First of all, does it really make sense to call those of us who object to Frist’s move today “haters”? How about “Frist-objectors”? “Frist-critics?”

Second, the backs-of-the-poor thing is not analogous. There was no large group of primary voters that was deeply invested in scaling back the earned income credit.

Third, I disagree that “this is a far more complicated, far more difficult issue about which to hold absolute moral certainty for voters who know about it” than abortion–to the extent I understand what you mean. You could just as easily claim that the research is an easier call than abortion, since the personal autonomy and bodily integrity of women are not at issue when it comes to embryonic stem-cell research. The considerations that are said to militate most in favor of abortion are not present.

Fourth, Kate’s being totally clear-eyed–and you’re ignoring her point. She didn’t argue that anti-ESCR voters are going to punish Frist. She argued that conservatives, generally, don’t regard Frist as a conviction politician who can be counted to be with them even when the going gets tough, and that this move would increase their suspicion. I might add that conservatives, generally, should cast a wary eye on politicians who announce that they’re going to break with part of the coalition via leaks to the New York Times.