I suspect that “nuclear option” was fine when the Repugs thought the threat would be sufficient to get the Dems to roll over. Seeing that they may actually do it, they want to change their PR terms.
I ran a search, too, and found the lone ref in 2002 attributed to Trent Lott (for a somewhat different manouver). The earliest mention in the present context seems to be:
“Under the plan, a nomination could be forced to a vote within about two weeks. It is less drastic than several alternatives that are being threatened by Republicans, including lawsuits and tricky parliamentary maneuvers — known as the “nuclear option” — that some senators have warned would likely prompt all-out war in the Senate.” The Washington Post, May 9, 2003, Friday, Final Edition; Pg. A12
The New York Daily News also used the term on the same day in a brief article on judicial filibusters.
The Christian Science Monitor did a typically thorough article the following Monday outlining the history:
“But until recently, the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations has been rare: It was used only once by Republicans, to scuttle President Johnson’s 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas as chief justice.”
Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), May 12, 2003, Monday; Pg. 02
Use of the term “nuclear option” for this Republican administration goes back at least to 2000 and this SF Chronicle report:
“Legally outmaneuvered since the day after the election, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and the Republican Party have faced a Hobson’s choice.
They could all but concede the White House to Vice President Al Gore on the basis of manual recounts in three Democrat-leaning Florida counties or choose the political equivalent of the “nuclear option” — a treacherous path through federal courts and legislatures where the outcome is anything but clear.
Yesterday, Bush hit the button.”
The San Francisco Chronicle, November 23, 2000, Thursday, Final Edition, Pg. A1