Republicans and conservative news media outlets like Fox News [3] keep repeating [4] the error made by newly-elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown [5], when he mistakenly called [6] the Senate process of reconciliation "the nuclear option [7]." The term the "nuclear option" was coined in 2005 by then-Majority Leader Trent Lott [8], when Democrats used the filibuster to block the appointment of appeals court judges nominated by George W. Bush [9]. This prompted Republicans to threaten to change the Senate rules so they could cut off debate on judicial nominees using a simple 51-vote majority instead of the required 60-vote majority needed to end a filibuster. The momentousness of this change -- effectively blocking the stalling technique known as the filibuster -- moved some Democrats to dub the Republicans' threat the "nuclear option." Thus, the phrase "nuclear option" refers to a major change in the rules of the Senate, not passing a bill using reconciliation. Passing a bill -- even a large and important bill -- through reconciliation is fairly standard procedure, and has been used many times before to approve major health care reform initiatives.

It's getting clearer that conservatives would rather sling around a scary, loaded old term and hope to elicit some emotional effect than come up with a new term -- or use the right words -- to communicate what they mean.