About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Smith ignores Fox's role in perpetuating "nuclear option" falsehood

March 02, 2010 9:10 pm ET — 12 Comments

Fox News' Shepard Smith noted that "Republicans will call" reconciliation "the 'nuclear option.' " But those Republicans are not alone -- The Fox Nation and numerous Fox News personalities have similarly advanced the false claim that reconciliation -- which is part of the Senate rules -- is the "nuclear option," a term coined by Republicans to describe a GOP proposal to change Senate filibuster rules on judicial nominees.

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.

EMBED

From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Studio B with Shepard Smith:

SMITH: But what members of your own party have said is that if you go reconciliation -- you know, Republicans will call that the "nuclear option" -- if you do that, you lose the United States House of Representatives in the midterm. Nancy Pelosi has said sometimes it's better to govern and do what the people want. The president has said, "I might have to be a one-term president, but I'm gonna get this done."

Fox News continues to attempt to redefine "nuclear option"

In its most recent attempt to redefine the meaning of the term "nuclear option," Fox News seized on a Breitbart-promoted video to falsely accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for considering using the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, when they had previously opposed the "nuclear option." But, in fact, the nuclear option referred to a Republican proposal to change Senate filibuster rules on judicial nominees and was not related to reconciliation.

The Fox Nation, others at Fox News routinely misuse "nuclear option"

Fox Nation, Fox News personalities routinely invoke the "nuclear option" while discussing reconciliation. The Fox Nation and Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, Bret Baier, Karl Rove, Bill Sammon, Mike Emmanuel, Juan Williams, and Greta Van Susteren have all falsely compared reconciliation to the "nuclear option." The Fox Nation has also previously coupled its headlines with images of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear bomb:

But "nuclear option" was coined by GOP to describe a process to change Senate filibuster rules

Lott described proposal to change filibuster rules as "nuclear option." The term "nuclear option" was coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the leading advocates of the proposal to change the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominations. After Republican strategists deemed the term a political liability, Republican senators began to attribute it to Democrats. As Media Matters for America noted, at the time, many in the news media followed suit, repeating the Republicans' false attribution of the term to the Democrats.

Reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure, and Republicans have used it repeatedly

Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget 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 repeatedly used reconciliation to pass former President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Reconciliation has been used to pass major changes to health care laws

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program:

On NPR, Prof. Rosenbaum stated, "[T]he way in which virtually all of health reform ... has happened over the last 30 years has been the reconciliation process." Additionally, during the February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, health policy correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by diamonds (March 03, 2010 1:32 am ET)
        7
      All of those reconciliation bills passed with greater than 60 votes, so the point is irrelevant, reconciliation was used for other purposes.

      Slang terms don't have a standard definition. "Nuclear option" is a broad term meaning bypassing a filibuster with procedural moves, including but not limited to reconciliation or changing senate rules. When Republicans - and many Democrats during Bush - say "the nuclear option" they specifically mean reconciliation. Trying to argue this is playing semantics and distracting from the real argument. What, they don't really mean reconciliation? It's stupid to argue.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by granby01 (March 03, 2010 8:38 am ET)
        4  
        RE: "'Nuclear option' is a broad term meaning bypassing a filibuster with procedural moves, including but not limited to reconciliation or changing senate rules." Attribution, please.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (March 04, 2010 10:38 pm ET)
             
          Nearly every single use of the term "nuclear option" in the news for the last four months. The phrase simply doesn't make sense any other way. Fact is, language changes with society. That is why English is called a living language, as opposed to, say, Latin.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (March 03, 2010 9:54 am ET)
        4  
        It may be a slang term, but when it was introduced (not that long ago) it had a much more specific meaning than the one you are giving it. The attempt to expand the definition, applying the term to reconciliation, is an extremely recent effort. The expanded definition is clearly intended to taint the use of reconciliation. It's a PR stunt.

        The nuclear option, as understood until very recent weeks, requires a change in Senate rules. Reconciliation is simply the application of existing Senate rules. Those are very different things.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by grmce (March 03, 2010 9:58 am ET)
           
        Absolute rubbish!

        You're making it up as you go along. Where did you get your degree in linguistics? The University of East Bumcrack?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tharri874 (March 03, 2010 11:15 am ET)
        1  
        `But "nuclear option" doesn't mean "reconciliation,"' Alice objected.

        `When I use a word,' Roger Ailes said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

        `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

        `The question is,' said Ailes, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 03, 2010 1:11 pm ET)
        2  
        The reason they are calling it the nuclear option is because they can't legitimately attack the use of reconciliation.

        That's it. That's the totality of the whole story. They are pretending it's something it's not in order to falsely attack it!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dream1958 (March 03, 2010 3:43 am ET)
         
      The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act passed when Dick Cheney cast the 51st vote in the Senate.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dschwarpa (March 03, 2010 9:47 am ET)
      1  
      It is quite clear that reconciliation was never intended to be used for a process such as this involving a fundamental change in policy and incurring significant expenses on behalf of the Federal Government to run healthcare. The reconciliation efforts listed above also do not take into account that that the House was controlled by Democrats up until 1994. To try and pass legislation in this way is ethically wrong, the majority of people oppose it in its current form. To try and justify it in any other way is just plain wrong regardless of views of what has been done in the past. The excuses being put forth sound like my kids trying to justify unacceptable behavior that they know is wrong. I don't let them get away with it and I also hold those to task on this page that are acting in the same manner. Grow up, do it right; if the votes aren't there they aren't there. If it is something that is right and proper, the votes would be there following normal procedure. The fact that they are not suggests otherwise.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Euphman21 (March 04, 2010 1:31 am ET)
           
        1. Why is it ethically wrong to pass a bill with more than 50 votes? If 51 votes are there, the votes ARE there.

        2. Reconciliation has been a part of the senate rules for 30 years. It has been used to pass significant health reform several times. It IS normal procedure. Moreover, the process is being used to target specific areas of the comprehensive bill ALREADY passed with 60 votes. It is not being used to pass the whole bill.



        Report Abuse
    • Author by MadRiver Jack (March 03, 2010 12:51 pm ET)
      1  
      Slang terms don't have a standard definition. "Nuclear option" is a broad term meaning bypassing a filibuster with procedural moves, including but not limited to reconciliation or changing senate rules.
      This is a novel approach to redefining a word to your own liking.
      You bring to mind Lewis Carroll's passage from Through the Looking- Glass:
      "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
      If you can show any examples of "nuclear option" being applied to the procedure of the U.S. Senate that is more commonly called "reconciliation", then I will cede your point. There is, of course, one stipulation: your examples must be from the year 2009 or earlier.

      If you cannot provide any examples, we will conclude that you and your foxy friends are just making stuff up and hoping no one will notice. Lewis Carroll and George Orwell would be impressed with your ability to construct propaganda from so little substance.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by diamonds (March 04, 2010 11:00 pm ET)
           
        If slang terms don't have a standard definition how am I supposed to do any of what you ask? Why does the phrase matter even matter to you, if the meaning behind it is all that really matters? I'm sorry terms like that get hijacked but that's how living languages work, they change. Clearly a phrase first used to mean changing senate rules for confirming judges makes no sense when applied to legislation and particularly healthcare, so has it ever crossed anyone's mind that it's not the definition they are using? No one has ever considered that? The underlying, intended meaning however, does not change: they mean the formal process of reconciliation. So what's the big deal?
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.