About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Fox again falsely claims majority vote in Senate is "nuclear option"

February 22, 2010 12:55 pm ET — 42 Comments

A February 22 Fox Nation headline incorrectly referred to the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." In fact, "nuclear option" is a term coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) to refer to a procedure that would be used to change Senate rules; reconciliation requires no rule changes and was used repeatedly by Republicans during the Bush administration.

Fox Nation falsely refers to reconciliation as the "nuclear option"

Fox Nation: "WH: If GOP Filibusters Health Care, We'll Use Nuclear Option." On February 22, Fox Nation's home page displayed the following graphic:

fn_nuclear

The graphic linked to an article from Greg Sargent's blog, The Plum Line, that was headlined, "White House: If GOP Filibusters, We'll Pass Health Reform Via Reconciliation."

FACT: "Nuclear option" refers to changing Senate filibuster rules, not to reconciliation

Lott coined "nuclear option" to refer to proposal to change filibuster rules. Lott coined the term "nuclear option" to refer to proposed changes to the Senate rule requiring a three-fifths supermajority to end a filibuster. Lott was one of the leading advocates of this proposal. However, as Media Matters for America noted, after strategists deemed the term a political liability, both Republican senators and media figures misattributed the term to Senate Democrats.

FACT: Reconciliation is already part of the Senate procedure, and Republicans previously used it to pass Bush's agenda

Reconciliation is already part of the congressional process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans previously used reconciliation to pass President Bush's agenda. In a March 28, 2009, article, The New York Times reported that "the long record of Republican support for fast-tracking budget-related bills definitely dilutes their ability to challenge Democrats on the issue." During the previous adminstration, Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act."

FACT: Fox routinely misuses "nuclear option"

Fox Nation, Fox News personalities routinely invoke the "nuclear option" while discussing reconciliation. Fox News personalities including Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, Bret Baier, and Greta Van Susteren have all falsely compared reconciliation to the "nuclear option."

— K.E.C.
Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by diannesrave (February 22, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
      2  
      What do you expect from a network that does not do their homework and is simply a cheering section for the Republican party. They would not be screaming if it was their choice for President in the Oval Office.

      I wish the obstructionists would stop their nonsense and start doing what is in the best interest of our country, instead of their own selfish interests.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bar2 (February 22, 2010 7:20 pm ET)
        2  
        What do you mean "IF it was their choice"? Just look back and it was absolutely the case. The term was from Lott to begin with and was "misattributed the term to Senate Democrats" by Republicans and media figures. Just more of the same.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by historygeek001 (February 22, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
      4  
      You lied again, Trent.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Space-Pedestrian (February 22, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
      2 2
      Nuclear is such a harsh term. Senate Override would be more palatable.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (February 22, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
      3  
      Fox News personalities including Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, Bret Baier, and Greta Van Susteren have all falsely compared reconciliation to the "nuclear option."

      Because that is what they are told. None of the above names stick out as scholars or even D-average people. I want to see their High School and College transcripts. And for Hannity, a birth certificate.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 22, 2010 4:15 pm ET)
      4  
      Don't expect the conservatives to "understand" the difference between the "nuclear option" and reconciliation to pass legislation. It doesn't fit into the BS message they are trying to convey about HCR at this time.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sdlnkicker4551 (February 22, 2010 4:23 pm ET)
      4  
      Of course Fox would call this a nuclear option! The word "nuclear" itself raises the insinuation of something we should be afraid of. Remember! If your afraid, then you can be a good conservative and think with your emotions, not your head.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rusty hinges (February 22, 2010 4:36 pm ET)
      5  
      Shouldn't it be called nucular option?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bludog1 (February 22, 2010 4:54 pm ET)
      3 11
      Just as it was in 2005 when the Republicans threatened it, the nuclear option is a dangerous precedent to establish. The dems fought against it tooth and nail then and now it is the Republicans turn. At some point, if history is any predictor, the balance in the Senate will again shift and those who invoked the nuclear option will likely deeply regret their action.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by goonhee9633 (February 22, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
        3 2
        Time will tell as to what happens to the balance of the Senate, but as for the nuclear option I don't believe it is being proposed right now as as it was by the Republicans previously. Your ridiculous threats of regret just paint you as the consummate idiot that you are.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by skiploader1111 (February 22, 2010 7:54 pm ET)
        6 1
        Apparently you have absolutely no command of the facts of what is happening now nor what heppened in 2005. You have shown that you have not learned what the "nuclear option" is.

        The "nuclear option" Trent Lott was referring to is literally to eliminate the filibuster altogether. That is what was being proposed by Republicans. Even many Repbulicans back then knew that such an action was a bad idea. Even Trent Lott thought so.

        Reconciliation is a different in that it requires NO CHANGE in Senate rules. These rules have existed since the seventies and the Bush administration used it when Dems tried to block some of the tax cuts. Nobody called it the "nuclear option" then because filibuster rules were left intact. It can only be used on issues affecting the budget as the health care bill does.

        I'll even give you a baseball analogy:

        It's the Democrats vs. Republicans playing by National League rules in 2005. The Republican's manager asks the umpire if he can have another player pinch hit for his pitcher and still bring back the same pitcher back in the next inning. Umpire just stares and says, "Uhh, no. That would require a change in National League rules."

        Five years later they play again. This time the Democrats manager asks the umpire if he can have a pinch hitter for his pitcher and then have a different relief pitcher come in the inning after that. Umpire says, "OK." Republicans manager goes ballistic at this "unprecidented" move in the National League.





        Report Abuse
        • Author by Shump (February 24, 2010 4:49 pm ET)
             
          The "nuclear option" Trent Lott was referring to is literally to eliminate the filibuster altogether. That is what was being proposed by Republicans.

          Actually, no. The "nuclear option" was to eliminate the filibuster solely on the issue of confirming judicial nominees. The argument, right or wrong, was that because the Constitution specifically addresses judicial nominees, and doesn't call for a supermajority, the Senate rules were unconstitutional in that one case.

          Regardless, though, had the "nuclear option" been invoked, it would have only applied to judicial nominations, not to Senate proceedings as a whole.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by MadRiver Jack (February 23, 2010 11:08 am ET)
        2  
        At some point, if history is any predictor, the balance in the Senate will again shift and those who invoked the nuclear option will likely deeply regret their action.
        The filibuster is anti-democratic no matter whom it may benefit at any given moment. When it is used to an unprecedented extent (like the current GOPper abuse), it is damaging to the republic. I will not regret its passing even when the time comes that the Repo Party takes the majority.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Space-Pedestrian (February 23, 2010 12:35 pm ET)
            2
          Did I miss something? When has there been a GOP filibuster in the current session?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Alexander Hamilton (February 23, 2010 3:52 pm ET)
               
            http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-senate-cloture-votes/?fbid=Y9bsDiwzQYK
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Space-Pedestrian (February 23, 2010 7:10 pm ET)
                1
              Am I missing something or is sarcasm not allowed in this forum?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mrhebert74 (February 23, 2010 7:17 pm ET)
                   
                It's tricky. Real wingnuts write some things on here that are A LOT stupider than that, so sometimes it's hard to tell. I've been there.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MR Jensee (February 23, 2010 7:45 pm ET)
                     
                  When did intelligence become associated with left handed wing nuts? You guys spend so much time calling conservatives stupid that you just prove the point that you are. You have no explanations for why Obama is attempting to spend us into oblivion, wrecking the future and using government to control incrementally more and more of our lives, instead you make yourselves propagandists for the corrupt government. When has government every done anything better than free enterprise? And when did free enterprise and capitalism become evil? Who is on the fringes here? me or you?
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 23, 2010 5:28 pm ET)
           
        A Senate majority is certainly NOT a dangerous precedent. It was not when the Republicans did, which is why there was such little outcry when they did it over and over again. And it is not when the Democrats do it. The minority should NOT control the Senate. You cannot claim to be a constitutional conservative and argue otherwise. If the minority wants control of the Senate, the answer is simple, win the elections.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by politeradical (February 22, 2010 7:45 pm ET)
      1  
      Even Hannity figured this one out. It only took him 1,000 times or so.

      But we are talking about the Fox Nation: people who think Storm Front is for sissies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by politeradical (February 22, 2010 7:48 pm ET)
         
      Reconciliation would not even be necessary if the Senate stopped allowing a procedural rule to subvert the Constitution.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tman418 (February 23, 2010 12:18 am ET)
        2  
        You know what, if they want to filibuster, make them talk non-stop. No rest, no food, no drink, no medicine of any sort. Talk until you drop! Isn't that the way a filibuster is supposed to go.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MadRiver Jack (February 23, 2010 11:11 am ET)
          1  
          You know what, if they want to filibuster, make them talk non-stop. No rest, no food, no drink, no medicine of any sort. Talk until you drop! Isn't that the way a filibuster is supposed to go.
          I agree. It will make good TV and GOPpers will present themselves as being just as petty and childish as they actually are.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (February 22, 2010 8:17 pm ET)
         
      I'm personally glad Pres. Obama is backing the Nuclear Option, knowing full well that is the fastest way to get the power this country needs.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Space-Pedestrian (February 23, 2010 7:16 am ET)
        2 3
        I agree. The Nuclear Option all but sews up the midterms for Republicans, getting the country the power it needs.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MadRiver Jack (February 23, 2010 11:17 am ET)
          1  
          The Nuclear Option all but sews up the midterms for Republicans, getting the country the power it needs.
          I don't understand what you have written. I'm not as certain as you are that ending the filibuster will be received bady by voters (I can just as easily envision the opposite reaction). But what perplexes me is your claim that the Republicans regaining their Congressional majorities will endow upon the USA "the power it needs". Can you explain how a GOPper majority in Congress will make America more powerful?

          thanks
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Space-Pedestrian (February 23, 2010 12:29 pm ET)
            2 3
            Despite what many posters seem to believe here, a majority of likely voters do not support a sweeping government overhaul of healthcare and by proxy, a takeover of 1/6th of the economy. Likely voters know that other bankrupt entitlements will be cut, robbing Peter to pay Paul (or Mao in this case). Sober minded Democrats have taken the election of Scott Brown in MA as a clear signal that voters do not want healthcare reform in the form it has taken to date in Senate and White House bills. If Democrats force it through the dubious reconciliation route (intended for budget items), voters are sure to react against them in November. A balance of power is what this country needs, to be more clear. A balance of power will make the voters more powerful, and therefore Americans will be more empowered, not the government.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 23, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
              1 1
              Massachusetts has the public option, LostInSpace. And their voters support it. Glad to hear you have come around on it. Does that mean that support, Mao? I can't keep up with all of your right-wing ignorance of basic civics.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Space-Pedestrian (February 23, 2010 6:44 pm ET)
                1 2
                Our voters never had a say on it, and time has told us here that we still have the most expensive healthcare in the nation, with the dread public option adding to our severe deficits at unsustainable rates. MittCare has proven to be a bust and our voters knew that adopting this as a national model was no fix at all. Do you have any other names to call me or insults? They're amusing.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by scanlontodd9871 (February 23, 2010 9:31 am ET)
      3  
      Nuclear or reconciliation, what ever they want to call it, just quit pandering to these fools and get this thing done so we can have some health care.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by caseye (February 23, 2010 10:15 am ET)
      1 1
      To all of you,

      I believe the concern with the "nuclear option" or "reconsiiation" is that the health care insurance reform issue is a much larger issue and affects a large portion of our ecomomy and those options have never been used on an issue of this size. Or with something this important to all the people!

      Really, you all should just stick to the issue at hand and not get caught up in language. The heart of the issue is all that matters not the language being used. Who cares if some broadcaster used the term incorrectly? I don't. I know what they are expressing and that is the federal govt. taking control of the health care system in the United States and doing so with a simple majority. It is clear from the poles the the majority of Americans don't want this particular bill to pass (that is the Senate or House Bills) because they feel that it doesn't address the real problems with the health care system and it costs too much. Even the CBO says the premiums will go up!

      My point is to just stick to the issue, not the particular language, correct or incorrect, being used. The American people understand what the concern is with this vote.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Alexander Hamilton (February 23, 2010 4:11 pm ET)
        1  
        "It is clear from the poles the the majority of Americans don't want this particular bill to pass..."

        I disagree.


        Report Abuse
        • Author by caseye (February 25, 2010 10:31 am ET)
             
          Then obviously you don't read the polls. I did't say health care reform I said these particular bills. You along with your fellow progressives can continue to stick you head in the sand if you wish but poll after poll shows the majority of Americans don't like either of the particular bills in the house or senate. Eventually you will have to face the facts, if the new bill which is a mix of the two bills now gets shoved down the American people's throats through the reconciliation process, with 51 votes simple majority, there will be a handsome price to pay in November and then in 2012 for the democrats!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mcnairbo6573 (February 23, 2010 12:01 pm ET)
      2  
      The democrats need to quickly do this before Fox and the hate radio machine has time to demonize with lies what they are doing. Hurry up and do it! Beat Fox to the punch this time. Do it now!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TURK 63 (February 23, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
         
      “Fair and Balanced.” Hardy Har Har
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LibLieDestroyer (February 24, 2010 1:00 pm ET)
      1  
      Yes Republicans did use reconciliation to pass tax cuts and confirm appointees. They did not use it to pass a bill that effects every American and puts 16% of the economy in the hands of the Federal Government.

      And here's what Democrats (including Obama and Biden) had to say about reconciliation back in 2005.

      http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

      Turns out they weren't so fond of it back then...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Shump (February 24, 2010 4:47 pm ET)
         
      Technically, Media Matters is correct. Using reconciliation is not the same as the "nuclear option." However, in effect, they are the same in this case because of how reconciliation is being used. Reconciliation was designed to allow bills that are truly focused on the budget, and nothing else, to pass with a simple majority.

      To try and shoehorn the health care reform legislation into the reconciliation process is to use it for something it was never intended as a way to evade Senate rules, similar to how the "nuclear option" would have changed senate rules to allow Republicans to get their judges confirmed. Democrats who opposed that then should oppose this now.
      Report Abuse