December 8, 2003
THE RIGHT THAT MATTERS GETS IT:
Hats off to Senator Frist (Paul M. Weyrich, December 8, 2003, Enter Stage Right)
Over the past week I've done a half dozen interviews on the performance of Bill Frist in his first year as Majority Leader. No doubt I was called by major news organizations because their Google search revealed that when Frist was first elected I made some statements that were skeptical of his likely performance.I don't know if I'll get quoted this time because I told the reporters I have come to like and trust Frist. He has been the most effective Republican leader since Everett Dirksen, and I have known them all.
Frist's office has just issued a two-page report entitled "Senate Conservative Highlights 2003". That, in and of itself, is unique. Previous Senate leaders never wanted to admit that they had accomplished some of the conservative agenda. [...]
If Frist had another three or four conservative Senators I am confident that that his list would be as impressive as the House list. I have been a student of the Senate for 45 years. I think what Frist has done with a one-vote majority and with only a couple of conservative Democrats is nothing short of remarkable. Has he made mistakes? Sure. Could he learn more? Absolutely. But I think he has done about as well as is humanely possible with the cards he has been dealt. Conservatives ought to thank Bill Frist for a remarkable first year.
The 1% The American Conservative and the 1% Reason speak for may be disgusted, but the 40% who are social/religious conservatives are on board, which is why the President has such high approval among Republicans. That was the Bush-Rove strategy all along and the key to avoiding George Bush Sr's fate. You can risk alienating the marginal folk, but don't mess with the base. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 8, 2003 1:00 AM
Sounds like democracy the way it was supposed to work.
Posted by: R.W. at December 8, 2003 1:28 AMFrist also has learned from the experiences of Lott and Gingrich and has followed to a great extent the style Hastert has used in running the House which is basically: Shut Up and govern. Both Lott and Gingrich knew that pronouncements to the press would often be twisted and used to bash congressional Republicans, but couldn't help themselves and went before pretty much every camera available (though both eventually did themselves in due to non-legislative screw-ups).
Frist has been in the media spotlight a little more than Hastert has, but he has avoided making any verbal gaffes on issues like Iraq funding or Medicare reform that would allow the Democrats to manufacture a "scandal" that would kill the GOP legislation (even Tom DeLay, the most outspoken of the Republican leaders, has curbed his past tendancy to make "red meat" statements for the base. Once you're in the position of control, with the advisorial press those statements sound good, but they're more trouble than they're worth in the long run).
Posted by: John at December 8, 2003 7:12 AMRewrite the sentence, circa 1958:
"The 1% National Review and the 1% Modern Age speak for may be disgusted, but the . . ."
Isn't Orrin a proponent of A. J. Nock's Remnant? Here he casts them into oblivion.
Posted by: Paul Cella at December 9, 2003 6:29 PMPaul:
The Remnant assumes no one will listen and has no delusions it will ever govern.
Posted by: oj at December 9, 2003 7:47 PMWhen did I say anything about governing in this debate? My point is that there must be a vigorous right-wing critique of Bush; and that OJ abets the Left when he dedicates his fine polemical talents to disparaging and marginalizing the propounders of this critique.
Posted by: Paul Cella at December 10, 2003 10:30 AMPaul:
You read the American Conservative and Chronicles and such, right? The tenor of the "debate" is that George W. Bush is a socioalist and no different from Howard Dean because he signs legislation that is asd good as we conservatives can achieve. This isn't about a healthy critique but about ideologues tossing each other red meat.
Posted by: OJ at December 10, 2003 10:48 AMWell, there is no question that the anti-war Right (particular at Chronciles and Lew Rockwell) marginalizes itself with its venomous rhetoric. I have no dispute with you there.
But last week you went after thoughtful skeptics like Congressman Jeff Flake.
The American Conservative is more complicated. It runs essays by thoughtful critics and fulminators alike.
Posted by: Paul Cella at December 10, 2003 11:33 AMFlake just wants to be Senator. Once there he'll vote with the majority.
Posted by: OJ at December 10, 2003 11:51 AMFor the love of Pete, Orrin! How is speculation about Flake's ambitions germaine to this discussion?
I merely threw his name out as an example. At the moment he is part of right-wing opposition to Bush's domestic or fiscal policies based on time-honored conservative principles. Do you deny this?
This evasiveness strongly suggests the weakness of your argument.
Posted by: Paul Cella at December 10, 2003 12:14 PMYes, I deny it. He's running against McCain. That explains his vote.
Posted by: OJ at December 10, 2003 3:18 PM