Senator Byrd and the "Nuclear Option"

First of all, the "Nuclear Option" refers to whether or not Israel decides to take out Iran's nuclear bomb facility and has nothing to do with the Senate's procedural processes. The term in the context of the senate action to vote on procedure should more accurately be referred to as the "constitutional option". So how about it, reluctant republicans; why not take the lead by changing the leftist terminology and then get down to business changing the rules like the constitution allows. See US Senator John Cornyn's website for a rundown on the hypocrisy of Sen. Robert Byrd on this issue:

U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) had an op-ed in the Washington Post today (‘Nuking’ Free Speech, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5692-2005Mar3.html) arguing against the current Senate proposal to restore the rights of the majority and end the unprecedented filibusters against the President’s Judicial nominees. But his arguments were both factually wrong, and historically inconsistent with his own voting record.

Sen. Byrd said that restoring Senate tradition “could rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch or a wrongheaded policy. It could destroy the Senate's very essence -- the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate.” But history—and Sen. Byrd’s own actions—prove otherwise.

Please be sure to look at this site. It spells out the dem's duplicity and explains what the rules are. The problem is that no one in any official capacity is making any headway bringing this to the attention of the public. What gives?

The republicans need a spokesman who can explain this issue in easy to understand terms and then sell it to America. Someone in Congress, that is. Much of mainstream America is getting impatient with a minority of democrats in Congress who continue to make the rules and win the verbal wars. Get with it, you guys in the majority. Majority, get it?