Farewell to Senator Bill Frist, R-Frist Family

It is too bad that outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, had decided not to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2OO6.

It would have been entertaining to watch this sorry excuse for a senator try and explain a political journey that deadended when the physician-turned-legislator diagnosed brain-damaged Terry Schiavo via videotape -- producing an assessment of her condition that completely contradicted that of doctors who had actually examined her.

The storm that followed his intervention in the Schiavo case represented the only instance in which most Americans actually noticed that Frist was one of the nation's most powerful political leaders.

After a number of earlier missteps, Frist had tended to avoid the limelight because he never did very well when he was in it --as the Schiavo fiasco so potently illustrated -- and because his primary purpose in the Senate, that of enriching his already wealthy family, was not exactly the sort of thing that politicians brag about.

The wealthy doctor ran for the Senate in 1994 with a simple mission: to prevent health care reforms that might pose a threat to his family's stake in Columbia/HCA, the nation's leading owner of hospitals. There was never going to be anything honorable about his service, but nothing all that embarrassing in a Washington that welcomes self-serving senators with open arms.

For almost a decade, Frist was a comfortably forgettable legislator -- a good hair, good suit, bad politics man of the Senate. Then, former Senate Majority Leader and soon-to-be Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, went all segregationist at States Rights Party presidential candidate Strom Thurmond's going-away party in 2002. The Bush administration needed another prissy southerner to ride herd on the Senate. Frist fit the bill, moved into the nice office and became a comfortably forgettable Senate Majority Leader.

With the Republican-controlled Congress rendered irrelevant by its complete subservience to the Bush administration's political agenda, Frist quietly went back to the business of protecting the family business.

Things got seriously dicey for Frist only in the presidential election year of 2OO4, when the Bush administration found itself short on defenders. Everyone seemed to be turning state's evidence on the president. The ex-Secretary of the Treasury, the former Senior Director for Combating Terrorism on the National Security Council Staff and, now, the former counterterrorism chief in the Bush and Clinton White Houses had all come forward to suggest that Bush and Vice President Cheney really had missed the point of the war of terrorism -- badly. Suddenly, Americans were waking up to the fact that the rest of the world already knew: Iraq was not tied to al-Qaeda, had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no serious threat to the United States or its neighbors at the time that the administration committed this country to the course of quagmire.

The administration had few credible spokespeople left. The White House couldn't send Bush out in his "Mission Accomplished" flight suit. Vice President Dick Cheney was still trying to explain that Halliburton really hadn't set new standards for war profiteering. And then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was having a very hard time explaining that she really, really, really did know what al-Qaeda was before counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke explained it to her.

The administration needed a Spiro Agnew to go out and start calling people names. And Bill Frist became, for a brief but not exactly shining moment in the spring of 2OO4, the White House's defender-in-chief.

The majority leader took to the floor of the Senate to denounce Clarke. "Mr. Clarke makes the outrageous charge that the Bush Administration, in its first seven months in office, failed to adequately address the threat posed by Osama bin Laden," Frist began. "I am troubled by these charges. I am equally troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their former service as a government insider with access to our nation's most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured on September 11, 2001."

That was rich, considering the fact that Frist's Senate service had been about nothing so much as profiting from the suffering of the nation. By blocking needed health care reforms, pushing for tort reforms that would limit malpractice payouts and supporting moves to privatize Medicare, Frist pumped up his family's fortunes at the expense of Americans who lacked access to health care. As Mother Jones explained, "Some companies hire lobbyists to work Congress. Some have their executives lobby directly. But Tennessee's Frist family, the founders of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., the nation's largest hospital conglomerate, has taken it a step further: They sent an heir to the Senate. And there, with disturbingly little controversy, Republican Sen. Bill Frist has co-sponsored bills that may allow his family's company to profit from the ongoing privatization of Medicare."

The Frists fared well during the senator's two terms. An $800-million stake in HCA that his father and brother had at the time Frist was elected in 1994 shot up in value over the decade that followed. Frist's brother, Thomas, rose steadily on the Forbes magazine list of the world's richest people in recent years. In 2003, Forbes estimated that Thomas Frist Jr. was worth $1.5 billion. According to Forbes: "source: health care."

So Bill Frist certainly knew a thing or two about profiteering from human misery.

Of course, when he attacked Clarke, Frist wasn't really concerned about September 11 suffering. He was simply looking for any way to discredit one of the few members of the Bush administration who had tried to take terrorist threats seriously. The problem with Frist's attack was that Clarke had already made a commitment to donate substantial portions of the earnings from his book, "Against All Enemies," to the families of the 9/11 dead and to the widows and orphans of Special Forces troops who died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oops.

Frist didn't just come off as a hypocrite, he looked like a fool. But he looked like an even bigger fool when, in an attempt to claim Clarke had lied to Congress, Frist demanded that transcripts of Clarke' 2002 congressional testimony to be declassified. Clarke's response? "I would welcome it being declassified But not just a little line here and there -- let's declassify all six hours of my testimony." Then, Clarke added, "Let's declassify that memo I sent on January 25. And let's declassify the national security directive that Dr. Rice's committee approved nine months later, on September 4. And let's see if there's any difference between those two, because there isn't. Let's go further. The White House is now selectively finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed are covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press. Let's take all of my e-mails and memos that I sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11, and let's declassify all of it."

Suitably shot down, Frist then took to defending Condoleezza Rice's refusal to testify in public and under oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United State -- only to have the administration decide to have her testify.

It was at that point that Frist began to recognize that he was not exactly ready for the political primetime.

Before the Clarke catastrophe, there had been talk that Frist might replace Dick Cheney if the Bush political team decided to force the vice president off the 2004 ticket -- an admittedly dubious prospect, as Cheney remained firmly in charge both of the policy and political operations at the White House. After Frist's flip out, however, even Republican loyalists started asking whether the senator was good for anything other than taking care of the family's health care investments.

A year later, with his Schiavo diagnosis, whatever credibility his medical degree might have given Frist was gone.

When he decided not to seek reelection in 2OO6, no one was surprised, or particularly upset.

When he decided not to seek the party's presidential nomination in 2OO8, Republicans breathed a sigh of relief.

After 12 years of political malpractice, Dr. Frist is retiring to the obscurity he so richly deserves -- unless, of course, ethics investigators take an interest in how his family's fortunes rose during an otherwise undistinguished Senate tenure.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (59)

1. "It would have been entertaining to watch this sorry excuse for a senator try and explain a political journey that deadended when the physician-turned-legislator diagnosed brain-damaged Terry Schiavo via videotape -- "

   I understand your point...it would be nice if he could take Teddy Kennedy with him...the Senate could use a little "moral" house cleaning...

   Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 7:41pm

2. JOHN MAASCH,

   ROLL CALL OF SHAME:

   A dream list of Senators who TRULY NEED TO GO:

   IDEALLY, ALL ONE HUNDRED CURRENTLY THERE...............

   Seriously speaking, I would settle for this starting roster:

   Bill Frist

   Ted Kennedy

   Robert Byrd

   Trent Lott

   Mitch "KFC" McConnell

   Hillary Clinton

   John Cornyn

   Kay Bailey Bailout Hutchinson

   Joe Lieberman

   George "Maccaca" Allen (defeated in '06 election)

   Robert Burns (defeated in '06 election)

   Rick "Man on Dog Sex" Santorum (defeated in '06 election)

   Barack Obama

   Joe Biden

   Carl Levin

   Jame Inhofe

   JOHN MAASCH

   "It would have been entertaining to watch this sorry excuse for a senator try and explain a political journey that deadended when the physician-turned-legislator diagnosed brain-damaged Terry Schiavo via videotape -- "

   I understand your point...it would be nice if he could take Teddy Kennedy with him...the Senate could use a little "moral" house cleaning...

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH

   Posted by POSEIDON at 11/29/2006 @ 7:56pm

3. Posted by POSEIDON at 11/29/2006 @ 7:56pm

4. How can we leave out

   KERRY REID SCHUMER LEVIN HAGEL .....YOU ARE RIGHT..THE ENTIRE CLUB...OUT...

   Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 8:02pm

5. JohnnyM, I don't claim to keep tally of all the dinosaurs in the senate that need to just become extinct, but Kennedy and Byrd should certainly top the list, with Frist being no great loss, either...What a great case for term limits Kennedy and Byrd make...In Bill Frist's defense,at least his family business isn't politics.........

   Posted by davebarlett at 11/29/2006 @ 8:08pm

6. Dave,

   My problem with all the clowns in Washington is they never seem to have real jobs all the while claiming to look out for "the working man or family"...thats when I grab my wallet and head for the door...look at the Senate members and the House and with a straight face list the guys/gals for the "working family"...remove the salary and perks of those offices, make it a civic duty as in voting or jury duty and watch the place clean up...the money would disappear over night..

   Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 8:13pm

7. After 12 years of political malpractice, Dr. Frist is retiring to the obscurity he so richly deserves -- unless, of course, ethics investigators take an interest in how his family's fortunes rose during an otherwise undistinguished Senate tenure

   of course, the stock market overall has done pretty well, too, in the last 12 years....guess the dems better hold hearings on that, too......

   Posted by davebarlett at 11/29/2006 @ 8:21pm

8. "Frist: good riddance to the scumbag and reprobate, may his great wealth disappear so that he can get old, poor."

   Posted by ZERO 11/29/2006 @ 8:15pm

   Hopefully the Dems have a few more open minded, ah, judges on their committees...and I always thought the left, no matter how deep in the kook section, always prided themselves on their caring for their fellow man...I guess they lied ...

   Posted by john maasch at 11/29/2006 @ 8:26pm

9. POS, what is your problem with Hillary? she has been a fine senator for NY, just been re-elected in a landslide. same with many of the dems on your list. what is their fault? being dems?

   Posted by johannesrolf at 11/29/2006 @ 8:37pm

10. Does Mr Nichols really think investigators are going to go after Frist now that he's totally out of politics?

    Any precedent for that?

    Posted by Mask at 11/29/2006 @ 8:38pm

11. You left off the show stopper. Up until the final hour of his powerful status he kept bringing up Estate Tax repeal, trying to ascertain that all of the benefits received from his policies went to heirs continuously without any taxation.

    Posted by lenhoffcpa at 11/29/2006 @ 9:39pm

12. good riddance! frist was perhaps one of the most idiotic politicians i have ever known.....interview after interview he gave was chock full of ridiculous claims. total, 100% moron!

    Posted by darladoon at 11/29/2006 @ 9:58pm

13. I know this is off the main subject, but I must respond to your comment "Suddenly, Americans were waking up to the fact that the rest of the world already knew: Iraq was not tied to al-Qaeda, had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no serious threat to the United States or its neighbors at the time that the administration committed this country to the course of quagmire" --- When the Bush Administration first talked about attacking Iraq, two words jumped into my mind. "Iraq?" and "Quagmire" - At the time, we were out to get the terrorists that attacked us and the countries that harbored them. What did Iraq have to do with that? The attackers didn't come from there, the country was not known to harbor terrorists, I could see no connection. What I could see was a quagmire - we proved we couldn't win a guerilla war in Vietnam, what made us think we could win one here? --- My question is: Where was everybody then? Why was nobody speaking out? Where were the pundits, the senators and congressmen who could see what I saw, especially those who lived through the Vietnam experience? Where the heck was John McCain? Why did it take until now for this to become known? --- Bob Dylan gave us the answer: "The answer,my friend,is blowin' in the wind."

    Posted by ThinkFirst at 11/29/2006 @ 10:00pm

14. of course, the stock market overall has done pretty well, too, in the last 12 years....guess the dems better hold hearings on that, too......

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/29/2006 @ 8:21pm | ignore this person

    What is the average rate of annual return of the stock market during the Bush presidency?

    (hint, not much)

    Posted by BuckTurgidson at 11/30/2006 @ 12:02am

15. RIP Frist

    Posted by rmjlattanzi at 11/30/2006 @ 08:38am

16. Rio, any thoughts on Frist's performance in the Schiavo affair? or are you just his unpaid, one presumes, flack?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 10:10am

17. While Frist is an especially egregious example of what is wrong with the US Senate, Democrats are no more above the corrupting influence of money than any Republican. It's a millionaires' club; I believe the House is now the same. Does anyone believe that a Senator, House member--regardless of their affiliation and self professed political persuasion--can serve in the government without serving their own economic interests? (The Constituion was nothing more than an effort by certain interests to protect their investments.) These men and women in Washington D.C., the state capitols, city councils are there to serve themselves, and until both the right and what is referred to as the left in this country recognize this and stop allowing themselves to be distracted by irrelevant issues it's never going to change. You must take the money out of politics before the problems this country suffers can be addressed, much less solved.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 10:48am

18. Getting filthy rich off healthcare, while the country needs reform. Sick.

    Diagnosing Shaivo from the Senate floor. Sick and twisted.

    Frist is not fit to clean Byrds shoes. Byrd has read and understands the Owners Manual better than any sitting Senator.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/30/2006 @ 10:54am

19. You must take the money out of politics before the problems this country suffers can be addressed, much less solved.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 10:48am

    MTSP...how?

    (oh, and I bet I can find a way around it)

    Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 11:40am

20. Between Frist's idiotic, shameless, and unethical attempts to intervene in the Schaivo case, and his stammering, strained attempt to avoid admitting that tears and sweat do not cause AIDS (while being interviewed by George Stephanopoulis a while back)...

    I won't miss the scumbag one iota.

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/30/2006 @ 11:43am

21. Study the method other nations such as Germany, Japan use, Mask. I'm not saying it would be easy, perfect, but admitting, recognizing the problem is a positive first step. And until genuine efforts are made nothing is going to change. Both parties are playing the vast majority of the population; they kick around social issues such as abortion, flag burning--all the while filling their pockets and serving the interests of their corporate sponsors like the lackeys they are. Both sides of the aisle are guilty.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 11:57am

22. Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 11:57am

    MTSP...."recognizing the problem" is fine and good, but eventually you have to propose a "solution to the problem"...

    What SPECIFICALLY should we be doing? (that they are doing in "Germany and Japan", if you like)

    Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 12:06pm

23. Frist

    Santorum

    Allen

    (Christmas in November)

    Posted by drhammer at 11/30/2006 @ 12:26pm

24. You set certain time limits for campaigning; campaigns should be funded by the federal government; the venues for campaigning can be regulated; parties would have to pull a set percentage before they would quality for the funding. Right now all we have is "Piece of Dung A" and "Piece of Dung B" to choose from.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 12:31pm

25. JOHN NICHOLS, I had a Historiography Professor tell me once that Objectivity was a goal to be aspired to yet one you could never truly achieve. Yet you never seem to even attempt it. I don't believe I have ever seen you say anything positive about any personage either Republican or conservative. Such subjectivity demands that your written opinions be dismissed out of hand, as truth requires much more balance than you exhibit. While I find similar traits in the Ann Coulters of the world, I would expect more from those who regard themselves as enlightened.

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/30/2006 @ 1:08pm

26. MTS - those are all campaign reforms. I'd include: 1) Prevent former federal employees from becoming lobbyists for a set number of years. 2) Eliminate earmarking. 3) Permit line-item approval of legislation. 4) Prosecute bribers and bribees to the fullest extent of the law. 5) Create a recusal law requiring legislators to recuse themselves from votes wherein a company they own stock in would reap a direct monetary benefit from passage or defeat of the proposed bill. 6) Require elected officials to publish their tax returns. 7) Make legislators' pay a state burden, rather than a federal budget line-item. I can think of numerous others.

    Posted by twocinc at 11/30/2006 @ 1:11pm

27. TWOCINC, if you take the money out of the campaigns--eliminate that prerequisite to getting elected--you will address many of the problems you mention (i.e., a campaign contribution from a corporation is nothing more than a bribe).

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 1:22pm

28. how do you all propose to take the money out of campaigns?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 1:47pm

29. You pass laws, restrictions designed to limit the amount and from where the cash comes from. (Yeah, sure, there will be loop holes that can be closed as they arise.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 1:53pm

30. Take 'em one at a time--

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 12:31am

    "You set certain time limits for campaigning"

    So is a US Senator's solo appearance on "Meet the Press" discussing his various views on the economy, Iraq, taxes BEFORE announcing the official start of their Iowa primary campaign..."campaigning"

    "campaigns should be funded by the federal government"

    Okay....who qualifies for Federal funding and how do you make sure it holds up in the Supreme Court under anti-discrimination laws? See below.

    "the venues for campaigning can be regulated"

    Such as? The Iowa State Fair? Town hall meetings? (See: Right of assembly arguments in same Supreme Court)

    "parties would have to pull a set percentage before they would quality for the funding"

    Suppose the "American Gay Party" wanted funding but only "pulled" 9% and the qualifier was 10%? Couldn't they sue in court that the "randomly selected percentage" was discriminatory against them?

    Remember, this is FEDERAL funding, which by laws established ...actually by LIBERALS...must be distributed without preferance to race, color, gender, sexual orientation or handicap. And as you have "locked out" how those funds can be spent on Media....you're looking at a violation of the First Amendment.

    Take it down to the "Bi-sexual Nazi Vegetarian Nudist Party" and tell me how they DON'T win their case in the USSC?

    . Right now all we have is "Piece of Dung A" and "Piece of Dung B" to choose from.

    Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 2:39pm

31. You pass laws, restrictions designed to limit the amount and from where the cash comes from. (Yeah, sure, there will be loop holes that can be closed as they arise.)

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person

    don't we have such laws on the books now?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 2:41pm

32. Perhaps admendments would be necessary. I'm not a scholar. Go to a library or book store, read up on the German, Japanese systems (the only two I've studied) and you'll discover that there are systems superior to ours and that it is more than possible to adopt the facets that the US could benefit from.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 2:46pm

33. Or maybe you would prefer to simply stick your head back up your ass.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 2:48pm

34. Or maybe you would prefer to simply stick your head back up your ass.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person

    this is uncalled for. I have been nothing less than sincere and civil. if you know what others do why not share it. if not why post?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 3:02pm

35. What makes you so sure that was for you?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 3:03pm

36. proximity? perhaps you could have been more specific as to whom it WAS addressed. I'm still interested in what your research has shown to you. I know about many and varied things, eclectic to a fault, but there are many things I don't know about, and wish I did. what do you think this blog is about if not discussion and sharing of ideas?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 3:08pm

37. "do you think this blog is about if not discussion and sharing of ideas? "

    For some it is a pulpit..(Zero? Will?)....the list is there..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 3:14pm

38. For some it is a pulpit..(Zero? Will?)....the list is there..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/30/2006 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person

    liberty comes to mind.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 3:20pm

39. "Perhaps admendments would be necessary."

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 2:46pm

    Ahhh...then you're looking a road, still difficult, but not impossible as you laid out before. Of course, the LAST attempt at an amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment (also supported by the Left) flopped. And that was only about gender equity, not free speech, control of the Media, control of assembly, and the actual form our democracy would take.

    "read up on the German, Japanese systems"

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 2:46pm

    Parliamentary systems can't be analogous. Plus they had the "advantage" of having their constitutions written by post-WW-2 liberals, not Jefferson, Madison, et al. and that they were started "from scratch" in 1945.

    Here's some research you can do. Find all the solutions that you want to election reform...and then figure out how the John Roberts (even Souter/Kennedy) United States Supreme Court doesn't find them un-Constitutional.

    Or...go the amendment route. ERA started in the 1920s, Martha Griffiths got the House to pass it in 1971 and the Senate in 1972. It missed the deadline of 1979 by THREE states.

    So...at that rate, you could get your amendment introduced this year.....and not see it fail until.....2061!

    Posted by Mask at 11/30/2006 @ 4:28pm

40. Terry Shiavo was incapable of thought. That's what brain dead means.

    My point about campaign reform was simply that there are other ways; different countries do things differently and their governments are much more responsive to the needs of their citizens, rather than the corporations and wealthy individuals that can afford to buy whatever it is they want.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 5:12pm

41. An obvious John Edwards fanclub member who holds lawyers getting rich and buying 5 multi-million dollar houses to be morally superior to doctors like Frisk serving humanity!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/30/2006 @ 5:01pm

    Yes, because a medical doctor teleconferencing in a medical diagnosis and trying to imply that AIDS can be caused by sweat and tears is "serving humanity".

    I prefer Gods opinion on the value of life. I do wonder what Terry S. thought of the whole affair?

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/30/2006 @ 5:05pm

    MTSPENCE05: "Terry Shiavo was incapable of thought. That's what brain dead means."

    Rio being brain-dead is what's preventing him from understanding the definition of the term, Spence.

    Posted by New Dawn at 11/30/2006 @ 5:20pm

42. My point about campaign reform was simply that there are other ways; different countries do things differently and their governments are much more responsive to the needs of their citizens, rather than the corporations and wealthy individuals that can afford to buy whatever it is they want.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person

    but no specifics, nothing. why should anyone care what you say when you say so little. these are merely assertions, until fleshed out with details. they leave no room for discussion, as they are platitudes with which it is easy to agree. kind of like saying the Iraqis should just all get along. nice but useless. and you still have not addressed that nasty comment, why and for whom it was intended.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 5:35pm

43. Ideologues are nothing more than dumb animals; their minds are closed, incapable of reason and they respond only to carrots and sticks.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 5:37pm

44. I prefer Gods opinion on the value of life. I do wonder what Terry S. thought of the whole affair?

    are you in touch with god on this? the woman had no brain function. from all we know she wanted her life to be ended in such a circumstance.

    you don't seem to show the same reverence for life where Iraqis are concerned.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 5:37pm

45. Ideologues are nothing more than dumb animals; their minds are closed, incapable of reason and they respond only to carrots and sticks.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/30/2006 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person

    what a nasty piece of work you appear to be. incidentally animals are seldom dumb, they respond to more than carrot or stick. ever have a dog or a cat?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 5:40pm

46. You want a lengthy disseration, detailed? Then do as I suggest and buy a book (tomorrow I'll provide at least one source you can reference). You're such a smart boy (you tooted your little horn about that yesterday); I'm confident you can figure it out yourself. Now please, quit your whining.

    Oh, that was for you, Johannes.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 5:41pm

47. I would wager you own a great many cats--you know what I mean?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 11/30/2006 @ 5:42pm

48. what a nasty piece of work you are

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 6:08pm

49. I have been here for some time. many people like me, some dislike me. my feeling is that you will only be around for a moment, only to return to the rock out from under which you have crawled, MT

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 6:28pm

50. It is always intresting to read the condemnation of the leftwing on the first practicing phsycian to serve in the Senate. I'm sure your credentials are all equally impressive!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/29/2006 @ 11:23pm | ignore this person

    er, No.

    First elected to the U.S. Senate on November 8, 1994, Frist was the only challenger to defeat a full-term incumbent in 1994 and the first practicing physician elected to the Senate since 1928.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 6:38pm

51. Mask,

    "It missed the deadline of 1979 by THREE states."

    You seem to be on a familar terms with the ammendment process...is it true the IRS and the taxation ammendment never passed the required amount of states in order to become constitutional?

    Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 8:34pm

52. Maasch, it is my understanding that the federal gov't always had the power to raise revenue. in the early days it was through tariffs.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 8:50pm

53. Jr,

    But does that include taxing income or labor, which was a new concept...tariffs and tolls are taxes on products or services...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/30/2006 @ 9:28pm

54. Maasch, the tariff taxed foreign goods, making them more expensive. the north liked the tariff, as it protected american manufacturers, who would have been killed by british goods, produced more efficiently etc. the south hated the tariff, as it protected nothing they made, agricultural goods. I'm just saying that it's well established in the constitution that the congress has the power to tax.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/30/2006 @ 9:33pm

55. The fact that Congress has some power to tax is insufficient; there can still be limitations in what and how they can tax. In fact, there's good constitutional reason to believe that Congress did not originally have the power to tax income, namely the fact that they needed to write an amendment to start with.

    Posted by Thrawn at 11/30/2006 @ 11:51pm

56. "namely the fact that they needed to write an amendment to start with.

    Posted by THRAWN 11/30/2006 @ 11:51pm | ignore this person "

    which loops nicely back to my original question....Is it true that the required number of states was not obtained in order to rarify it as an ammendment?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/01/2006 @ 12:12am

57. rarify..no shit...I meant ratify....sorry.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/01/2006 @ 12:13am

58. Frist reminds me of the old joke about Lyndon B. Johnson: "His father should have done what we should have done in Viet Nam: pull out before it's too late.

    Posted by rfirpo at 12/01/2006 @ 03:44am

59. It has been reported in the news that Frist alleged he did so, but failed to acquire the requisite CME credits to retain his medical licensure in Tennessee.

    Posted by rfirpo at 12/01/2006 @ 03:49am