PPH Editorial Page Editor John W. Porter makes some good points today in defense of the Senate filibuster, but he gets sucked down the Republican spin hole when describing the rules change the GOP is considering that would destroy this parliamentary procedure.
[E]ventually a simple majority of Republican senators could prevail over a filibuster. Doing so has been dubbed the "nuclear option" by Democrats, while those who support it call it the "constitutional option" because they say it upholds the intent of the Constitution.
As many people have noted, it was the Republicans who came up with the term "nuclear option" and that has been the acceptable lexicon in Washington for months. The term only fell out of favor with Republicans in the last few weeks when new polls showed how badly the idea played with the general public. To refer to it as the "constitutional" option now and claim Democrats made up the term "nuclear" is bad journalism.
From the New Yorker:
Ted Stevens, a Republican Senate veteran from Alaska, was complaining in the cloakroom that the Democratic tactic should simply be declared out of order, and, soon enough, a group of Republican aides began to talk about changing the rules. It was understood at once that such a change would be explosive; Senator Trent Lott, the former Majority Leader, came up with “nuclear option,” and the term stuck.
Visit the new Maine Politics.