From Traitor to Hero: Reaction to Frist
Not surprisingly, reaction to Senator Bill Frist's announcement (text here, live-blog here) that he will support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research under certain conditions sparked reaction from the blogosphere and beyond running the full gamut: from effusive praise to hearty denunciations, with cautious optimism in between.
Personally, I take the latter tack: as I said yesterday, I am delighted that Frist has decided to return to his 2001 position on stem cells - but I was disappointed that his speech failed to lay out a timetable for a floor debate and final vote on Specter-Harkin, and I worry about the great many all-too-plausible scenarios under which this important measure could remain in legislative limbo for the forseeable future. The bill's sponsors, even with this new support, still have a tough hill to climb.
Conservatives were, to say the least, rather displeased. Tom DeLay quickly called a news conference with House opponents of stem cell research to attack Frist's stance, and the Majority Leader issued an unveiled threat to Frist that his statement probably didn't help his presidential ambitions: according to the New York Times, DeLay said that a candidate who supported "creating commodities out of embryos would have a very hard time appealing to the vast majority of Republicans in this country." Also at the conference, Rep. Phil Gingrey, an obstetrician, said of Frist "This is sort of a disappointing end to an otherwise great week. We will fight him on this to the very end."
Since his speech, Frist has come to learn just how true his "Justice Sunday" friends were. Here's just a short sampling of the reaction from the far right (from the NYT, WaPo, and LAT articles on this today):
- "I'm brokenhearted," said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention (that's the nicest one).
- James Dobson said that if Frist thinks supporting Specter-Harking will bolster his presidential ambitions, "he has gravely miscalculated. To push for the expansion of this suspect and unethical science will be rightly seen by America's values voters as the worst kind of betrayal choosing politics over principle."
- "It certainly gives one pause in trusting his commitment to the sanctity of life," said Lanier Swann of Concerned Women for America.
- The Christian Defense Coalition preemptively said Frist would not get its endorsement in 2008.
- William Donohue of the Catholic League called Frist "Dr. Duplicity" and "a hypocrite."
The Weekly Standard editorialized strongly against Frist's statement, calling it "the wrong thing at the wrong time." RedState declared Frist a "traitor," saying there is "only one explanation for today’s Senate floor flip-flop: Bill Frist is a man without principles. He does not deserve polite acceptance of his treachery by any Republican. And any party that truly believes in a culture of life does not tolerate such men in positions of leadership. It should not tolerate Dr. Frist."
Wow. Fair-weather friends indeed. Almost makes me feel sorry for the guy. I guess I can understand the frustrations of the far right: Bill Frist has been rubbing noses with them for so long, his newfound ability to oppose them on something must be very galling.
Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has a long round-up of the blog reaction from yesterday, so check that out in full.
There was, of course, some praise for Frist's speech, notably from Senator Specter on the Senate floor yesterday, and later from former first lady Nancy Reagan. She issued a statement saying "Thank you, Dr. Frist, for standing up for America's patients," and later called his decision "courageous" and "principled." In an interview, Reagan said she hoped Bush would now reconsider his veto threat (White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in response that the president has "made his position pretty clear").
[Update: I forgot to add StemPAC to the effusive praise category. They pulled an ad criticizing Frist, and immediately unveiled a new "Thank you Dr. Frist" campaign. "This is a huge step," their website says, "it took a lot of courage, and [Frist] deserves credit." -- 11:09 a.m.]
Today the major editorial boards weigh in, basically taking the 'cautious optimism' route. The Boston Globe writes that Frist is "showing good sense about stem cell research." The New York Times says Frist "deserves credit" for his position, while noting that it puts him "in some danger of alienating a powerful segment of the Republican political base." The Washington Post notes Frist's "mixed record" on medical issues (ahem, Schiavo), but their editorial uses the same phrase as the Times and says that Frist "deserves credit" for yesterday's speech. "In the face of evidence that the existing rules are impeding valuable research, this is the only sensible conclusion - one that ought to make the president reconsider his veto threat," the Post continues.
Having observed this White House, I find it difficult to believe that Frist's support for Specter-Harkin will persuade the president to sign the bill. But the Majority Leader's renewed embrace of it is a healthy step forward for progress, and hopefully will enable the Senate to engage in a good debate and a final vote soon after their return in September.
posted by JBD @ 10:28 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Neoconservatives are usually pro-abortion rights and socially moderate. They were originally made up by liberals who switched sides notably because they believed in a foregin policy that relied heavily on direct interventionalism such as war. They were new conservatives, thus neoconservative.
The label has now seemed to morph into a meaning that is "hard-right conservative" but that is actually inaccurate.
Iraq War=neocon
Stem cell=theocon
But there is cross-over, most notably from The Weekly Standard which was once a pretty free-thinking neocon mag and is now all but a shill for the White House.
O.k., today's label policing is done.
Thanks Alan, you beat me to that one. Yes, the neocon/theocon distinction is a crucial one, but your point re: the WS is key.
Cynical, as I wrote Thursday night when word first came out that Frist was going to do this, I think it did nothing to help his presidential prospects. He's now ticked off the right-wing base that he's been assiduously courting (Justice Sunday, Schiavo, etc. etc.), so they're dropping him like a hot potato ... and centrists/mainstream conservatives don't trust him, because we don't know where he stands. I supported Frist for Majority Leader because I thought he would be a decent mainline conservative spokesman for the party - his recent actions have proven him as decidedly not that, and this return to his 2001 views on stem cells after flirting for so long with the other side doesn't comfort me (or most other centrists, I'd guess) at all.
So he's alienated basically all sides here, for different reasons - I'm not exactly sure what constituency that leaves him with for '08. He's got much work to do if he wants to appeal to the non-religious-right base of the GOP, and even more if he thinks he can win over the centrist/moderate wing.
Yes, I am at least part neocon and I have no love for the social right.
Neoconservatives, though now placed to the right of many other Republicans, were once considered "center left" voters. They believe in achieving a good society through economic growth, that America has a better system than countries like Sudan and that we should nudge the rest of the world in our direction, and that social mobility, health care for all, etc, are all important, but that the way to achieve those goals is through conservative means, like the market, tax cuts, etc. In fact, Irving Kristol, who spearheaded the movement, was himself a former Trotskyist.
Their unhappy marriage with the religious right was the product of Irving and son Bill, who saw the power of socially conservative voters in rural areas who were equally fed up with the Democrats and rationalized a link between them even though no such link really exists. Most neocons are more like Andrew Sullivan in their social views.
Further, neoconservatism has been corrupted by its sole popular identifier, the Iraq war. While neocons definitely think American power should be used to make the world better, many would resist deposing other governments by force to do this. In fact the original neocon foreign policy was ending the Cold War without a shot being fired. Many neocons would use diplomacy or encourage oppressed peoples to have popular revolutions in order to achieve this goal. And even those that did support Iraq are flabbergasted at Bush's inept handling of the war.
What was interesting yesterday was that John Pod, the resident neocon on Nat'l Review Online, was the only one defending Frist and stem cell research. While neoconservatism certainly has its flaws (e.g., its lack of regard for deficits, its ability to find roles for the state in everything, etc), it is far from the radical agenda that many believe it to be.
Post a Comment
<< Home