CBS added language to AP report to falsely claim "nuclear option" is a Democratic term
A November 1 Associated Press article republished on CBSNews.com repeated the false claim that "nuclear option," referring to the Republican-proposed Senate rule change to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominations, is a Democratic term. The article on CBSNews.com reports: "[Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] said he's ready to move against judicial filibusters, using what Republicans call the 'constitutional option' and Democrats term the 'nuclear option.' " Other versions of the AP article, however, do not ascribe "nuclear option" to Democrats. CBS presumably added the language to the AP article.
As Media Matters for America has noted on numerous occasions, the term "nuclear option," as it pertains to judicial filibusters, was originally coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). Republican strategists have since shunned the term as a liability and have instead urged the use of "constitutional option." A May 17 Washington Post article quoted Republican pollster Frank Luntz saying: "The implication of 'nuclear option' is way too hot and extreme."
This is how the AP article appears on CBSNews.com, under the byline "CBS/AP":
Frist said he's ready to move against judicial filibusters, using what Republicans call the "constitutional option" and Democrats term the "nuclear option."
This is how every version of the same AP article appears in the Nexis database (and republished on the San Francisco Chronicle's website):
Frist said he's ready to move against judicial filibusters, using what Republicans call the "constitutional option," if Democrats force him to.
A Google News search indicated that CBSNews.com was the only outlet to feature this language.
Say hello to the new lie. Same as the old lie.
by Scott Johnson - Tuesday November 1, 2005 04:46:13 PM -------------------
You must be a WSOP fan.
Actually, more like The Who. Is this phrase used on the WSOP?
by Scott Johnson - Tuesday November 1, 2005 05:04:58 PM EST --------------------
Yes, the commentator has used it several times when discussing one of the players.
Does anyone bother to point out these things to the likes of CBS News and the AP??
Methinks it's time to write a letter...
My bad - I attached the AP to this as well, whereas it was just CBS News..
damn that "librul" media.
This is a very important, presient point. Revisionism is ramping up... I recall the term initially being attributed to republicans, and witnessed with interest the decrease of this association, followed by more and more spin like "what the other side calls the nuclear option". I bet prominent republicans will avoid the term from here on out.
I'm not sure who's responsible for calling it what, what I do know is this.If the democrats are forced to filibuster this radical rightwing Alito,and the Republicans retaliate against them by the "nuclear constitution option" the blame will rest entirly on the Republicans.This was an obvious attempt by George Bush to please his masters in the radical rightwing backwoods.
That four-day talkathon in September 1968 has largely been forgotten. But some Senate Democrats want to bring it back to mind to counter a key Republican attack against their stalling tactics that have blocked confirmation votes for several of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees. The GOP claim, asserted in speeches, articles and interviews, is that filibusters against judicial nominees are unprecedented.
Fortas's nomination as chief justice went down in defeat when the Senate voted against halting a filibuster. That situation is being recalled in the dispute over Democratic efforts to filibuster some judicial nominations. (AP Photos)
Friday's Question: It was not until the early 20th century that the Senate enacted rules allowing members to end filibusters and unlimited debate. How many votes were required to invoke cloture when the Senate first adopted the rule in 1917? 51 60 64 67
Check Your Answer
Free E-mail Newsletters
* Daily Politics News & Analysis See a Sample | Sign Up Now * Federal Insider See a Sample | Sign Up Now * Breaking News Alerts See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told his panel this month that the judicial battles have escalated, "with the filibuster being employed for the first time in the history of the Republic." Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a Senate speech last week, "The crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved."
Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice."
Oooops! Forgot to remove some text from my post... Some of the stuff in the middle is irrelevant! Please look past this error in editing and focus on the meat of the article.
More of the History of Filibust for Judicial Nominees... It appears that the REPUBLICANS were the VERY FIRST to Filibuster a Judicial Nominee... THEY did it first... And apparently that's OK with them... but for the Dems to follow suit is just not acceptable... Hipocrisy????
(NOTE that: The Senate Web site's account of the episode is headlined "Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment." - last sentence)
Some current Republican leaders -- citing comments by then-Sen. Robert P. Griffin (R-Mich.), who led the Fortas opposition -- say the 1968 debate was not a true filibuster. But there is little in the record to support that assertion. The Washington Post reported on Oct. 2, 1968: "In a precedent-shattering rebuff to the Administration, the Senate yesterday refused to cut off the filibuster against consideration of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice." The Congressional Quarterly Almanac reported in 1968: "The effort to block the confirmation by means of a filibuster was without precedent in the history of the Senate." The Senate Web site's account of the episode is headlined "Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment."
hellowalls:
WE have it. Ours is not a pure democracy, we have checks and balances galore.
For example, the three branches of government are supposed to oversee each other. This breaks down when there is what we have now: A Congress which is unwilling (even averse) to providing oversight of the Executive Branch.
Of course, the GOP majority is currently trying to install an operating majority in the highest Judiciary body, by placing a "like minded" conservative in the "swing vote" position.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the balance against the tyranny of the majority, by overturning and nullifying POPULARLY WRITTEN laws which infringe on individual rights. A Supreme Court which is majority in favor of corporations over individuals, and which sees FEWER rights for Americans, and which easily allows "exceptions" to the Constitution "in time of war" (or whatever ... emergency, hard times, whim), will provide NO protection to minorities or individuals. The three wolves will easily vote that SHEEP is for dinner, and the SHEEP has no recourse, no say, no protection.
Another CHECK on our Constitutional Democracy is supposed to be the MEDIA. The rightwing of our country has been buying up media outlets (of this there is absolutely NO doubt), and the government is greasing the skids for consolidating that ownership in fewer and fewer hands.
So, as Ben Franklin so wisely said (paraphrasing), "WE have that blessed balance of majority rule and equality of rights and individual liberties ... IF WE CAN KEEP IT."
It's really a crapshoot whether we will lose it to today's NeoCons. Can their obvious corruptions blow up on them before they can succeed in consolidating ALL power in America? It's really a footrace. America's future has seldom been in such peril.
Newtsboy...
You keep NOT responding to my direct questions... and you keep NOT responding to my arguements...
Just a suggestion: You should start, TODAY, FIGHTING for the rights of the Minorities, lest you should become one.
Absolute Majority Rule with total disregard for Minority Populations is indeed Tyranny... what else could it be called?
I gotta go eat lunch :)
Check in later
Newtsboy - Got it!
Such conduct has become standard at TV networks. CanWest Global, major TV/newspaper chain in Canada, routinely branded Muslims as "terrorists" in wire service dispatches. CanWest Global eventually got caught -- don't know if they still pull that crap.
Has anyone at AP seen what CBS did? AP should come down hard on CBS but won't.
You guys are... illiterate.
CBS isn't saying that the Democrats came up with it. They are saying that the Democrats usually refer to the option as the "nuclear option".
Can you guys even read and comprehend English? Or has this site been outsourced to Bangladesh?