Bill's Blunder

If one is going to successfully convince enough of the American people to vote him into the presidency, recent history has shown that he must either convince them of his firmness and consistency as pertaining to principles on which most Americans agree, or at least possess the political skills to overcome a lacking in this regard. George Bush’s strength was in the former. Bill Clinton’s was in the latter.

And after last Friday, it appears that Bill Frist’s may be neither. That was the day that the Senior Senator from Tennessee, and the Senate’s Majority Leader gave a speech that was so self-contradictory, many had to wonder why it was given in the first place. In his call for the approval of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, Dr. Frist managed to alienate the base he will need in order to win the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2008 in an attempt to garner the support of a separate constituency, which will never vote for him over the Democrat nominee – whoever it may be – anyway.

The speech, delivered on the floor of the Senate Friday morning, gave the impression of a man who was trying to reconcile what he truly believed – as he made it a point to note that he is “pro-life” – with what he felt he had to say in order keep himself viable as a presidential candidate. But one can’t help but wonder why he felt such a speech had to be given, and such a position had to be taken, in the first place. After all the current President has managed to win election – twice – while his pro-life stance, as regards both abortion and stem-cell research, was well known by all.

One would think that his identity as the Senate’s only physician – making him a member of a profession that is held in far higher esteem than that of most of his colleagues – would place Mr. Frist in a perfect position to appeal to voters as someone who hears a higher calling than mere political expediency. But Friday’s attempt to play both sides of the “pro-life/pro-choice” issue made it far too easy for the casual observer to see nothing but just another politician saying what he felt had to be said in order to garner needed votes, an image that many of the Senator’s supporters – including this one – felt was not worthy of him.

After all, it is unreasonable to believe that the man who had been one of the nation’s foremost heart and lung transplant surgeons was unable to see the contradiction in stating that the same dignity that is afforded sentient beings such as children and adults – which the law does not allow to be killed in the name of medical research – should be afforded to embryos – which the law does allow to be killed in the name of medical research – and with the support of federal tax dollars, if Senator Frist’s logic, as presented in this speech, carries the day.

If this was an attempt at Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” technique, all the good senator managed to do was prove that he can’t do it, at least articulately, nearly as well as the man from Harlem. For when all is said and done, the position that the Senator takes comes down clearly on the side of one faction over another. And maybe it’s because this is an issue that is not easily triangulated. For, in the end, a coherent candidate must take a position either for or against the use of federal tax dollars for embryonic stem-cell research. And indeed, Senator Frist was very clear, unfortunately, on where he has taken his stand. Here’s hoping a change of heart is somewhere down the road.