Macho Nachos

Frist: Time to Step Down

Cross-posted at RedState.org.

An astute observer might have noticed some time ago that we're not the biggest fans of Bill Frist, generally speaking, here at RedState.org. As a majority leader, I have long been of the opinion that he is ineffective, and he has certainly shown a willingness as an individual Senator to stab both social and fiscal conservatives. There are no other constituencies of the Republican party left to fail.

Unless, of course, you want to examine the fact that he is failing his own constituents in Tennessee by leaving the fight for the 118th Air Lift Wing entirely to Democrat governor Phil Bredesen. Oh yeah, he's also mired in personal scandal that is likely to get much worse before it gets better.

The situation is clear. Bill Frist cannot at this current time act effectively as Senate Majority Leader for the Republican Party, and should step aside from his position immediately.

As majority leader, Frist was badly outmaneuvered by Harry Reid in the fight over the judges, and ultimately allowed his leadership to be hijacked by John McCain. Anything involving John McCain taking positions of leadership is generally bad for the GOP, in the minds of most Republicans.

Also as majority leader, Bill Frist voted against the Coburn amendment which attempted to bring fiscal responsibility to the Senate. Given the manner in which spending has increased during his tenure, this was an unsurprising, if disappointing, vote.

As a Senator, Bill Frist publicly betrayed the trust of social conservatives by flip-flopping on embryo destruction at a critical moment in the fight.

Also as a Senator representing the people of Tennessee, Bill Frist's efforts to save the 118th Air lift Wing from the BRAC have been virtually non-existent. Contrary to the example of John Thune, Bill Frist has stood idly by and allowed Democrat Phil Bredesen to play hero to the people of Tennessee yet again. I sometimes believe that he is actively trying to give his seat to Harold Ford, Jr. in 2006.

Also, accusations that Frist has engaged in insider trading and spurious stock sales have grown louder and more serious. The prima facie case against Frist looks very strong indeed. The defense against these accusations will undoubtedly consume untold hours of Frist's time, and will also damage his reputation, and the reputation of the party. During the next few months, he will be unable to devote his time and energy to advancing the GOP agenda.

Of course, given Frist's version of "advancing the GOP agenda," this might actually be cause for celebration.

The case is clear. It is time for Bill Frist to step aside as Senate Majority Leader, and allow someone more effective (Jon Kyl?) to take the helm.

A National Object Lesson in Tennessee

Those of us who primarily vote Republican generally do so for a variety of reasons, each of them particular to our own favorite central Republican value. For those of us who consider ourselves to be "social conservatives," we are animated in large part by anger and frustration at the perceived moral direction of the country. For me, I am especially motivated to see the wholesale slaughter of the unborn in this country end.

What is lamentable and frustrating about the entire situation is that the national Republican party is throwing away our best chance to take out our anger on the left in the only way that matters: through policy. How is this happening? We turn to the state of Tennessee for answers.

The state of Tennessee, as some of you may know, has no state income tax. We are, according to various estimates, one of the lowest taxed states in the union. This is something that virtually no one who lives here is bothered by, and in fact is a significant motivating factor for in-state residence, especially given that many of our metropolitan areas border closely on other states (Memphis borders Arkansas and Mississippi, Nashville has moderate extension into southern Kentucky, and the tri-cities area in Eastern Tennessee has significant spillover into Virginia).

During the early 90s, when the push for nationalized healthcare a la Hillary was in full swing, then-Governor Ned Ray McWherter began to push for a Medicaid expansion program called TennCare, which conformed roughly to Hillary's vision of how healthcare in this country should run. To make a very long story short - the program almost instantly became the kind of fiscal disaster that scared folks away from nationalizing the same system.

Enter "Republican" governor Don Sundquist onto the scene. When TennCare bloated to the point that it was nearing 40% of the total cost of the Tennessee budget, Sundquist responded by pushing for an income tax. The ensuing political battle lasted two years, and provoked the first and only Republican mass protests I've ever seen - every time word leaked out that the legislature was considering an income tax measure, thousands of people would leave their jobs, drive downtown and completely block traffic around the capitol. Sundquist's approval numbers dipped into the 20s during this farce, and when his term expired in 2002, the Republican party in Tennessee was completely unable to launch an effective gubernatorial campaign, and what should have been a safely red gubernatorial seat instead turned into a comparatively easy win for Democrat Phil Bredesen.

Bredesen ran on a "no income tax" platform, and promised further that if the budget got too tight, he'd axe the rolls of TennCare. Surprisingly, when things got tight, Bredesen did just that. Despite hysterical shrieks and shrills from the extreme members of his own party, Bredesen announced in late 2004 that he was dissolving TennCare altogether, in order to save the state's budget without an income tax (subsequently, in a compromise maneuver, some of the sickest and poorest TennCare enrollees have been allowed to stay on the rolls). This simple act of keeping a promise to be responsible with the money of others has made Bredesen a virtually bulletproof candidate for re-election in 2006.

The TennCare debacle will likely have a trickle-down effect to the rest of Tennessee. Bredesen's credibility as a fiscally conservative Democrat, coupled with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Senate Republicans (of which outgoing Bill Frist was the figurehead) will likely have a coattails effect on Senatorial candidate Harold Ford, Jr. Ford Jr. is NOT a moderate, but he plays one well on television. Ford Jr. never met a piece of pork he didn't like, but he's smart, politically, and he knows enough to talk like a pork hawk, and to attach himself as often as possible to Bredesen during this run. Because Ford Jr. is much better at sounding moderate than your average Democrat - Bredesen can afford to maintain this symbiosis without a serious risk to his own reputation. And thus, a Senate seat that should be safely red has now become an absolute toss-up, with a very real risk of Republican loss.

Now here is the point that is applicable to myself, and social conservatives like me. We all have things and causes that are nearest and dearest to our heart. For me, it's the pro-life cause. For others, it might be other things. The political reality that we face in a representative democracy is that, in order to see those causes converted into policy, it is necessary to see like-minded folks elected into public office. Increasingly (and lamentably) for social conservatives, those like-minded folks exclusively wear GOP hats. It's natural for us, then, in seeking the advancement of the GOP, to make the assumption that our causes are the causes that will motivate others to vote for my party. The sad truth, for social conservatives, is that that's not often the case.

The reality is that, however popular certain socially conservative causes might be, there are NO causes more popular with average voters than fiscally conservative ones. People, essentially, want the government to do two things: 1) Keep them safe, and 2) Be responsible with their money. The other causes that motivate those of us standing on the far sides of The Big Ditch™ represent so much background noise for the average American who wants nothing more than to go to work in safety every day, and take home a bigger portion of his paycheck when that working day is done. And, a politician who will actually deliver in those two areas will win the middle in a landslide every time.

That used to be the grand vision of the GOP. It was that vision that carried us to victory in 1994. In 2004, we won on the first half of that vision - and I'm afraid that a certain hubris has gripped us whereby we believe that somehow that will be enough forever and always. However, it's becoming clear that, going forward, emphasizing number one to the detriment of number two just ain't enough. There are still Democrats who exist (although their number is growing smaller) who are smart enough, to simply refuse to discuss social issues in favor of fiscal and security issues. Bredesen is one of these. During a legal flap a few years ago over some Tennessee license plates that said "Choose Life," in which all the state Republicans tried to make hay over the issue (license plates!) - Bredesen's sole comment on the issue was (paraphrased), "politicians who have to run on this kind of non-issue usually do so because they haven't the faintest idea of how to actually govern." Ouch. I wake up in cold sweats at night at the prospect of a Napolitano/Bredesen ticket in '08, because in the current political climate, that ticket wins over 40 states over any ticket involving Sam Brownback.

We get a lot of folks on this site who express frustration and anger at what they perceive as the hijacking of the GOP by the "religious right". A lot of these folks are just mobys, but many of them are sincere in their vision of the party. The problem is that, while their frustration is legitimate, the target of their frustration is grossly misplaced. As a card-carrying member of the "religious right", I'm every bit as frustrated. And it's not because the party has been hijacked by Pat Robertson, because it hasn't.

The problem is that the party has been hijacked by our own elected representatives, many of whom seem to have forgotten that small government is a winning electoral strategy - and more imporatantly, a core Republican principle.

It's time to wake these dolts up, by whatever means necessary. How many of us who are here today were motivated by the force and the excitement of the 1994 movement - who were ecstatic that the promise of fiscal responsibility got a lot of great socially conservative folks elected? How much more infinitely disappointing it is that once those same folks got in power, they deceived themselves into believing that the citizenry didn't really mean they didn't like pork - they meant that they didn't like Democrat pork. The arrogance and buffoonery of this attitude is stunning, and if it is not checked, it will lose us elections - and not just the ones that are toss-ups, but the ones that should be safe, as well. Like the U. S. Senate seat in Tennessee, for instance.

It's time for social conservatives to work the grassroots of fiscal conservatism again. Our causes are our causes, and it's right for us to hold our policians accountable for betraying them. But, in our euphoria over the victory of 2004, if we press our agenda to the exclusion of pressing the agenda that got these politicians in office in the first place, we may find that our victory is very short-lived indeed.

Hounding Don Young

A little while back I wrote a piece in which I called upon my fellow social conservatives to keep the Republican coalition together by holding our representatives just as accountable for wasteful spending as we do for missteps in the social realm. I warned, specifically, that fiscal conservatives like John Cole and Adam C may get the completely correct idea that Republicans have turned their backs on the premise of small government, and bolt the party altogether, or at the very least stay home. This is something that we can ill afford.

This week, it seems that conservative frustration with out-of-control Republican spending is reaching a boiling point. First, there was the closer-than-expected special election in OH-2, which was primarily made close because Republicans largely stayed home due to the well documented fiscal habits of Republican candidate Jean Schmidt.

Now, with the passage of the pork-laden Energy and Transportation bills, many conservatives like Richard Viguere are steaming about what they call the "Washington Wing of the GOP":

If you're a conservative who believes in limited government, lower taxes, and modest spending - you might be experiencing a serious case of buyer's remorse these days when you look at Republicans in Washington.

The highway bill just passed by our Republican Congress (with the President's blessing), at $286.4 BILLION is the most expensive public works legislation ever passed. The National Taxpayers Union put it best when describing one of the more offensive projects in the bill,

"$220 million for a 5.9-mile bridge connecting Gravina Island (population 50) to the Alaskan mainland. The cost of the bridge alone would be enough to buy every island resident his own personal Lear jet."

It has become increasingly clear that Republicans in Washington care little or nothing about grassroots conservatives and the values they hold dear.  After we spent decades defeating the Rockefeller wing of the Party it seems we have a new enemy - the Washington wing of the GOP. They're not just wasting money; they're actually massively growing government in direct contravention of everything Republicans purport to stand for.

Now, I want to speak specifically about this bridge project, because it is without a doubt the handiwork of Don Young (R-AK). Don Young and I go way back, as you'll see later on in this post. And I determined within myself that I would get an answer from the mouth of Congressman Young himself about this ridiculous spending project. The first step I will take is filling out the opinion form on his website. My "opinion" was as follows:

Dear Congressman Young,

I'm not entirely sure if you will remember me - my dad's name is (omitted here), and he used to run your campaign for the interior of the state (I believe the years were 1984, 1986, and possibly even 1982). You may remember that he ran the North Pole Paper and later the Valdez Vanguard - I myself can remember you coming by and having coffee with my dad on a number of occasions. I also remember throwing out buttons from floats in parades during some of these campaigns.

I am writing to you because I am very concerned about some of the wasteful spending that is going on in Washington that is frankly unbecoming of the Republican party, and is turning a lot of fiscal conservatives away from our party. The item that I see that is most continually brought up is the $220 million dollars that was set aside to build a bridge between Gravina Island (which I, who was raised in Alaska, have never heard of) to the mainland.

I can understand wanting to bring money back home to Alaska for work on projects and infrastructure that people here in the "lower 48" can't appreciate, because they don't know what it's like to live in some of these isolated places (like Valdez) where very often you are absolutely cut off from the rest of the world. However, the spending on this project really does strike me as being flat-out ludicrous, and an abuse of taxpayer money.

I'm not sure whether you remember me or my dad, but I remember you clearly, and I cannot express how disappointed I am in this most recent bill. If you would please explain to me and other dissilusioned Republicans like me why this money was necessary or even justified, I would be very grateful.

Respectfully,
(my name omitted here)

Expect more updates to follow. I will not go away.

A History of Recess Appointments

Mark Coffey gives an excellent brief history of recess appointments by past Presidents. I'll tell you what, liberals can have the scalp of Michael Bolton, and I'll go back in time and take the scalps of Warren and Brennan, fair?

However, Mark and Charles Krauthammer are both wrong on Intelligent Design - and not only wrong, willfully blind. In the face of the scientific evidence that does, in fact, lie behind the theory of Intelligent Design, and in the face of the numerous un-scientific principles that underlie macroevolution, Krauthammer screams with the rest of the Flavor-Aid drinkers in the evolution movement - "But that's faith, not science!"

Actually, the whole point of Intelligent Design movement is that it is science, and not just a bunch of Flavor-Aid drinkers from the other side of the aisle blindly accepting their faith despite what reason tells them. But thanks to the ever-inquisitive "scientists" for keeping an open mind on this one. With no offense to Mark, who is a fine blogger and conservative.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no faith that suffers questioning more poorly than faith in macroevolution.

Jumping on the Bandwagon

Let's face it, Republican spending has gotten out of control, and it's time for social conservatives to get just as angry about it as fiscal conservatives. From Adam at RedState:

On Friday, the Senate passed a slew of major bills. Looking specificially at the Transportation Bill and Energy Bill it is clear that despite the well-earned reputation of fiscal conservatism, Republicans seem determined to match or surpass the 1960-1980s Democrats on pork barrel politics. In the Senate, the Transportation Bill and the Energy Bill passed by lopsided votes of 91-4 and 76-24. The only silver lining, if it can be called that, is that Democrats generally joined in on the pork barreling thus giving up the chance of winning over good government, anti-pork moderates that put Republicans in power in the 1994 revolution.

In this sad reflection on why Republicans have turned their backs on their original Contract With America to embrace Democratic-style porking, there are a few Republican Senators who deserve praise for putting their names down as opposed to these antics. I present for your praising:

Voted Against Both Bills:
Gregg (NH)
Kyl (AZ)
McCain (AZ)

Voted Against Transportation Pork Only:
Cornyn (TX)

Voted Against Energy Pork Only:
Martinez (FL)
Sununu (NH)
Chafee (RI)

First of all, congratulations to Arizona for elected two principled fiscal conservatives and New Hampshire for being a close second. Second, Chafee's vote is most likely do to the same reason 17 Dems voted against the bill rather than a love of fiscal conservatism.

John COle puts it a little more succinctly:

Long story short, we massaged/bent/broke the rules to get the vote we wanted on an unrelated bill, and then spent billions of taxpayer money to grease the wheels.

Somehow, the argument that I should vote Republican because ‘the Democrats are worse’ is becoming less palatable by the minute.

It's natural for social conservatives to be more concerned about the portions of their agenda than the fiscal portions of the Republican agenda, but I think it's time we realized that when guys like Adam and John are expressing this kind of frustration, the carefully constructed coalition that has won us multiple consecutive elections is in danger, and there's simply not enough social conservatives to win elections all by ourselves.

If we're prepared to bolt the party if our agenda isn't pursued, we should be surprised that the fiscal conservatives show the same willingness. It's time for us to use our pull within the party to hold the Republicans accountable for things that are important to the fiscal conservatives, too.

Bill Frist, RIP

Today at RedState, speaking for a lot of social conservatives, Augustine went postal on Bill Frist for deciding to switch sides on federally-funded embryonic stem cell research.

Now, it so happens that I agree with Augustine's position on this. But let's suppose for a moment that I didn't. I'd still consider Frist's candidacy dead in the water at this point. The reason, quite simply, is that Frists's decision today showed a real lack of moral character and fiber, qualities that are critically essential for a Commander in Chief.

First, it's important to notice that this is not just a flip-flop. It's a flip-flop-flip. And what becomes increasingly apparent as you work through the Carpetbagger's post (he is for the latest flip) is that Frist's stance on a relatively important issue has basically been subject to tiniest shifts in the political wind of the day. A person of this Clintonian temperment has no business being chief executive, or the head of the Republican party.

In a Republic, we don't elect issues. We elect people. And that is why it is often more important to consider what kind of person you are electing rather than what they say about the issues. Becuase, as we've seen all to many times before, people who say all the right things about our favorite issues have a disturbing tendency to abandon those issues if they are not fortified by the personal resolve to stand true to those issues in the face of intense criticism. And if there's anything the job of the Presidency provides (especially for a Republican), it's intense criticism - criticism at a level that even the Senate Majority Leader cannot fathom.

If Frist is caving now, he would be an absolute disaster during his first "Abu Ghraib" moment. He must be kept away from the White House at all costs, and he should also be stripped of his status as Majority Leader in the Senate (for this, among other things), and replaced by a politician with Character. If any remain.

Who is Tim Pawlenty?

If you follow RedState at all, you know that one of election guru Adam C's favorite Presidential candidates for '08 is MN governor Tim Pawlenty. Unless you live in Minnesota, you're probably like me and have no idea who he is.

Fortunately for us, the Powerline guys DO live in Minnesota - and they've been having a little bit of a disagreement amongst themselves over the kind of job Pawlenty is doing. The latest installment is here if you're interested in hearing some local perspective.