On MTP, just before dissembling that the money Harry Reid received from Indian tribes had something to do with Jack Abramoff, Bill Frist came out for transparency of relations with lobbyists in Washington D.C.
"MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to corruption. Jack Abramoff has now pleaded guilty to several felonies. He gave you $1,000, and you gave it back. Why?
SEN. FRIST: Because it was Abramoff-tainted money. And it's really--it's really interesting to me--what Abramoff has done--it's under investigation, so I don't want to comment directly on it, but it really does--is symptomatic of, I think, the lack of transparency in Washington right now, the lack of a defined relationship between the lobbyist, which is constitutionally protected, and Washington, D.C. And so we're going to get to the bottom of that. . . ."
Washington D.C., huh? That must include transparency about the role of energy lobbyists in writing the Bush/Cheney energy policy and pharma lobbyists in writing the prescription drug plan, right? Right??? Not to mention, of course, contacts with Abramhoff, as the first comment below elaborates.
Under the feet-throat rubric set out by Fred Branfman yesterday, Frist must be losing power. Russert pressed him on his Terri Shiavo diagnosis, which, as we recall, was
"Persistent vegetative state which is what the court has ruled. I saw that, I question it, and I question it based on the a review of video footage which I spent about an hour or so looking at last night in my office here in the Capitol. And that footage, to me, depicted something very different than persistent vegetative state. "
Today, Frist said
"Now, the video footage that I looked at, it wasn't what you saw on TV, it was court-appointed video by a board certified neurologist who came to the conclusion that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. That's enough of a question to raise it before you condemn an innocent person--whose parents said, "Don't kill her"--to death.
And so what we did in the Senate, in a bipartisan way, is said, "Let's just have one more review." We passed that legislation. It got the review, and ultimately she died, and I accept the outcome. I don't agree with the moral sense of it for me."
Then after some testy back and forth, the exchange concluded with Frist more or less admitting that he made a political mistake, but still denying the obvious.
"MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret going to the floor of the Senate and saying, "I watched the videotape and that's not a persistent vegetative state."
SEN. FRIST: No, I don't. I'm a physician. I was watching a board-certified neurologist...
MR. RUSSERT: Were you wrong?
SEN. FRIST: In terms of what? In terms of di--no. To raise the question in order to pass a law that says, "Let's give it more review"? No.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you wrong in your diagnosis?
SEN. FRIST: I didn't make the diagnosis. I raised the question of whether or not she's in a persistent vegetative state. If I had been there, I would have said, "Let's use technology today, like spectrometry, like PET scans to get the diagnosis right," because the only reason you can remove that tube--the other thing...
MR. RUSSERT: No regrets?
SEN. FRIST: Well, I'll tell you what I learned from it, which is obvious, is that the American people don't want you involved in these decisions. But I will say again as a physician, but as a senator, when you're taking innocent life with parents who want that life preserved, you got to make sure. And therefore stepping and saying, "Let's take one more review." That's what we did."