Ok, here it is

My last post on Frist wasn't particularly clever, but given that I'm not particularly clever person that should be no surprise. Here's my beef with Frist and his Corey Hart moment, every group has that guy that always pushes things too far, but it shouldn't be the Senate Majority Leader. I get that there's a huge battle going on to frame the Iraq issue, and I think "We can't 'cut and run'" is a great slogan, it's a valid point wrapped up in a quick, easy to understand, and loaded slogan. Frist, takes the "If that's working, let's turn up the heat" (if the cookies are cooking at 350 degrees, they will really cook at 600 degrees) approach. So he went with "we won't surrender" pushed it too far, and looks like an idiot (granted, for all I know, in two weeks I'll be hearing all over about how the Dems want to surrender in Iraq). Both parties do this, and have always done it. The difference is that pushing the envelope on this kind of rhetoric used to come from the lower ranks. New guys looking to gain favor or get some name recognition would float these kinds of statements, allowing leadership to stay above the fray and work with the other party when the time comes. However, with Gingrich (at least its the first I remember it) leadership started taking a front and center roll with the attacks. Newt still managed to work with the Dems but the next generations of leaders, as is the norm, pushed harder and lacked his other skills. As the venom went up the ladder it became harder for the two sides to work together. Or as leadership became personally involved, the flex in the system was replaced with personal reputation. In the past, leadership could always blame the young hot-head for a given statement and still work with the other party. That's not the case now. Leadership cannot blame itself, so it gets staked to a position. My problem with Frist is that I expect better from the office of the Senate Majority Leader. My real concern is that he's not the last of his kind.