Centerfield

Could it be setting up his post-Senate career? He's a medi-businessman, owning a big chunk of a hospital chain. This will help estabish him as a centrist scientist rather than a theocon ideologue among future clients and stakeholders.

Politically, it doesn't help his 2008 chances, but he was quickly getting lapped by Allen and the conservative insider's choice.

I'm glad you eschewed the argument that Frist was wrong to work the gun bill because other priorities take precedence. I think this is generally one of the weaker arguments to be made, and it's usually a standard issue tool for the partisan opposition.

While it is legitimate to point it out when legislation related to important priorities is not progressing, its also importnat to acknowledge that there may be legitimate reasons for this. Usually, the lack of progress is due to a lack of consensus. And while it's another standard issue interpretation to hold a leader accountable in such instances, I think that's always an oversimplification. A leader can lead when he or she can define an underlying consensus, but, it can be pretty hard to make people change their minds, and it requires good will and a spirit of cooperation on the part of everyone else.

But I don't disagree with the notion that Frist may be supporting the gun bill in part to "pay the bills." Or that he's wangling for post-senatorial position.

bk: Just a word on the gun bill. I agree with John that it was a decent piece of legislation, but I completely disagree with Frist's prioritization of it, and his use of the majority of four days' time last week to debate it.

Senator Frist pulled the DoD approps bill last Tuesday morning because 48 senators blocked his attempt to cut off debate on the defense legislation after only two real days of debate (it was brought up late Thursday night, debated Friday and Monday, then shelved Tuesday; it typically receives a minimum of a week on the floor - last year it got five weeks).

The reason that all those senators voted to keep debate open was so that additional amendments to the bill would be in order ... particularly but not exclusively those from Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner dealing with treatment of detainees held by the United States (outlined here). Those amendments, which are being vigorously opposed by the White House but have strong support in the Senate, would apparently not have been eligible for consideration if cloture had been invoked.

Senator Reid on Tuesday morning asked Frist if he would agree to a unanimous consent request to work on the DoD bill for one more day, and finish work on it Thursday night. Frist refused, and forced the cloture vote. Immediately following that vote, says the Congressional Record, Reid said "Mr. President, then I have a unanimous consent request. That request is that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the gun liability bill be vitiated and that the Senate remain on the Defense bill and complete the Defense bill this week and the Senate begin the very minute it gets back on September 6 with the gun liability bill, on cloture on the motion to proceed."

Complete the Defense bill this week and begin the very minute it gets back on September 6 with the gun liability bill. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. I would find it very difficult to argue that gun-maker liability takes precedence over DoD funding ... particularly since there will have to be a House-Senate conference and preliminary discussions on that could have begun over the August break, had the Senate acted.

I don't get it. You admit that the white house strongly opposes the amendments, but they have strong senate support. Doesn't that mean that there's a potential stalement? Are you suggesting that floor debate is the vehicle that will overcome the stalemate? Or that Frist should help Reid and McCain deliver a bill that the president has probably told him he really doesn't want?

Isn't it the Senate majority leader's prerogative to pull something he doesn't feel is progressing in favor of finishing something else that he thinks has a better chance? It sounds to me like Frist doesn't want to have more floor debate related to detainee treatment, but Reid does. Too bad for Reid that he's the minority leader, not the majority leader. Are you suggesting that in cases where Reid has some GOP support, Frist should do what Reid wants?

I'm not opposed to such a floor debate, mind you. I'm just suggesting that Frist is signaling that he stands with the President, and behaving as though he is in charge. Isn't he supposed to work to get the bill that he and the President want, and to use his power to achieve those ends?

bk: The Senate Majority Leader (and the entire Senate) should serve as more than a water-carrier for the White House. Bush and Cheney oppose the amendments, it's true, and Frist acted on their behalf to pull the bill. There would have been no stalemate: if Frist had allowed the bill to proceed, McCain's amendments would have been voted on (and passed) and the overall bill would have been voted on (and passed) before the recess. Now, we wait until September.

I'm not saying Frist did anything out of his power, I'm just saying it's unfortunate that he considers the agenda of the White House and the NRA more important than completing work on a bill to fund our troops in a time of war. It could have been passed - and now it waits until September. That's unfortunate.

As far as politics goes, I agree that the new position doesn't help Frist with the far right wing of the party, but since Brownback already has that wing sewn up, that's no loss.

I do think Frist is trying to position himself nearer the "vital center", i.e. the Nancy Reagan Republicans, which would help him in the general election; he can always pick a more right wing candidate as his VP.

Brodigan;
If you get what you want from the Senator, do you really care what his/her motivation "really" are? (Did LBJ pass the Voting Rights Act because he REALLY wanted to do something right for the country or did he do it because he felt it would greatly enhance his legacy?) Maybe it all goes back to your first sentence:

Sen. Bill Frist is not one of my favourite U.S. Senators

(Frankly, it doesn't sound like he's anyone's favorite Senator)

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I believe Frist is consciously "running to the center." The usual reason is for elective purposes, but that doesn't mean it's his reason--he said he'd serve only two terms in the Senate, and the second one expires in 2006. He may actually be slipping his party leash for other reasons. He may be doing it to provide cover to other Republicans. He may just have decided that he's now untouchable and can vote his conscience. I don't know--ever since I got these new non-metallic fillings, my psychic reception has declined.

We will see (are seeing!) other politicos on both sides of the aisle running to the center. For the most part, that simply means that election time is coming up and campaign positioning has begun in earnest. But it may also mean that the level of reflexive opposition is declinging in Congress, for whatever reason. That would be a good thing, IMHO.

ASIDE: Actually, from all the research I've done, I believe LBJ did force through the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act because he thought it was the right thing for the nation. And it killed his chances of re-election, so it wasn't without a price to him.

I think Frist, like most politicians, had a host of motivations. I wouldn't discard the possibility that he really believed this legislation was right for the country. On the other hand, as someone pointed out, he wasn't likely to be the annointed candidate of the right anyway, so he might well be better off playing to the center--which was originally his natural constituency anyway. So I don't think he was falling on his sword and committing political suicide. I suspect this was a situation in which principle and political expediency matched up.

I agree with Tully about LBJ. Of course he was interested in his legacy, but the point is he thought his legacy would best be served by promoting civil rights. I doubt that Strom Thurmond would have reacted the same way. There is no doubt in my mind that LBJ believed strongly in civil rights and poverty legislation.

Just to clarify, I agree with y'all about LBJ's motivation for civil rights, just had to think a quick example where the motivation was less important than the action.

Re: "...a host of motivations."

Amen. I'm not trying to promote simplistic thinking, just point out that the run-to-the-middle thing is a time-honored tradition at this point in the election cycle. The personal motivations of the various players will be their own.