==Who said what?== 

 ===First cut=== 
 :... term makes no reference to any political party, so it would also apply to the maneuver being used under a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress. 

 :As of spring 2005, proponents have attempted to introduce terminology which makes the action sound less explosively controversial, such as "constitutional option," suggesting that the term "nuclear option" was coined by the maneuver's opponents.  However, the ... 

 ===Second cut=== 
 :Adding to the confusion over terminology, Republicans have also made an attempt to switch the meaning of the term, using "nuclear option" to describe the Democratic filibuster, instead of the rule change that would end it. 

 I believe I remember hearing nuclear option used in both ways: (1) ending the standoff by forcing a vote (by limiting filibuster via 50% majority); as well as (2) "nuking" all the president's non-Democratic-approved nominees by using a filibuster via a 40% minority). 

 The issue is whether nominees can be turned down with 50% or 40%. Republicans want to "go back" to 50%. Democrats want to continue using 40%. 

 Makes me wonder why Bush doesn't use a recess appointment. 

 ==My position== 

 It shouldn't matter, but for those who are impertinently curious, I don't care one way or the other. I just want the rhetoric about all these maneuvers to be neutral.