Redstate

This post should not be construed as an official position of RedState.org. Just little 'ol me.

And whoever else might happen to agree with me.

since I might lose my coveted position as a shill and a partisan hack, but Frist is one of the most ineffectual Senate majority leaders I can recall.

He makes me long for the days of Trent Lott.

Remember how disenchanted we were with Trent Lott?

Remember how disenchanted we were with Bob Dole?

Remember how happy we were to see both of them go?

Have you noticed how unhappy Democrats are with Harry Reid?

How miserable they were with Tom Daschle?

Face it, being a Senate leader is hard, and on issues where the caucus splinters, I'm not sure that personal leadership can do much to pierce the armor-plated egos of Senators with either fear or persuasion.  I think the last really popular Senate leader, within his own party, was George Mitchell.

And I suspect that the HCA story is going to be a big ball of nothing; if they can't show that Frist had access to inside information, it's just prudent investing by a guy who understood the business and who probably thought that selling was necessary to reduce an existing conflict of interest.

Bottom line:  Frist frustrates me too at times, but mainly because the Senate is the Senate, such that a better leader might not get much done.  He'll be gone after 2006 no matter what he does; let's worry about who should take his place going forward.

I've thought Mitch has always been straight-up

conservative? And vocal about it.

Am I wrong?

it was time for him to go, now.  When he kicked the social conservatives in the teeth by supporting the commodification of human life, it was time for him to go, yesterday.  Everything else since then has been just another stage of putrefaction, another class of creepy things crawling on the corpse of his leadership.  It's been his time to go for a long time.

Are the next two in line.  McConnell already has the votes to succeed Frist when he retires so I assume he would take the spot if Frist stepped down.  Kyl would become the #2 guy.  I don't know how good either will be at running the Senate.  But both are strong conservatives and Kyl is one of my favorite Senators.

McConnell is a master at the arcane rules of the Senate.  He got off to a slow start as Whip because of his heart condition and he knew that Frist's time was limited with his decision to not run for reelection in 06.

I imagine that we will be somewhat disappointed by McConnell (as Majority Leader in the Senate you do have to occassionally cut deals, which cuts against the grain of activists) he will be far superior to Frist.

I personally agree that Senator Frist has been quite ineffective and unsuccessful as a leader in the Senate.  The nature of the Senate itself makes it extremely difficult to corral Senators into doing what you would want on a consistant basis, but his actions in regards to his own stances are inexcusable.

Now, I would certainly LIKE to see Senator Frist replaced.  But you have to consider whether it would be prudent.  As he is going to be retiring from the Senate at the end of '06, would it be that adventageous to the Republican Party to have a new Senate Majority Leader for one year, and then (presumably, I'm not sure how it works), elect a new one after the '06 elections?

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that Frist should step down, but if he should, why not Santorum? He's the #3 in the Senate, and I know he'd have to step over McConnell to get there, but a couple high profiles policy victories could help shore up his re-election in PA. Plus, his credentials as a principled social conservative are pretty well-established; this could be an opportunity for him to demonstrate effective bipartisan leadership and set himself up for a Presidential bid in 2008. Yeah, he'd have to make some deals with the Democrats from time-to-time but so what? It's not like he's soft, that's the nature of the business. Only Nixon could go to China.

You'll forgive me. Just one of those rare occasions where a bilingual pun works. *

And, no disrespect, but how silly. Conservatism, zeal and philosophical integrity do not mean bringing down -- eating, as it were -- those who fail to meet one's standards. First, we should attempt to help him, buck him up, direct him, and if not, support an alternative when the time comes, such as when the next Congress organizes. But when the time comes.

* In the original German:

"Die Revolution ist wie Saturn, sie frißt ihre eignen Kinder." -

Georg Büchner, "Dantons Tod", 1. Akt, 5. Szene / Danton

(Der diesem Zitat zugrunde liegende Ausspruch stammt von Pierre Vergniaud)

"The revolution is like Saturn, it eats its own children." The verb, fressen, conjugated as frisst, means to eat as an animal eats.

The great, but short-lived Buechner was writing about the French Revolution's bloody self-destruction. And if there's one thing that conservatives can agree upon, it's that we ought not be imitating the French Revolution, right?

I think that this point, we've got serious problems with Frist and scandals are mainly a pretext for wanting him gone. Tom DeLay has scandals but most of us don't want him gone.

Crank is right, give it until 2006 and then get a real Conservative in there. The only point I'd take with you on this is I don't think its impossible to be a good Senate leader (either on the Majority or Minority side.) You think of guys like Lyndon Johnson, Everett Dirksen or Mike Mansfield, heck even George Mitchell could get legislation through. Now, we may not like their politics, but they were competent at least.

I dunno if he can do that against Casey.

First, we should attempt to help him, buck him up, direct him

I get the feeling that you read precisely zero of those links.

Just a feeling.

I've not been very happy with Frist as majority leader most of the time.

I try to look at things from his standpoint, all the behind the scenes maneuvering, cutting deals, all that kind of stuff.

I thought he was too eager to help throw Trent Lott under the bus. And I think he could help the President a lot more than he does. Why is Dingy Harry at a microphone so much more often than Frist is?

It would be nice to see some visible leadership from him.

And if he's thinking of running for President - well, me thinks that idea is DOA.

Santorum would rip it up in the Senate as Majority Leader.  I would hate to see such a wonderful ADVOCATE of conservative principles leave a Senate that is so wayward and mindless right now.  Why does he have to be from such a "purple" state?!

I might sound outlandish here, but I don't believe all of these polls showing him in the 30's and Casey in the 50's.  Santorum had a point, and one that I think will play a factor in this race next year:  Casey hasn't said anything about his values or beliefs on any subject.  Could that be the reasony why the polls are the way they are?  Will the radical Dem base (which Casey needs) still fawn over him when they see he is pro-life and pro-war?  Will they still have the motivation to go rally for someone who is "right wing" by their own definition?  I have my doubts, but we'll see.

Does the ruling party have to vote for the whip?  Do they have some leeway in choosing who the next Leader will be?  For example, I would love to see a Coburn, or a Brownback, or a Cornyn be the Leader, but none of them are in the "order of succession," if you will.

and other leaders are elected by vote of the caucus.

Hey, I'm not thrilled with the guy either. The stem-cells backtrack was unprincipled, I was unhappy he allowed the Gang of 14 to prevail (although the compromise is not looking so bad these days), and like too many in Congress, he wants to spend us into political success. Give me Mitch McConnell any day.

I do not have to read the links to state a general principle: It does not serve conservatives well to devour a legislative leader without a cause that rises to the level of malfeasance or political self-destruction. And I don't believe Frist has risen to that level.

And I don't believe Frist has risen to that level.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Although I don't think it's "silly" of me to disagree, given his long and horrendous history.

Leon H and Streiff make great points and i was about to launch into a critique of the problem when a pres picks his own majority leader after his shaeful refusal to defend Lott

But Crank's point about the fact that Lott was no better reminds me of a larger point about one of the main reason's for the GOp's difficulty in governing

One is the fact that we have too many gop senators that aren't very conservative, probably more than 6

Two, and realted to One, is the timidity of the 6+ and more in the face of msm between election editori-polls

But three is the dilema faced by the GOP confronted by chronilogically adult elected dems who since the 2000 election have behaved like children except for 3-6 weeks after 911, and even then it brought dachel to tears to hug daddy bush

The problem is politeness akin to the difficulty of a parent that brings a severly disabled abult to a party or who allows unruly children to run rampant in another's home while pretending all is well

the GOP are speechless at the silly anti-war "arguments" and the general decline of logic given the left's indefensible positions in a new, non-msm dominated media

But we are just too nice to call unpatiotic statements up to and incl treason for what it is, call out the real racists in the dem party and to break down the false premises of their and the msm's arguments on pre-911 Iraq's ties to terror, etc.

Bill Clinton recently even surrendered to the kook left when he forgot about all the evidence he used to justify missile launches against saddam in iraq over wmd and the sudan iraq-bin laden tie in which a nightwatchman was killed.

The whole concept of a senate requires mature adults. Until we get 60 real men (and thatcherites) we will have  aproblem unless weput everthing in a budget resolution.

Or maybe we should get rid of the senate somw how...

Why does Rick Santorum need to become Majority Leader to become President?  Even if he does lose next year, why couldn't he rebound and run for President in 2008?  He has enough fire power among the conservative base (even if he were to lose in 06') and name recognition nationwide that he could do it.  No?

Dan Quail, Al Gore, or John McCain come to mind.  I'd exclude McCain from my own list, but for most, the name brings few positive images.  I get a good snicker out of President Santorum.

That's the question I thought inadequately addressed in the original post, which prompted my visceral reaction of it as silly.

Frist has not committed a Lott-praises-the-Klan moment, nor has he made a recent betrayal, such as the stem-cell reversal.

The insider-trading investigation is the immediate impetus? Really? It's in the news this week, but so what? A story about prosecutors contacting an office amounts to a story about prosecutors or the SEC contacting an office. "Probe widens" is Washington mediaspeak for not much going on, but maybe we'll get lucky and a scandal will erupt, and hmmm, I wonder who might be willing to trash Frist on background? Hardly grounds for demanding that he step down.

Meanwhile, there's no talk of dumping him among Senate Republicans that I've heard of lately, and the Senate has two-plus months to finish the year's business. Bush is suffering at the polls, and another hurricane is striking land. So, the call for Frist's resignation is not consistent with the political universe, and it detracts from truly pressing political problems.

And the war against Islamist terror. That's still going on.

Since Frist stepping down is not a realistic possibility, perhaps a more productive approach would be to start pushing for a conservative replacement, i.e., Frist will be gone after next year, let's promote McConnell or some other Senator of our liking for majority leader.

I don't have much faith in too many of the GOP Senators. But McConnel's one of the few exceptions.

Bring him on.

Leon H post is irrefutable proof that he is no reactionary. No time like the present to solve problems and remind attention deficit disorder Americans of the consevative persuasion of internal GOP weaknesses, especially given the puny threat from the Dem party whose fake moderates cried uncle this week in acknowledging that the party is now run by Michael Moore and Co.

Lott did not praise the Klan anymore than Dems praise the Klan when indulging Byrd.

Lott was indulging a dying man that voted for Clarence Thomas and MLK's birthday holiday and who never was in the Klan that I can find. (I have never heard that Strom was in the Klan in my 40+ years in SC).

But, at bottom, I agree in this sense about Frist. The problem is the senate being populated by childlike dems and less than 60 real conservatives, not the leader. maybe...mabe a real strong conservative could make a diference.

And i'm glad leon h  called frist by name..

love mcconnell too

I'm with it. Democrats are all over this story because they smell blood. They can use this story to head up their 2006 congressional campaigns, claiming that Republicans are all corrupt and in it with the DeLay/Frist crime family.

Time to go, Bill. Please.

got to be one of the most ineffective majority leaders ever.  

I don't like Frist either, but normally conservatives don't convict people of crimes before we have some solid evidence to base it on. Not liking Frist is not quite enough to convict him of insider trading. Let the Democrats play the smear game by themselves. This is not the time for Frist to go. Not for this.

Perception is reality. Everything about this looks suspicious. If this was just any senator, that would be a different story. This is our majority leader though. Do you want those campaign ads running against Republicans nationwide, showing your Republican senator side-by-side with a fabricated mug shot of Frist (ala DeLay with the DCCC's "House of Scandal" campaign)?

Or just repeal the 17th Amendment...

Having Senators appointed by the State Legislatures would be even worse than we have now.

Repeal of the 17th amendment would produce a 66 seat GOP majority that could pass any constitutional amendment it desired with one democrat crossover!

Not to mention that we would definietely have 50 real conservatives out 66.

sounds better to me

It ranks among the biggest blunders in American government.

How do you destroy the framers' intent?  Amend, amend, amend.  Let me 'splain...

Why are senators appointed by state legislatures in Article I?  

Federalism.  

What does the Senate DO??? Ratify international arrangements.  Balance the executive's federal judiciary nomination power with its ratification power.  Serve as a check on the "lower House"'s bugetary power.

The legislature of the individual state is the representative of the citizens of that state.  The state legislature then sends Senators in order to representthe state's interests on the federal level.

The Senate is not a demogogorium of the plebescite.  It is the united states' (not capitalized!!) deliberative body.

The 17th Amendment is the death of Madison's republic.

Like you think the thought of a President Santorum is funny or you think he is funny personally?

...and it's "Sanitorium" --- that's funny :P

But it was leaked a while back that McConnell already had the votes counted for a post-Frist stint as Majority Leader, which is unsurprising.  Most other offices step up in that case.  There can be a challenge, but one must argue why they deserve to jump ahead in line.  That eliminates Coburn and Brownback.  Cornyn is in leadership or considering challenging for a spot, but I don't remember exactly.

Frist has been a disaster as a majority leader. Not sure how he got the job with so little seniority or experience. Some say he's Karl's boy.

We really missed Lott's experience during the nuclear-option struggle.

No matter the case, running for President and being Majority Leader ensures failure at both enterprises.

Frist should go.

Senators should be responsive & responsible to the people.  Repealing the 17th Amendment would make Senators responsive only to state government.

The Framers never imagined massive transfers of federal tax money to state and local governments.  If you think pork is bad now, imagine if the state governments that are the recipients of this largesse were the sole constituents for the US Senate.  It's insane to even consider repealing the 17th Amendment unless you first amend the constitution to prohibit federal financial assistance to state and local governments (which ain't a bad idea itself, but that's another day's topic).

You want the Senate to work the way the EU government and the UN work, as politicians accountable only to other politicians?  If you like the EU, the UN and the federal judiciary, you'd love a Senate chosen by state governments.

I don't think the Framers were as stuck on original intent as you seem to be.  If they were, they wouldn't have given us the power to amend the Constitution.

If the senate majority leader were to resign... he may not hold our values but if he were to step down, we would look as if the Republican Party is a mess.

We need to be as credible as possible, especially in this time of disaster: Katrina, Rita, Iraq, etc.  We need to support our leaders, our party, our country, even if that leader (Frist) doesn't agree with his constituents on every issue.

I was wrong.

Seriously what has he done that warrants keeping him on as Majority Leader much less making him the next Speaker of the House?

Get rid of Roy Blunt too!

the idea, to me, seems comical.