Pace, Kate — though I am no fan of Frist’s, and think he represents no serious possibility in ‘08, I cannot share your presumption that he has made a terrible mistake by supporting embryonic stem-cell research. This is a far more complicated, far more difficult issue about which to hold absolute moral certainty for voters who know about it — including Republican conservative voters — than is abortion. The promise of stem cell research is that it may provide life, extend life, enhance life, cure the ailing, something that (of course) is not offered by abortion. It will not be so easy to make this a cutting issue against those who support it, and in fact, may prove to be a liability for those who continue to oppose it. The supporters of embryonic research have a more visceral emotional argument.

What I am saying here is analytical. I am not speaking as an advocate of embryonic stem cell research. But it’s important, if you want to consider the political impact, to look at these things with clear eyes.

And one shouldn’t presume that holding a position that might anger some in the Republican base is necessarily disqualifying. Back in 1999, George W. Bush clearly believed he needed a Sister Souljah moment of his own against Republican orthodoxy when he said the Republican Congress should not “balance the budget on the backs of the poor.” This could be Frist’s version of that — though he has handled it ham-handedly and done it poorly, a sign of why he cannot be considered a leading candidate for president.