Just to follow up on yesterday’s post about the latest labels the Republicans using to describe their ploy to eliminate judicial filibusters, there’s another name in the mix. First up was the “nuclear option,” which everyone now uses except the very Republican lawmakers who came up with the name in the first place.
Since then, Republicans have thrown around “constitutional option” and “Byrd option,” neither of which makes any sense. Never fear; the right has come up with a fourth name for the tactic. See if you can spot the not-so-subtle use of language.
* “Democrats are using an old device — the filibuster, the act of deliberately prolonging debate to prevent legislative action — to block Republican nominations to federal judgeships. They are also castigating Republicans for daring to advocate filibuster reform.” — Wall Street Journal’s Amity Shlaes on Monday
* “It’s been going on for years now — the Democrat-led blockade of President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench. But Senate Republicans are considering ending the obstructionism — and they need your help to get the truth out about their plan…. We’ve made it easy for you to put one together by gathering a series of points you can use to make a compelling argument in favor of filibuster reform. — Focus on the Family alert to its membership, yesterday
One almost gets the impression that Frank Luntz or a similar visionary once told conservatives, “Add ‘reform’ to whatever you want and it’ll sound better.” Next thing you know, the right will start a book-banning campaign and call it “library reform.” Or a drive to eliminate food stamps and call it “nutrition reform.” Or an initiative to shield negligent corporations from lawsuits filed by injured customers and call it “tort reform.” Oh wait, bad example.