Agreed. In a few days Frist will be hailed as a hard core conservative, in the mold of Lieberman.
Will wonders never cease? Frist musta put his index finger up in the air to see which way the political wind was blowing and changed his position. The spineless POS.
Agreed. In a few days Frist will be hailed as a hard core conservative, in the mold of Lieberman.
Bingo. I was cursing so loudly when Frist gave this mealy-mouthed, two-faced litany of meaningless platitudes on Tuesday that the cat is still hiding under the couch.
BLITZER: ...This is the first time this has ever happened in U.S. history. What do you think was going on? What do you think of this?
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: Wolf, I have cautioned our leadership about getting too far out in front. I think the American people need to know, first and foremost, that no congressmen, no senator is above the law of the land. And the law needs to be enforced and needs to be enforced aggressively.
On the other hand, I think it is very important for us to take the time, not with a knee jerk reaction, but to go back and look at the separation of powers, the so-called speech and debate clause that is in the Constitution itself.
"On the other hand"!? What is "the other hand"!?" "On the other hand, we can't be too anxious to investigate felonies..."!? "On the other hand, we have to allow crooked Congressmen to hide evidence in their offices, and know that they can..."!? STFU! Then we have his invocation of "this speech and debate clause that is in the Constitution itself..." Oh excuuuuuuse ME! for thinking that bribery is not a form of speech or debate! Because it's right there, "in the Constitution itself..."! STFU!
What we've done on the Senate side is to ask our rules committee to go back and look to see whether or not there is any precedent. And so far, they haven't been able to come up with any. And then to ask our legal counsel, both inside and outside, to advise us as to whether there should be protocols, all the time recognizing that no member of the Senate or the House is above the law.
So what if there is a precedent!? "Protocols"!? For what, getting it down on paper how many days he should have had to launder the money from his bribes? STFU with your damn Rules of Order hair-splitting! He was caught on tape with marked bills! WTF are you standing for here!?
BLITZER: Yesterday, when you issued a statement, you sounded pretty upset about it. Are you changing your mind?
FRIST: No. I think my statement yesterday reflected exactly what I am, and that is concerned. When we talk about constitutional issues, when we talk about law enforcement, when we talk about the rule of law, there shouldn't be a knee jerk statement or knee jerk reaction without very careful thought, very deliberate thought, the input of constitutional scholars, especially when there is no precedent in the past.
Precedent again! SO! WHAT!
So yes, I'm concerned, because it does involve the Constitution, it does involve the law. So I pretty much stick with yesterday's statement. We will be spending a lot of time over the next several days and probably the next several weeks seeing whether or not a protocol should be developed consistent with that Constitution, consistent with the separation of powers, and consistent with the law of the land.