The L.A. Times And The Frist Problem

I didn't really ever expect to be defending Bill Frist on this blog, but in the interests of good research and fairness, I find I must.

The L.A. Times today has an op-ed which begins:

The best thing a Senate majority leader with presidential aspirations can do is quit. That was Bob Dole's strategy in 1996, when he resigned to run against President Clinton. And it may be part of Bill Frist's decision not to seek reelection in 2006. If so, Frist could hardly make a smarter move...The longer he tries to run the Senate, the more he looks like a bungler whose only principle is personal advancement.

Now whatever I think of Frist or his running of the Senate (I have a low opinion of both, for the record) the imputation that Frist is cutting and running simply to cut his losses and to wage a Presidential campaign is unfair and shows poor research.

I have been sitting on the link to an article in the Weekly Standard for months now, because I knew it would come in useful eventually. It was easily found via a web search. The article is basically a puff piece for Frist and dates from January 2003 but contains one important paragraph:

Bill Frist has term-limited himself and is scheduled to leave the Senate in 2006. It's hard to see him breaking that pledge. It would violate his sense of rectitude, and so damage any dreams he might have of being president someday. The more likely route is that he would leave the Senate in 2006 and begin campaigning for the White House in 2008. Some of his intimates believe he feels himself predestined for the job.

So Frist is simply keeping to a long-held political promise. In this case, good for him and shame on the L.A. Times for poor research.

The Christian Right will, I am sure, take comfort in the fact that Frist seems to keep his word. Maybe, unlike Bush, this is a politician who will stay bought.