Replies

Dear patent,

"What a disaster this guy will be."

I assume that you mean Sen. Frist. Why do you believe that he will be a disaster?

His voting record on pro-life is good. He is as pro-life regarding abortion as is feasible for a politician who wins elections (opposes legal abortion except for life of mother, rape, incest).

He's not so good on stem cell stuff, but regrettably, a number of otherwise-reliable pro-lifers aren't, either.

He seems about as conservative as Sen. Lott, in terms of the issues. But Sen. Lott, like Sen. Dole before him, believes that the purpose of the legislature is to legislate. Thus, Sen. Lott believed it was more important that the Senate act than that is act conservatively.

I don't know enough about Sen. Frist to know if he has a similar predilection, but I think it is unlikely that he could be worse. And, in Sen. Frist, we will have the benefit of a Majority Leader who does not believe himself obligated to kow-tow to the affirmative action crowd to maintain his viability.

"I don't know if I can vote for a team with this man on it."

I remember there were folks who felt that way about the first President Bush because of advisors like Richard Darman. Of course, the failure to support Mr. Bush led us to the presidency of Mr. Clinton. For me, enough bad things happened during Mr. Clinton's term to justify thinking that conservatives ought to have better supported the first President Bush.

We quickly forget how much damage a liberal president can do.

sitetest

"What a disaster this guy will be."
I assume that you mean Sen. Frist.

Correct. Rove is already a disaster. He wins elections, but so did Dick Morris.

Why do you believe that he will be a disaster?

If chosen, he will lead the senate, chose who sits on committees (in part), chose what bills come up for votes, etc. Unlike you, I don’t agree that he is pro-life enough, nor do I consider it necessary to compromise as far as he has to win elections. It may be necessary in a national party election – though Bush’s election compared to Bush the elder and Dole’s losses seem to prove the contrary – and it may be necessary as a party platform. It is not to win a Senate seat in MN, much less TN.

Moreover, when you look at his voting record alongside his personal comments, his record doesn’t match that of a person who is pro-life, but has to tone it down to get elected. It matches a person who is a pro-abort republican, but realizes he must be at least somewhat pro-life to get elected as a Republican in Tennessee. We have ample examples of weakly “pro-life” Tennessee Senators who recognized that they had to be pro-life to get elected down there, but once they moved on to bigger and better things they deserted the pro-life position promptly. See Albert Gore, who once was pro-life, supposedly. If even Mr. Gore had to pretend to be pro-life to get elected in TN, don’t you think that its possible Mr. Frist has recognized the same?

You mention stem cell. I don’t recall anyone whose efforts and comments disturbed me as profoundly as Mr. Frist’s did at the time that debate was raging. In short, I see little difference between Senator Frist and Senator Landreau from LA. She also opposed partial birth abortion in her votes, but you can hardly call her pro-life. It is a political necessity in her state. Yet the aborts down there support her. He may also have opposed funding, and I don’t recall her position on that issue, but I can see opposing funding merely on fiscal conservatism bases. She, unlike him, actually opposed stem cell research.

He seems about as conservative as Sen. Lott, in terms of the issues.

You mean the issue of getting Mr. Rove elected again? If not, I disagree.

And, in Sen. Frist, we will have the benefit of a Majority Leader who does not believe himself obligated to kow-tow to the affirmative action crowd to maintain his viability.

Well, I believe Lott should go, but that doesn’t mean I want Frist to replace him.

"I don't know if I can vote for a team with this man on it."
I remember there were folks who felt that way about the first President Bush because of advisors like Richard Darman. Of course, the failure to support Mr. Bush led us to the presidency of Mr. Clinton. For me, enough bad things happened during Mr. Clinton's term to justify thinking that conservatives ought to have better supported the first President Bush.

I disagree. You seem to forget that you are much more reasonable than I am. I am much less willing to compromise on this issue. Had Bush the elder won again, or had Dole won, they would have led the Republican party farther and farther down the pro-choice road.

Yes, Clinton is worse than Bush or Dole, by far. Having absolutely no party to support us – or being nothing more than plantation slaves, much like minorities are to some democrats – is a far greater evil than suffering under Clinton for a time. All Clintons all the time. Well, that seems to be the party Rove envisions, so long as its “electable.” No thanks.

We didn’t say much when Rove/Bush started appointing pro-abort, pro-gay ambassadors. Then it was various department heads. Then it was cabinet positions. Each step along the way, we are told “the position doesn’t have anything to do with abortion, don’t worry about it.” Well, now we are talking about the Senate majority leader. We are talking about a man who pushed the nomination of an abortionist to be Surgeon General. We are talking about a man who owns $5 million worth of an abortion providing hospital, not to mention what his family owns. Do your really think this man will work to make abortion rare? I see no evidence he will.

Yet, we are still being told to hush, you silly one issue voters. Sorry, you can be reasonable. I’m off the res.

We quickly forget how much damage a liberal president can do.

Not at all. I just disagree with you on the priorities. Doesn’t mean I’ve gone brain dead, of course. Who could forget Clinton?

patent +AMDG