Maddow says media who repeat conflation of reconciliation and nuclear option "are helping Republicans spread a lie"
February 24, 2010 10:17 pm ET
From the February 24 edition of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
It's NO FAIR if you don't let them.
~
No man can hate that deeply, their justifications must be Construed.
I love Rachel Maddow, in that i take Great Pride.
Why are Republicans so afraid to see HealthCare Morally & Equally Applied?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
I think the phrase is more about destructive nature of such a move, forcing a filibuster or making this reconciliation procedure against the desires of the American public. I for one say, bring it on harry......
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to both of the people who actually watched maddow live!
There you go. I'm sure that's what you meant to type. Otherwise, I would be forced to ask what orifice you pulled that line out of, and where you're going to pull the evidence from.
So, as you face that term tonight, keep in mind your defense. Others will point out that the Republicans who have knowingly used "Nuclear Option" improperly have done so to ignite fears and then exploit those fears for political points. It's a blatantly dishonest ploy. About as dishonest as your claim that using reconciliation would be against the desires of an American public who has time and time again said they want changes to a health care system that has been hijacked by private insurance.
Maddow is arguing semantics. Why not argue about substance? Why not cover all the politicians, especially Obama, Biden, and so on, who fought strongly against the "nuclear option" back then (yes that's what Democrats called it when fighting against Republicans) who have so suddenly flip-flopped?
In addition, Maddow showed footage of some Republican officials passionately defending the use of reconciliation, as they currently denounce it now.
It's hypocritical and it's dishonest and I applaud Rachel for pointing it out.
"No, Maddow wasn't arguing "semantics." Reconciliation and the "nuclear option" are two entirely different things. " - Bintx
Unfortunately, regardless what process the term 'nuclear option' was originally coined to describe, it's been used so frequently and so flagrantly as a substitute for reconciliation that in many minds that is exactly what it means.
The original meaning is no longer relevant, because media has pretty much succeeded in co-opting the term. At this point referring to this as the "nuclear option falsehood" is really a waste of time; people hear "nuclear option" and associate it with reconciliation.
It's probably time to stop arguing the semantics, and start arguing the issue.
In any event, the definitions of words can change. Words have different definitions, depending on the context, especially slang like nuclear option. In the context they used it, it means bypassing a filibuster. That's all you need to know - the word doesn't matter, here, intended meaning does.
I didn't see nuclear option used before this year, so I can't take one side or the other on what the original definition was coined as, but if they have changed the meaning perhaps there is reason to be upset that the term was hijacked. In any event, I hope we can agree that doesn't change the substance of the debate. Unfortunately, when people cry fowl about semantics all it suggests to me is that it's more important than the debate itself, or that there is no good enough response to the point that the person made, so you have to respond to something, why not how they hijacked a slang term! It just sounds cheap to me.
The footage Fox showed, diamonds, was taken when the then Senators Obama and Biden were arguing against the Republican led Senate efforts to lower the number of votes needed to end the filibuster. It was the Republicans who called this the "Nuclear Option."
Obama and Biden were not arguing against the use of Reconciliation in those clips. Fox knew this. To prepare that clip and use it in that context is beyond dishonest. It was an outright lie. It's that simple.
Republican Trent Lott made up the term "nuclear option" to describe a potential vote by the Republican majority to change the rules that allow filibusters. The idea was to screw the Democratic minority by reducing the number of votes required for passage of controversial measures -- passage would take 50 votes, not the 60 required to break a filibuster.
Reconciliation is something COMPLETELY different. It's used all the time. It was used by Republicans ALL THE TIME when they were in the majority. It's just that now that Republicans are in the minority, they don't want the Democrats to pass anything, so they're grasping for any parliamentary or PR straw they think will give them an advantage.
To now change the definition of "nuclear option" as a way to attack Democrats is just another cheap Republican trick, and it's being abetted by the so-called liberal media.
Imagine that I start calling communism "proud conservatism."
Then I pull up all your past posts extolling the virtues of conservatism.
Then I accuse of you of really being a communist, because everyone knows that the new definition of "proud conservative" is "a form of communism."
Then the media starts going along with me, and never admits that "proud conservative" used to have a different meaning.
Would you react in outrage, or would you argue that the change in definition is a distinction without a difference?
I think we know.
I say we start calling our vinegar filled friend "proudcommunist" from here on out.
It's just a term. I'm sure he won't mind.
Then I could have typed:
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!... Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... Yer WRONG!.
does it not bother you at all to so blatantly spread lies?
NUCLEAR - as in: NUKING something. It is called thus becuase it was applied to a proposed RULES CHANGE. As in: We [The Republicans] are going to "go nuclear" and just change (nuke) the rules because we can't get our way.
Reconciliation is an established rule, long used by both parties. There no reason reason to call it anything other than what it is. It HAS a name: RECONCILIATION.
You only have to name things that DON'T already have names: Like a NEW RULE that would eliminate a standing rule that ALLOWS filibusters on judicial nominees. THAT need a name, since it's NEW, and that named was: THE NUCLEAR OPTION, as coined by YOUR OWN Trent Lott.
The Dem's aren't the hypocrites here. They cried about rules CHANGES, not USING EXSISTING RULES. The hypocrisy is on the 'Pubs, who after THREATENING the Nuclear Option over judicial apointees, now not only filibuster EVERY appointee, but have the nerve to apply that "Nuclear" moniker to something the Dem's are doing, that the Republican's themselves did MANY TIMES. (And why not? After all: It's a LONG ESTABLISHED RULE.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
You people are just slimy little dishonest hypocrties. You tell'em Rachael!
IOKIYAR
Look, why does anyone run for office? Are they motivated by a desire to fix the system? Hell no. They're motivated by a desire to earn a government paycheck. Don't you know the hierarchy of motivators? The weakest motivator there is? Altruism. The strongest motivator? The need to stay alive. Guess where the desire to fill your own pocket with money falls?
(If you don't agree with me, I suggest you take Sociology 101. If you still don't agree with me after that, I'd be happy to read your response.)
They are about to vote on the biggest bill in anyone's lifetime shouldn't we be talking about whether or not its right for the country.
Get you head out of your @sses
Yes you should!
Maddow - “The ‘nuclear option’ and ‘budget reconciliation’ are two separate things”
Here is what I gather from the history of the 'nuclear option'. It seems it was a point of order used in reference to 'changing the rules' of the senate in 2005. Now the liberals are griping that conservatives have labeled 'reconciliation' as the 'nuclear option' (inane argument to completely take eyes off real deception...even if that argument was correct it would be mere semantics). The act of 'changing the rules' is a process, so 'nuclear option' could be applied to various situations.
Using the 'reconciliation' process to pass an entire stand-alone health care legislation is 'changing the rules', as the full title of the reconciliation process is 'BUDGET reconciliation'. Therefore, the nuclear option CAN be applied to the current situation because they are ‘changing the rules’ by using it to accomplish something other than BUDGET reconciliation.
Maddow – “nuclear option was not to pass something through reconciliation, but to do away with the filibuster altogether”
The meaning of ‘nuclear option’ was not ‘to do away with the filibuster’. It was to ‘change the rules’. Period. The rules the Republicans wanted to change were in regards to the filibuster. (Isn’t Maddow so smug looking…almost giddy…when she attacks Republicans)
Let’s examine her COBRA example.
The Combined Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 is represented as though the act itself was a complete health care program. Has she actually looked up and read the act?
S.Con.Res 32
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:S.Con.Res32:
Is it some massive, complex health care program created from scratch? No. It was a budgetary act. Health care reform was a very small part of the act, buried deeply in it. COBRA, as it applies to the reconciliation act in regards to health care, is basically a nickname. The act itself was a BUDGET act, not a health care creation act (which, using it only to create health care would be an improper use of reconciliation...considered as 'breaking the rules'...also know as the 'nuclear option').
Does Maddow know this? She smugly used it as a prime example of her case. Being a brilliant scholar, one would thing she actually read the legislation before reporting on it.
The consolidated budget reconciliation act, created to 'reconcile' the budget, had a provision in it (slipped through with very little debate), Article X, that contained amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the IRS Code, and the Public Health Services Act (PHSA). Those amendments created the changes that fall under the COBRA moniker. The real medical 'COBRA' falls in those three areas. When you look deeply at how such legislation is enforced (through IRS amendments), you realize why the government is terrified of changing the IRS code. So much of our legislation is intertwined in it that it would be literally impossible to separate it. For example, the real force of COBRA is in punitive amendments to the tax code.
Yes, health care REFORM has happened WITHIN the reconciliation process (small changes...some sneaked in), but as amendments to strengthen or change existing programs external to the process. Not to create the programs themselves.
Why is Robert Byrd opposed to misusing the ‘budget reconciliation’ process to ram through health care? Because in 1985 the Senate adopted the ‘Byrd Rule’ to keep provisions unrelated to the goals of budget reconciliation out of it.
Everything you wanted to know about the reconciliation process:
http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf
Maddow and liberals love to throw that ‘lie’ word around as though everything that Republicans and Conservatives say when they misstate any fact is intentional. Was it considered a ‘lie’ if you got an answer wrong on a history test? Unfortunately most liberals don’t acknowledge that the definition of ‘lie’ is an intentional action, not accidental. I wouldn’t call it a ‘lie’ on either side regarding the definition of ‘nuclear option’. It can be misunderstood. But does Maddow really know what COBRA (the actual reconciliation act) is, and what it really contains? Does she really know that very little of the act is created directly within the reconciliation act? If so, SHE lied. She did seem to try to make everyone think it was just for health care purposes. Where is Joe Wilson when you need him? He needs to make an appearance with Maddow.