Demagogue

Inspired by Josh Marshall's crusade to find examples of "personal account" supporters referring to them as "private accounts" before the order came down from the White House that any form of the word "private" was verboten when discussing Social Security, I am going to cannibalize an old post of mine on a similar GOP effort to distance themselves from their own language.

Back in May 2003, the GOP was threatening to employ the so-called "nuclear option" to end the Democrats filibuster of judges

Republicans could immediately break the current filibusters against two of President Bush's judicial nominees with a rarely used parliamentary procedure that would confirm them through a simple majority vote, according to a plan under consideration by Senate Republicans.

The tactic would be so drastic in the usually congenial Senate that Republicans refer to it as their "nuclear option."

Republicans called it the "nuclear option" because they were well aware that, in carrying it out, they would outrage the Democrats and probably destroy any working relationship in the Senate.

But nearly two years later they are actually contemplating going through with it - and suddenly it has been rechristened the "constitutional option"

But Senate Republicans say the tougher stance could be a harbinger of much tougher fights to come. "The fights on judicial nominations are brutal, just awful. We're going to have to use the constitutional option sooner or later," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, referring to the possibility of changing Senate rules to make approval of judicial nominations easier.

The "nuclear option" and the "constitutional option" are exactly the same thing, but I am guessing that the former must not have polled very well.

You see, "going nuclear" sounds radical and irresponsible, whereas "protecting the Constitution" is commendable and patriotic. Destroying an 88 year-old Senate rule on a party line vote so that you can ram the president's judicial nominees through the confirmation process might sound outrageous, or corrupt or heavy-handed. But it's not - and only someone who hates the Constitution would say that it was.