The ‘constitutional nuclear option’

Two weeks ago, I noted the way in which Republicans, who had come up with the “nuclear option” phrase in 2003, had bamboozled the media into changing its reporting and use of language. Despite having created and used the phrase repeatedly, the GOP decided (thanks to polling data) that, forever more, it was the “constitutional option” — and that only Dems and critics called it the “nuclear option.” Regrettably, reporters played along and started reporting it the way Republicans insisted.

Since then, the GOP has flirted with a variety of other labels for the tactic, but leave it to Arlen Specter to break new ground. From yesterday’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

“[W]hat I would hope we would do would be for the senators to make independent judgments. You have that displayed now in the committee. And that is something which I think is really necessary for Democrats not to follow a straight party line on voting for filibusters and Republicans not to follow a straight party line on voting for the so-called constitutional nuclear option.” (emphasis added)

Now that’s a new one. Specter’s been trying to play this straight, but to push these two labels together on CNN? That’s funny.

And if this reminds you of Tim Russert’s discussion of “personal private accounts,” you’re not alone.

They just don’t know how to pronounce the “/”.

  • “Constitutional nuclear option” sounds worse than pretty much any other formulation. It practically invites people to think of it in terms of nuking the constitution.

    Considering that Specter has been and was yesterday saying he wants to head off this option, perhaps he realizes this. Just a thought.

  • Considering that Specter has been and was yesterday saying he wants to head off this option, perhaps he realizes this. Just a thought.

    I was thinking the same thing. Maybe this was a subtle hint to his colleagues about how he’ll vote if the “constitutional nuclear option” comes to the Senate floor?

  • Maybe this was a subtle hint to his colleagues about how he’ll vote if the “constitutional nuclear optionâ€? comes to the Senate floor?

    I was thinking the same thing. Especially given the other part of that quote: “and Republicans not to follow a straight party line on voting for the so-called constitutional nuclear option”

    sure sounds like he doesn’t plan on voting for the rules change.

  • Comments are closed.