Intemporate nuclear rhetoric.

Nuclear means related to the gross assault on Senate rules named "the nuclear option" by Trent Lott. The issue is Senate approval of nominations to US courts and whether it is constitutional to block votes on such approval by filibuster (talking the motion to death).

Senate president pro tempore Dr William Frist has had some trouble reconciling his current claim that he believes that such filibusters are unconstitutional and his vote against cloture (ending of debate and calling a vote). Now I think his best rhetorical trick would have been to claim he has changed his mind and views his earlier vote as a violation of the constitution (a youthful indiscretion). Senator Doctor Frist MD chose to attempt to claim that his logically inconsistent views are consistent. In doing so, he discussed a hypothetical senator who might have good reason to vote against cloture because more time was really needed to learn the facts of the case. This hypothetical senator exists (Barbara Boxer D Calif) but she is not William Frist. Frist voted against cloture because he didn't want a vote on the nomination Paez which had been pending for 4 years. By the way, I mentioned this proof of totaly lying shameless hypocricsy here before Shumer, Atrios and Kos (but based on think progress anyway).

Under unfair assault by logic and the English language Frist became a bit intemperate saying "

"The issue is not cloture votes per se, it’s the partisan, leadership-led use of cloture votes to kill - to defeat - to assassinate these nominees."

Now now Doctor Senator is it really doing justice to such nominees to imply that a political position is equivalent to homicide ? Well yes it is

Brown: My grandparents’generation thought being on the government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family’s honor. Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much “free” stuff as the political system will permit them to extract


I can't resist getting into the act. The Republicans argue that the Democratic filibusters are unprecedented (forgetting Paez) because the democrats are blocking an up or down vote on nominations which have reached the floor of the Senate. This is silly, since about 60 Clinton's nominations did not get an up or down vote because they did not reach the floor of the Senate because they were blocked by Orrin Hatch (who in many cases did not even hold hearings on the nomination). Thus the Republican position appears to be that it is unconstitutional for 41 senators to block an up or down vote but OK for one senator to block an up or down vote. To me this is like the case of the guy (not Orrin Hatch) who murdered his mother an father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court (not Judge Brown) saying he was an orphan.