It’s not like she was “elected” in a campaign against another judge. This “election” was a confirmation vote in which her judicial stands were not published.

    It’s an unfortunate truth that the liberals in California have not acted to get rid of these horrible judges. We have yet once more refused to take a page from the Republican playbook. (They crucified Rose Bird.) We’re just too darned nice.

  • Taking a page from the right how about…….” We Hate American Traditions Option.”

  • We must stick with nuclear option; and reitterate with people on the street asking “Why would those republicans want to annihilate congress?” “Why don’t the Republicans want to listen our half of the country?” “Will I have to wear an armband with a “D” on it?” “Yeah, Mommy, Why?” “Because…. there are bad people in this country, Dear”.

  • When will you left wing cry babies get over it? When you were in power and did alot of the same things it was ok. Now that you on the short end of the stick you whine like a bunch of spoiled brats. Its really fun to watch. Here is a thought, get some of your own ideas. Instead of bitching about it, come up with a better idea.

  • Hey Ron, maybe you should take your idiot bliders off and pay attention to what your man’s policies have wrought, and maybe figure out that the Dems are trying to bring some sanity back, or are you so beholden to your spiritual values that you don’t care?

    “With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina’s economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago.

    “The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt,” Walker said. “The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina.”

    “All true,” Sawhill, a budget official in the Clinton administration, concurred.

    “To do nothing,” Butler added, “would lead to deficits of the scale we’ve never seen in this country or any major in industrialized country. We’ve seen them in Argentina. That’s a chilling thought, but it would mean that.”

    Each of the three had a separate slide show, but the numbers and forecasts were interchangeable.

    Walker put U.S. debt and obligations at $45 trillion in current dollars — almost as much as the total net worth of all Americans, or $150,000 per person. Balancing the budget in 2040, he said, could require cutting total federal spending as much as 60 percent or raising taxes to 2 1/2 times today’s levels.

    Butler pointed out that without changes to Social Security and Medicare, in 25 years either a quarter of discretionary spending would need to be cut or U.S. tax rates would have to approach European levels. Putting it slightly differently, Sawhill posed a choice of 10 percent cuts in spending and much larger cuts in Social Security and Medicare, or a 40 percent increase in government spending relative to the size of the economy, and equivalent tax increases.

    The unity of the bespectacled presenters was impressive — and it made their conclusion all the more depressing. As Ron Haskins, a former Bush White House official and current Brookings scholar, said when introducing the thinkers: “If Heritage and Brookings agree on something, there must be something to it.”

    • Comments are closed.