Hmm.
President Reagan called the old Soviet Union an "evil empire." President Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil."
Byrd with an equally weighty concern:
Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made his illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do. To Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate. I said to someone this morning who was shoveling snow in my area. "What does nuclear option mean to you?" He answered, "Oh, you mean with Iran?" The people generally don't know what this is about. The nuclear option seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissable the rule.
I don't know who came up with the term "nuclear option" with reference to a change in the Senate procedural rules (which are not even legislation, btw), but I know the Republicans haven't been worried about it's use. The problem is that the filibuster is too easy these days. It's not a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scenario, it's an agreement not to bring up the subject that's being "filibustered." Meanwhile they go on to other business. Nobody's going all Strom Thurmond.
The world's most deliberative body needs to actually deliberate.
(For more, see Lileks, Gen.mo Duane and Hugh.
