Probably most everyone here has read about (or even
seen firsthand), Senator Mitch McConnell's effort to resuscitate a GOP talking point that's been in a persistent vegetative state since he first trotted it out, namely attempting to re-brand
Trent Lott's nuclear option as the
"Byrd option." Of course, as
Kagro X has explained, McConnell's not-so-subtle propagandizing is facile bullshit. Unsurprisingly, that fact has not deterred the majority whip from trotting out this talking point at every opportunity.
So, I figured that fair is fair: if McConnell wants to call the GOP's brazen power grab the Byrd option, then I suppose that the Democrats' filibuster of some of Bush's appointees is the
McConnell option
It seems that when Bill Clinton was in the White House, good ol' Mitch was a much bigger fan of the filibuster:
McConnell blocked Clinton nominee, Kent Markus, from receiving a vote on his nomination to the 6th Circuit-Ohio
SENATOR MCCONNELL'S RECORD:
- Voted to filibuster 12 Clinton executive nominees: Walter Dellinger, Janet Napolitano, Sam W. Brown (twice), Derek Shearer, Ricki Tigert, Henry Foster (twice), David Satcher, and five State Department nominees
- Voted to indefinitely postpone a vote on Richard Paez's nomination, after the Republican filibuster was broken by a cloture vote to end debate.
- Voted to filibuster the nomination of Melissa F. Wells to be Ambassador to Mozambique in 1987.
Of course, this information certainly surprised me, since McConnell has been so attentive to the history of the filibuster, especially of late:
Republicans did not filibuster judicial nominees, even though it would have been easy for us to do so. Let me give you the names of some very controversial Democratic judicial nominees whom we could have easily filibustered. Richard Paez. William Fletcher. Susan Oki Molloway. Abner Mikva. None of these nominees had 60 votes for confirmation.
Why, yes Mitch, it would have been very easy to filibuster those judicial nominees; after all, you knew firsthand how easy it was to filibuster a dozen of Clinton's other executive nominees. And when it comes to Richard Paez, it seems you found something even easier than bothering with a filibuster: simply vote to postpone consideration of his nomination indefinitely...brilliant! Of course, your little gambit pales in comparison to the ease with which Orrin Hatch prevented Clinton's nominees from being considered -- he simply refused to hold a committee vote!
Ah, but the true coup de grace of Sen. McConnell's douchebaggery is his own "creative" -- a less charitable diarist might say "unprecedented" -- use of the filibuster:
No, the irony in Sen. McConnell's case is deeper than partisan hypocrisy. It's personal. For just a decade ago, it was Sen. McConnell who was the one engaged in inventing a truly unprecedented use of the filibuster.
He organized one to block, for the first time in the Senate's 210-year history, a vote to create a conference committee, which was needed to reconcile differing versions of the campaign finance reforms already approved by majorities in the House and Senate. Then, he brushed aside Democratic warnings that he was inaugurating a scorched-earth policy of total obstructionism: "We make no apologies," he said.
So, let me see if I've got this straight, Mitch. When Democrats filibuster executive nominations, they're engaged in "unprecedented obstruction," despite the fact that judicial filibusters have been around at least since Abe Fortas was nominated to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But when you engage in a filibuster to block the formation of a conference committee for the first time in Senate history in an effort to allow soft money to continue rolling into GOP coffers, it's all good. Got it.
Guess what, Mitch? When it comes to keeping extremist right-wing judges off the bench, we're not making any apologies.