To support this site, please make your purchases through my Amazon link.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
It's time for Frist to go
As I flew to San Francisco on my way back to DC on Monday night, I was talking to my sister and brother-in-law about a number of issues; invariably, the topic of politics came up. As we meandered through the range of issues facing our nation today, I began thinking about Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate Majority Leader. With the strongest of conviction, I told my brother-in-law that Frist is the worst leader in the history of the Senate. Such a comment might seem to be an overstatement; however, as the last year and a half of his leadership has shown us, Frist is plain awful.
Let's start off by examining Frist's "leadership" during this month.
This week, the Senate took up the hot-button issue of tort-reform, also known as the class-action lawsuit bill. Why, might you ask, would the Senate bring up a roll call vote (that was certain not to pass) on such a controversial measure at this time--in the middle of the summer (when little usually gets done in Congress), right before convention season. It would seem that if the Majority truly wanted to pass such a bill, they would have addressed the issue at a less politically charged time; moreover, if they really wanted enactment of sweeping reform, one would think that they would be willing to compromise on a few issues--let's say a raise in the minimum wage, for example--to ensure the bill's passage. Quizzical, no?
No.
As we all know, John Kerry selected John Edwards as his running mate this week, a move that has been widely heralded by the press (check out E.J. Dionne's piece from yesterday's Post for a good example). Aside from his personal charm and charisma, the main selling point for Edwards' place on the ticket was that he spent his pre-Senate career representing a mostly poor clientele in class-action lawsuits; in fact, he's known as one of the greatest class-action lawyers ever, winning the largest award in North Carolina history on behalf of small children across the country who were mauled by faulty pumps in swim tanks. Wait--did I just say "class-action"?
The Senate vote that Frist called today had nothing to do with real reform; it was mere politics... dirty, stinking politics. The Majority Leader, playing pawn of the White House, brought the tort-reform bill to the Senate floor so he could try to either intimidate the Democrats into acceding to a horrible piece of legislation or to embarrass the new Vice Presidential candidate. Not exactly the cordial welcome that the President offered yesterday. Luckily, the tactic failed as the measure was shot down, and the Republican spin-doctors have been unable to besmirch Edwards' character.
Let's take another example, one that has yet to occur.
In about two weeks, Senator Frist will open the debate on the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment; later in the week, he will call for a roll call vote (like the tort reform bill, also a sure looser). The Majority Leader claims that the timing of the measure was not his choice, that the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage (er... if you can count three or four months ago recent) forced him to bring up the amendment immediately. I wonder if it's just a coincidence, then, that the Democratic National Convention will take place during the proceeding week...
I cannot overstress this point. When Frist has the choice to take an overtly political action that is undoubtedly divisive, he never misses the opportunity. In the case of the Gay Marriage ban, there is no way that there are 67 votes for the measure in the Senate--the few remaining true conservatives left in the Senate, in addition to many Democrats, are loathe to tarnish the Constitution with such filth. What is more, it appears as though the House also doesn't have the votes. As a result, it's obvious that Frist cares more about a futile attempt to drive a wedge in the electorate before the Convention than actually doing real Senate business.
------
When the whole Trent Lott episode was developing, I'll admit that I got excited. I thought to myself, any scandal that brings down a major Republican would be good, especially a conservative Southern Senate Majority Leader. Today, however, I see that I was all wrong.
The Senate historically has been a body that attempts to refrain from the bitter partisan bickering that is ever-present in the House. Because of the chamber's unique rules allowing one single senator to slow down all business to a crawl, the majority party has generally been pretty respectful of the minority.
This was even true to a large extent during the time when Bob Dole and Trent Lott led the Senate. When Gingrich was trying to destroy the government in 1995, it was Dole who played a key role in forcing the truce with Clinton that ended the government shutdown. In 2000, when the Senate was split 50-50, Lott was also quite respectful of the Democrats, giving them more than the usual 33% of committee funds reserved for the minority, for example. What is more, though he was a strong partisan, he understood that for the Senate to function at all, he had to work well with the Minority Leader, Tom Daschle.
When Bill Frist took over from Lott as Majority Leader last January, however, things changed as bipartisan relations deteriorated rapidly. Rather than seeking to find common ground on bills--many of his predecessors preferred getting 60+ votes before bringing any measure to the floor--Frist sought the most conservative bills possible while attaining 50 votes (with Cheney as the tie-breaker). It should come as no surprise that the Senate is no where near finalizing a budget under Frist's shoddy leadership.
If one of Frist's actions stands out as more despicable than others (a tough choice given so many alternatives, such as the 40 hour counter-filibuster), one that truly tramples on the principles that make the Senate a great body, it occurred a little over a month ago.
In June, Bill Frist shirked all Senate traditions by heading to South Dakota to openly campaign against Tom Daschle. One must remember that although leaders have had poor relations in the past, at no previous time in American history has Senate leader of one party campaigned against the other leader in his home state. I'm not exactly sure what Frist was attempting to accomplish with this action, but it certainly denigrated the office he holds.
------
Where am I going with all of this?
I think it's now abundantly clear (as if it wasn't before) that it is imperative that Bill Frist go. We truly don't need someone who cares more about running for President in 2008 than actually getting things done as Senate Majority Leader. I don't know what can be done in the short run other than ensuring a Democratic majority in the Senate (which will be a tough job, especially with Mike Ditka maybe running as a Republican), but whatever we do, we must do what we can immediately, though.
This is about more than mere partisanship on my side. The future of the Senate is at stake, and if we don't act now, we might loose the only body that can possibly stop an over-powerful President.
Let's start off by examining Frist's "leadership" during this month.
This week, the Senate took up the hot-button issue of tort-reform, also known as the class-action lawsuit bill. Why, might you ask, would the Senate bring up a roll call vote (that was certain not to pass) on such a controversial measure at this time--in the middle of the summer (when little usually gets done in Congress), right before convention season. It would seem that if the Majority truly wanted to pass such a bill, they would have addressed the issue at a less politically charged time; moreover, if they really wanted enactment of sweeping reform, one would think that they would be willing to compromise on a few issues--let's say a raise in the minimum wage, for example--to ensure the bill's passage. Quizzical, no?
No.
As we all know, John Kerry selected John Edwards as his running mate this week, a move that has been widely heralded by the press (check out E.J. Dionne's piece from yesterday's Post for a good example). Aside from his personal charm and charisma, the main selling point for Edwards' place on the ticket was that he spent his pre-Senate career representing a mostly poor clientele in class-action lawsuits; in fact, he's known as one of the greatest class-action lawyers ever, winning the largest award in North Carolina history on behalf of small children across the country who were mauled by faulty pumps in swim tanks. Wait--did I just say "class-action"?
The Senate vote that Frist called today had nothing to do with real reform; it was mere politics... dirty, stinking politics. The Majority Leader, playing pawn of the White House, brought the tort-reform bill to the Senate floor so he could try to either intimidate the Democrats into acceding to a horrible piece of legislation or to embarrass the new Vice Presidential candidate. Not exactly the cordial welcome that the President offered yesterday. Luckily, the tactic failed as the measure was shot down, and the Republican spin-doctors have been unable to besmirch Edwards' character.
Let's take another example, one that has yet to occur.
In about two weeks, Senator Frist will open the debate on the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment; later in the week, he will call for a roll call vote (like the tort reform bill, also a sure looser). The Majority Leader claims that the timing of the measure was not his choice, that the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage (er... if you can count three or four months ago recent) forced him to bring up the amendment immediately. I wonder if it's just a coincidence, then, that the Democratic National Convention will take place during the proceeding week...
I cannot overstress this point. When Frist has the choice to take an overtly political action that is undoubtedly divisive, he never misses the opportunity. In the case of the Gay Marriage ban, there is no way that there are 67 votes for the measure in the Senate--the few remaining true conservatives left in the Senate, in addition to many Democrats, are loathe to tarnish the Constitution with such filth. What is more, it appears as though the House also doesn't have the votes. As a result, it's obvious that Frist cares more about a futile attempt to drive a wedge in the electorate before the Convention than actually doing real Senate business.
------
When the whole Trent Lott episode was developing, I'll admit that I got excited. I thought to myself, any scandal that brings down a major Republican would be good, especially a conservative Southern Senate Majority Leader. Today, however, I see that I was all wrong.
The Senate historically has been a body that attempts to refrain from the bitter partisan bickering that is ever-present in the House. Because of the chamber's unique rules allowing one single senator to slow down all business to a crawl, the majority party has generally been pretty respectful of the minority.
This was even true to a large extent during the time when Bob Dole and Trent Lott led the Senate. When Gingrich was trying to destroy the government in 1995, it was Dole who played a key role in forcing the truce with Clinton that ended the government shutdown. In 2000, when the Senate was split 50-50, Lott was also quite respectful of the Democrats, giving them more than the usual 33% of committee funds reserved for the minority, for example. What is more, though he was a strong partisan, he understood that for the Senate to function at all, he had to work well with the Minority Leader, Tom Daschle.
When Bill Frist took over from Lott as Majority Leader last January, however, things changed as bipartisan relations deteriorated rapidly. Rather than seeking to find common ground on bills--many of his predecessors preferred getting 60+ votes before bringing any measure to the floor--Frist sought the most conservative bills possible while attaining 50 votes (with Cheney as the tie-breaker). It should come as no surprise that the Senate is no where near finalizing a budget under Frist's shoddy leadership.
If one of Frist's actions stands out as more despicable than others (a tough choice given so many alternatives, such as the 40 hour counter-filibuster), one that truly tramples on the principles that make the Senate a great body, it occurred a little over a month ago.
In June, Bill Frist shirked all Senate traditions by heading to South Dakota to openly campaign against Tom Daschle. One must remember that although leaders have had poor relations in the past, at no previous time in American history has Senate leader of one party campaigned against the other leader in his home state. I'm not exactly sure what Frist was attempting to accomplish with this action, but it certainly denigrated the office he holds.
------
Where am I going with all of this?
I think it's now abundantly clear (as if it wasn't before) that it is imperative that Bill Frist go. We truly don't need someone who cares more about running for President in 2008 than actually getting things done as Senate Majority Leader. I don't know what can be done in the short run other than ensuring a Democratic majority in the Senate (which will be a tough job, especially with Mike Ditka maybe running as a Republican), but whatever we do, we must do what we can immediately, though.
This is about more than mere partisanship on my side. The future of the Senate is at stake, and if we don't act now, we might loose the only body that can possibly stop an over-powerful President.
To support this site, please make your DVD, music, book and electronics purchases through my Amazon link.
