Conservatives Go Nuclear and So Does the Truth
Conservatives Go Nuclear and So Does the Truth
In an interview yesterday with Fox News, Senate Majority Whip Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) defended the conservatives’ consideration of detonating the nuclear option to push through President Bush’s controversial judicial re-nominees. However, instead of calling the move what it is, McConnell stated it would best be described as the “Byrd option.” He then continued on to assert, “I don’t want to get too technical here, but the point is, what Senator Frist is considering doing is not unprecedented. It was done by Senator Byrd when he was majority leader.”
Not getting “too technical” allowed Sen. McConnell to not be too honest, either. As Senate majority leader in the late 1970s, Byrd only went so far as to allow nominations to be considered out of order and impose a limit on debate time but never tried to change filibuster rules. Though proponents of the nuclear option continue to claim that they would not be employing a never before used tactic, “a careful review of the Senate’s precedents reveals that the Senate has never acted by simple majority vote to force an end to a filibuster or a change to the Senate’s rules of debate.” Apparently, getting technical tends to get in the way of the truth.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Chances are not a single ThinkProgress reader ever thought he or she would miss Bob Dole.
Just as when I saw SpongeBob SquarePants the Movie, and asked myself:”What was David Hasselhoff thinking?” The black day had finally arrived when I could somehow actually care about David Hasselhoff. Well, that black day is here again.
The much-mocked Bob Dole, whether dealing with Byrd or Mitchell, was both much more civil and willing to put national interest before partisan interest when the occasion truly required it.
Of the GOP senate leaders, true no more. True no longer.
Back to the matter at hand. Attributing the nuke option to Byrd, the Dem’s grand old man in the Senate, is a clever rhetoric touch.
If a Democratic politician calls attention to the GOP shenanigans, he or she gets denounced as a hypocrite for something that didn’t quite happen however many years ago.
No focus on the present. No focus on the real issues. Not the devil but the Dems made me do it.
I’m NOT a fan of Gandhi, don’t drive a Volvo or drink lattes, or etc. But Gandhi has one bit of wisdom that seems relevant here: “We must become the change we want to see in the world.”
Byrd’s getting old. Not going to around forever. Same true of the other liberal and progressive stalwarts.
Where’s the leadership? The successors to Byrd, Kennedy, etc?
You might say Obama, Boxter, Edwards, H. Clinton, others.
But I don’t think people should hold their breaths waiting for the new leadership to clearly emerge.
To offer a variant on Gandhi: “we must become the leaders we require.”
Everyone–doing something–trying to move things forward. Maybe in someway SpongeBob’s a positive role model after all.
March 29th, 2005 at 1:27 amPerhaps someone can explain this to me. My understanding was that what Byrd did was not specific to judicial nominees, that it had to do with changing the rules of the Senate based on a ruling from the chair.
If that’s not the case, please edu-ma-cate me on what he actually did do.
Also, question. You said he imposed a limit on debate time. Why isn’t that the same as the 100-hour proposal that Frist has made? [disclaimer: I didn't click through on that.]
May 16th, 2005 at 4:20 pm“Byrd only went so far as to…impose a limit on debate time.”
The link on that part is no longer valid so the details as to that are not exactly clear, but, from a purely parliamentary perspective, “imposing a limit on debate time” would indeed be identical to killing a filibuster. By imposing a limit on debate–which is, in parliamentary procedure, considered very similar to motions to end debate themselves–the minority would not be able to filibuster once the limits of debate had been reached and a vote would then have been forced. (Indeed, an imposition of a “limit on debate” is exactly what the Republicans have been seeking.)
If anyone knows the details of that link or otherwise, it would appreciated.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:51 amThe administration of HGH Spray takes you only a few seconds and thus it spares you the pain of swallowing pills or taking HGH injections.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:50 amHGH is a very common product nowaday. HGH spray is very effective in anti-aging treatment.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:22 pmHGH, in its oral spray form, has proven to be the best product in anti-aging therapy.
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:37 amUsing hgh spray you can prevent the aging effects.
October 4th, 2005 at 4:34 amantiaging | hgh | human growth hormone | hgh spray | anti aging
October 5th, 2005 at 11:32 amHGH comes from Human Growth Hormone… a hormone that helps your body grow when you’re young, regenerate and stay in shape after puberty.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:19 pmHGH supplements are used in anti-aging therapy.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:20 amThere are several types of anti aging therapies, but, so far, hgh anti-aging therapy is the most promissing.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:35 ampage from the republican playbook…
“With a Senate minority now obstructing up-or-down floor votes on several judicial nominations… the time has certainly come for the Senate majority to seriously consider re-exercising the “nuclear option.”
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm
November 18th, 2006 at 10:06 amPrinciples?…
What principles?…
November 18th, 2006 at 1:06 pmHello world
November 23rd, 2006 at 3:55 amAwesome, man
January 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pm