Your Senator hates my Senator

When a Senator informed Tom Coburn his constituents would not allow him to vote affrimative on a measure Coburn put forth, Coburn responded "there is not one mention in the oath [of office] of your state."

At the annual Oklahoma Press Association Conference in OKC yesterday, Senator Coburn said "The country spent 100 million on museums last year, we are in the middle of a major war, we are repairing massive hurricane damage, we have people -- our own citizens -- going without, people who need help, yet last year there were 14,000 earmarks that no one voted on, earmarks that were mostly pork, because if it was really needed it would have been put to a vote, and we'd have passed it. It is shameful. And it's a Republican congress even"



http://coburn.senate.gov/

Meet Tom Coburn, a man who flies in the very face of all you who feel that pandering to "constituents" is necessary to getting elected. A man who stated his intentions in his Senate campaign and each House campaign and is upholding them. A man who served proudly in the House, who upheld his own promise of a self imposed term limit. A man who HAD TO BE TOLD to STOP DELIVERING BABIES FOR FREE FOR POOR PEOPLE because it was a possible violation of some ethics rule that prohibits those serving from continuing their profession (a rule, oddly enough, probably intended for those in energy, investments, law and varoius other professions that are in bed with dirty politicians, and not intended for a obstitricians)

Although no one in the Senate will come right out and say it, this guy is hated. Remember when we were trying to repair a hurrican ravaged coast, meanwhile Alaska is spending millions on a bridge no one will use? And remember Alaskan Senator Stevens banging his fist on national television, saying his state wont be "discriminated" against, saying "over his dead body" and making subtle threats about losing his temper (yes this is the same stevens who attached an ANWAR drilling provision in a military funding bill at christmas that aLmost got the senate called into special sessions)? It was Coburn who sparked that response from Stevens
Don't cry Senator Stevens:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102001931.html

Coburn plans on challenging every earmark. Some people are calling him Senator Trainwreck:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...26/183818.html

An email to other Senators:

To rein in wasteful spending, Dr. Coburn intends to offer an amendment on every pork project stuffed into appropriations bills this year. There were at least 13,998 earmarked projects contained in last year’s appropriations bills. By way of comparison, the Senate had only 366 roll call votes last year. Needless to say we are beefing up our appropriations staff for this challenge and we have requested that we be given at least 72 hours to review appropriations bills before they are considered.

HE has already tried to pass anti-pork legislation, and it failed:

The U.S. Senate voted 86-13 against three anti-pork spending amendments offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK. The Coburn amendments would have repealed $500,000 previously authorized for a sculpture park in Seattle, Washington, $200,000 to build an animal shelter in Westerly, RI, and $200,000 to build a parking lot in Omaha, Nebraska, and re-directed the funds to help pay instead for Hurricane Katrina recovery.

It appears the majority of senators think it is more important to shelter dogs and cats in Rhode Island than people in Louisiana and Mississippi made homeless by Hurricane Katrina.

But now he has a sidekick,

wash times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5353-4436r.htm

novak:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Com..._30_06_RN.html

george will:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021101024.html


Oklahoma is vastly Democrat. Oklahoma Democrats are often referred to as Dixiecrats, more on the conservative side than typical big city left winger psuedo-intellect. We tend to elect Democrats at governors, but Republicans to Congress. Why is that? Well, to quote Brad Carlson, Coburns opponent in 2004, when Coburn asked Carlson in the debate why he supported Kerry for president, Carlson responded:

"because I'm a joe lieberman type of guy, and in your face, get your faith out there, joe lieberman type of guy." That was his answer. Brilliant.

In other words, give us Democrats who arent asshats, and we will vote them in.

Coburns campaign was a crazy one. He didn't try to outspend Carlson. He recieved federal funds. He said some off the wall things about lesbians and abortion and free press, and talked about God a little more than I liked. To most Dixiecrats none of the formentioned things would really matter, but to me it irked me a little, yet I was pulling for the guy all along. Why? Because of his record in the house, because he was a no-BS straight talker, and because he was not beholden to financial gain through personal endeavors. Oh, sure, he was beholden to certain interest groups, but these are groups that promote BELIEFS and PRINCIPALS, not FINANCIAL GAIN. I'll vote for a Republican with ties to anti-abortion and religious groups far before I'll vote for a Democrat with ties to banks, tobacco, oil, land, electric and restraunt interests.

When it comes down to it, its all about the labels, isn't it. Republican vs Democrat, left vs right. Democrats are tax and spend and Republicans are fiscally responsible..........right, like any of those things are valid anymore. Nothing more than sound bytes we've heard all our lives, maybe some crap grand daddy said all the time so now we repeat it. People lose elections because they "don't have experience" yet the people with the experience are the ones we bitch about when they get in office because they are beholden to party lines instead of right and wrong. McCain was called a Democrat on these boards last presidential election, such a terrible, terrible insult, yet now he's everyones favorite republican. oh how things change...oh how moderates are seen as traitors, and then not as traitors when one realizes the moderates stood their ground as the party liners lept of a cliff. Oh how guys like Coburn shake up the tree, and the worms come crawling out of the apples when they fall.

Tom Coburn calls a turd a turd. I'd vote for him for Governor, I'd vote for him as president, and I'm proud he's representing my state instead of the other salad tossers on Capitol Hill. Now, if we could just do something about Inhofe and Boren.........

Hell I like Todd Coburn to. He would make a fine Texas Governor.

You're lucky to have who you have. I have Turbin Durbin and Osama Obama.:wall:

Yup, we need more like him.

WA has Cantwell and Murray. I forget which one made the Osama runs day care centers comment. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

When a Senator informed Tom Coburn... ...Now, if we could just do something about Inhofe and Boren.........

---

Great post MRD. Good for some laughs and also some good insights offered. I had never really heard of Coburn before, but I think I'm going to do a little Googling. From what you have said, it should make for some interesting reading...

:bow:

Coburn's been my hero since I heard about that stupid bridge in Alaska. I wish Cheney would invite Ted Stevens to a nice quail hunting trek.


Edit:

Here's a nice place to start, Goofball.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...pending21.html

Quote:

---

Many Alaskans appear to support forfeiting the bridge money for hurricane relief. "This money, a gift from the people of Alaska, will represent more than just material aid; it will be a symbol for our beleaguered democracy," reads a typical letter to the Anchorage Daily News.

Young, who made sure his state was one of the top recipients in the highway bill, was asked by an Alaska reporter what he made of the public support for redirecting the bridge money.

"They can kiss my ear! That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard," he replied.

---

:furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Hell I like Todd Coburn to. He would make a fine Texas Governor.

---

Pfft We have Kinky!

I like this guy sounds like what a polotican should be.

So if he gathers enough sidekicks will he have enough momentum to create a faction or even a cross party faction?

Imagine a critical mass of anti-pork barrel senators within each party.

Or if they all belong to a party the possible gain in popularity for that one.

Or a third party rising that actually well does things for the people not the special interest groups.

I wonder which SIG will organise da hit. :sweatdrop:

I heard that the Alaskan SOB has some type of family connection to the land on the island where the bridge would be built to.

And OnTopic: Yes. Your Senator is better than mine. I have the dike duo of Boxer and Feinstein. Although I will concede that Feinstein is a very intelligent individual regardless of her politics. I watched her whole tirde on CSPAN when she was questioning the Attornet General. Except for the mdeia soundbite that all the majors bit off, she came across as cordial, respectful, and bright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

IAnd OnTopic: Yes. Your Senator is better than mine. I have the dike duo of Boxer and Feinstein. Although I will concede that Feinstein is a very intelligent individual regardless of her politics. I watched her whole tirde on CSPAN when she was questioning the Attornet General. Except for the mdeia soundbite that all the majors bit off, she came across as cordial, respectful, and bright.

---

Quick, Gawain....somebody, get DA a new batch of the Koolaid! He's not spouting pure Rushisms like a well-watered dittohead robot. If we don't squelch this independent thought it might spread.

Uh-Oh :inquisitive:

AdrianII, Tribe'

Nothing to see here, move along. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Your regularly scheduled DA will return soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Quick, Gawain....somebody, get DA a new batch of the Koolaid! He's not spouting pure Rushisms like a well-watered dittohead robot. If we don't squelch this independent thought it might spread.

Uh-Oh :inquisitive:

AdrianII, Tribe'

Nothing to see here, move along. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Your regularly scheduled DA will return soon.

---

Ha ha.

I have respect for intelligence and polite behavior. Though I don't pretend to have the latter myself. :wink:

She said to Orin Hatch: "I respect you very deeply" and I had the feeling that she meant it. After Attorney General Gonzalez squashed her nonsense about her ludicrous interpretation of federal law, she didn't get snide or rude. She said "well we simply have a difference of opinion". Butu she said it in a way that was genuinely respectful, no pomp, no bloviating. She's still a liberal traitor who deserves to hang from the gallows, but otherwise she's alright. lol

I <3 your senator.

I certainly aren't a fan of mine. Lautenberg (of court-stealing-the-election fame) and Menendez. The new guy. (And a Democrat. All I know is that Corzine likes him, making him probably not cool).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So if he gathers enough sidekicks will he have enough momentum to create a faction or even a cross party faction?

Imagine a critical mass of anti-pork barrel senators within each party.

Or if they all belong to a party the possible gain in popularity for that one.

Or a third party rising that actually well does things for the people not the special interest groups.

I wonder which SIG will organise da hit. :sweatdrop:

---

I doubt it. It's 2 people vs the entire Senate and House. And not even every American will support straight talk and votes on ALL appropriations, because it means someone will be percieved as having to lose. It's not just special interests in the literal sense, either, but also a slew of other things and causes -- many of them legitimate -- who will be spooked into thinking they wont ever get federal money ever again.

Expect scare tactics from supporters of earmarks, who will want the public to think libraries will close, highways will not be repaired, predators will be released due to over crowding.

But these things can and will still be funded, they will just get voted on.
If Hastert wants to say he knows the best place to put a stoplight in his district, not other congressmen, then let him prove it by telling the chamber in a vote debate. Reid seems to think earmarking has always exsisted, and he shows his stupidity on that one. Pelosi is one of the biggest critics of pork spending yet is as guilty as others



The problem, is where do we start? Everyone wants to get a piece of the pie....why should senator 1 take the moral high ground when senator 2 just got a million dollars for a park? It isn't always about garnishing peoples votes either, senator 1 may be genuinely concerned about something being funded, so he slips in an earmark since all the other kids are doing it.

On one hand, it provides funding without partisan bickering. You scratch his back he scratches yours, no matter what the cause

So would actual votes on once-earmarked appropriations make the majority a tyranny. If Senator 4 was holding out on something 30 other Senators wanted him to vote on, could they not just slow the debate or outright vote against his appropriations as revenge?

Well, thats where public input, the press and shame comes in.

Just as we can shame people for voting against anti-pork legislation, people could be shamed for voting against necessary appropriations out of spite to the persons representing the state. Also, consider each state has multiple representatives in washington, so it wont just be one guy vs the entire senate. So...Senator #1 needs funds for better facilties at Rural hospitals, yet Senators 8, 9 and 10 vote against it despite voting for similar or less important measures earleir. Senator 1 points out that Senators 8,9 and 10 are angry because Senator 1 voted against huge appropriations for new zoos in their state. Now senators 8,9 and 10 llok like asses.

Thats what it would sink to. Good or bad? Do we really think that congress will be such sour grapes as to deny each other necessities and the occasional pet project out of spite? Well, nothing would surprise me.

Another interesting thing to consider is the LEGALITIES of voting on appropriations because this in effect makes it more of a law than just a bunch of money to be tossed in the general direction. In other words, if the house and senate approve Senator 3's request for 20 million dollars to put a defillabrator in every state police car, Senator 3 better make damn sure thats where the money goes or someones head is gonna roll.

In closing, a recap:

-will these sort of votes make the majority a tyranny?
-if so, do you think the public might pay attention to politics a little more?

-will these sort of votes require politicians to walk the walk, not just talk the talk? will it make them more accountable, not just for how their state spends its money but also for how they vote for other states monies?
-do you think they actually want accountability?