Tom Coburn Is My New Hero [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

View Full Version : Tom Coburn Is My New Hero

FaninAma

2/19/2006, 12:51 PM

Okla-homey

2/19/2006, 01:09 PM

Apparently the good Senator is standing up to budget hogs from both parties. It takes a lot of courage and conviction to do what he is doing and he is bringing some much needed attention to the complete and utter catastrophe these greedy @$$ politicians are wreaking on our children's futures.

Go get 'em Tom.

I agree. I just hope Tom's careful. Someone is liable to come up with photos of him and farm animals or something. Getting between politicians and their pork projects can be hazardous to one's continued political viability.

JohnnyMack

2/19/2006, 02:16 PM

You need to get out more.

Sooner_Bob

2/19/2006, 03:07 PM

This thing oughta pick up any minute now . . .

yermom

2/19/2006, 03:09 PM

is there a link or something?

i have no idea what you are talking about

Okla-homey

2/19/2006, 03:39 PM

is there a link or something?

i have no idea what you are talking about

Background:

Sen Coburn has decided to buck the "self-licking ice cream cone" which is the Congressional pork system. He's currently famous as the guy who recently stood up to the Alaska senatorial bully who threw a temper tantrum and threatened to hold his breath unless his $300M+ bridge (to be built with federal funds to an an Alaskan island upon which only about 60 folks live ) stayed in the appropriations bill.

The Alaska guy is Sen Ted Stevens who took over from the now dead Strom Thurmond as Senate President Pro Temp and has thus for years passed on everyone else's pork and believes that means he should get his -- even though a $300M bridge for 60 people who are quite content with their existing ferry service is a collossal waste of our money. Tom C. said nadda.

IOW, Sen Tom Coburn refuses to play along. All of the other senators laugh and call him names and won't let Tom join in any senator games.

yermom

2/19/2006, 03:42 PM

i remember hearing about that, i thought there was something new

sooneron

2/19/2006, 08:39 PM

I realize that I'm not going to like something about every politician, but isn't this the idiot that spoke out on lesbianism in schools in SE OK?

yeesh

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 08:44 PM

He's a freaking stud!

The Norman Transcript
February 14, 2006

Call it 'pork' or 'earmarks,' Coburn is right to object

It's no secret we didn't support Tom Coburn in his quest for the U.S. Senate two years ago. While we liked a lot of his straight talk, he often made off-the-wall statements that made us question the image Oklahoma might be given, were he to act similarly in Washington. However, Coburn's taken some of that straight talk and made a lot of people uncomfortable.

Coburn's been railing for much of his time in Washington against "earmarks," those designations of funds placed into legislation that serve one particular project or another in a member's district. It's what most of us would call "pork." but as has been noted before, one man's pork is another man's economic development.

This weekend, Sen. Coburn, speaking to the members of the Oklahoma Press Association, once again attacked the earmarking. Coburn, who's been applauded for challenging Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere," told the audience that federal authorizations paid for part or all of 200 museums in the last session. Not that he's against museums, but with spiraling deficits, he asked, is this how best to spend taxpayer dollars?

We agree. But his challenges of the status quo have ruffled more than a few well-coiffed feathers. One Washington senator, quoted in George Will's column last week said, "We are not going to watch the senator pick out one project and make it into a whipping boy. I hope we do not go down the road deciding we know better than home state senators about the merits of the projects they bring to us. ... If we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next." Personally, that sounds like a threat.

At the end of the day, we'll stand by Sen. Coburn's objection to $223 million for Alaska's bridge and $500,000 for that sculpture garden in Washington state. As he said Saturday, some believe no one knows better than your home-state congressman where money is better spent. If that's their money, we'll agree, but as long it it's ours too, we'll call it pork, rah-rah Coburn's doggedness and his straight talk. That may not fit well in Washington, but it's more like Oklahoma. And that's an image we like.

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 08:48 PM

Oklahoma's dangerous senator

By George Will
Washington Post Writers Group

WASHINGTON - The Senate, which fancies itself the world's most exclusive club, has its Sir John Hawkins. He was the 18th century musicologist whom Samuel Johnson called "a very unclubbable man." The very unclubbable senator is Oklahoma's Tom Coburn, 57, a freshman Republican whose motto could be: "Niceness is overrated."
Coburn is the most dangerous creature that can come to the Senate, someone simply uninterested in being popular. When Speaker Dennis Hastert defends earmarks -- spending dictated by individual legislators for specific projects -- by saying that a member of Congress knows best where a stoplight ought to be placed, Coburn, in an act of lese-majeste, responds: Members of Congress are the least qualified to make such judgments.

Recently, when a Republican colleague called to say "his constituency" would not allow him to support Coburn on some measure, Coburn tartly told the senator that "there is not one mention in the oath (of office) of your state." Senators are just not talked to that way under the ponderous rituals of vanity that the Senate pretends are mere politeness.

Coburn is an obstetrician, not a political philosopher, so he may not realize he is acting on the precepts Edmund Burke explained to the Bristol voters who elected him to Parliament in 1774. Burke said: Parliament is not an assemblage of "ambassadors from different and hostile interests"; its business is the national interest, not "local purposes" or "local prejudices."

Coburn came to the nation's attention last October when he proposed taking the $223 million earmarked for Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" and using it to repair a New Orleans bridge destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Because this threat to Alaska also threatened Congress' code of comity -- mutual respect for everyone's parochial interests -- his proposal lost by 67 votes. But rather than do the decent thing -- apologize, tug his forelock and slink away chastened -- he refused to stop talking about it, made it an embarrassment to the Senate and catalyzed revulsion against spending that is both promiscuous and parochial.

Civilization depends on the ability to make even majorities blush, so it is momentous news that shame may be making a comeback, even on Capitol Hill, as a means of social control. Embarrassment is supposed to motivate improved education in grades K-12 under No Child Left Behind: That law provides for identifying failing schools, the presumption being that communities will blush, then reform. And embarrassment is Coburn's planned cure for Congress' earmark culture.

"Quite time-consuming," was Coburn and John McCain's laconic description, in a letter to colleagues, of their threat to bring the Senate to a virtual standstill with challenges to earmarks. In 1999, while in the House, Coburn offered 115 anti-pork amendments to an agriculture bill -- effectively, a filibuster in a chamber that does not allow filibusters. Collaborating with Coburn makes McCain, the Senate's dropout from anger management school, look saccharine.

When Coburn disparaged an earmark for Seattle -- $500,000 for a sculpture garden -- Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., was scandalized: "We are not going to watch the senator pick out one project and make it into a whipping boy." She invoked the code of comity: "I hope we do not go down the road deciding we know better than home state senators about the merits of the projects they bring to us." And she warned of Armageddon: "I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next." But Coburn, who does not do earmarks, thinks Armageddon sounds like fun.

He came to Congress with the 73 House Republican freshmen of 1994. A fervent believer in term limits, he said he would leave after three terms, and did. He says he will serve at most one more Senate term. Of the 535 House and Senate seats, he says, "There's 200,000 -- 300,000 -- people can do these jobs." How many? "Millions," he revises.

"I'm not liked very well," he says serenely, "but I'm like the gopher that's going to keep on digging until someone spears me or traps me. I'm going to keep on digging the tunnel under spending." Because, he says, large deficits reverse the American tradition of making sacrifices for the benefit of rising generations: "I'm an American long before I'm a Republican, and I'm a granddad before I'm either one of them."

"If I don't get re-elected? Great. The Republic will live on." Meanwhile, his mission is the soul of simplicity: "stopping bad things." For five more years -- 11 at the most -- Coburn will be the Senate's stoplight.

George Will: [email protected]

Octavian

2/19/2006, 08:55 PM

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 08:58 PM

yeah, Dr. Tom is a sorta different...

He said his Senate race w/ Brad Carson was one of "good vs. evil"

He protested when NBC aired Schindler's List because of nudity and said that all parents and decent people everywhere should be offended...(Im not decent but if I were that would **** me off.)

there's more but I dont feel like it...
"I'm not liked very well," he says serenely, "but I'm like the gopher that's going to keep on digging until someone spears me or traps me. I'm going to keep on digging the tunnel under spending." Because, he says, large deficits reverse the American tradition of making sacrifices for the benefit of rising generations: "I'm an American long before I'm a Republican, and I'm a granddad before I'm either one of them."

"If I don't get re-elected? Great. The Republic will live on." Meanwhile, his mission is the soul of simplicity: "stopping bad things." For five more years -- 11 at the most -- Coburn will be the Senate's stoplight.

It seems he could care less about being liked.

Octavian

2/19/2006, 09:04 PM

It seems he could care less about being liked.

disregard for public opinion seems to be a growing theme among Republican leaders.

SicEmBaylor

2/19/2006, 09:07 PM

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 09:12 PM

disregard for public opinion seems to be a growing theme among Republican leaders.Yet they keep getting elected. Quite the paradox you've got your mind twisted in.

Octavian

2/19/2006, 09:15 PM

I've known and worked for some fairly decent and very disgusting *** slimeball politicans, but Tom Coburn is truly one of the finest politicans you are going to find in America today.

None of Tom Coburn's actions should surprise anyone since he's behaving EXACTLY as he did when he was a member of the House of Representatives, and he's doing EXACTLY what he has always said he'd do. There's not a finer man to be found in the Senate today.

I'm not surprised at all by what he's doing...he's always opposed run-away govt...hell, he even votes down funding and services Oklahomans.

I know he fits perfectly w/ your classical/fiscal conservative approach...just dont care for his "holier than thou" social outlook...wish he'd check his moral superiority at the door

Octavian

2/19/2006, 09:18 PM

Yet they keep getting elected. Quite the paradox...

dont get me started ;)

Penguin

2/19/2006, 09:25 PM

So, I'm guessing he'll do all he can to keep federal dollars and projects away from Oklahoma?

Yippee!

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 09:29 PM

So, I'm guessing he'll do all he can to keep federal dollars and projects away from Oklahoma?

Yippee!Uhm, no. If there are good reasons he'll vote for it. See I-40 crosstown relocation funds. He will tank any spending that is for a "Bridge to nowhere" or to study mating habits of Brill Shrimp in Salt lake tyoe spending.

It's actually a breath of fresh air!

I'm going to keep on digging the tunnel under spending." Because, he says, large deficits reverse the American tradition of making sacrifices for the benefit of rising generations:

Stitch Face

2/19/2006, 09:35 PM

It seems he could care less about being liked.

So he does care, at least some, about being liked?

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2006, 09:35 PM

Yeah, Coburn did such a great job against the "Bridge to Nowhere" (which was TWO bridges-one of which linked the fastest-growing region in the country to a city of 250k) that Alaska got every single penny of the money.

How amazing.

:rolleyes:

Nice job of research there by the Transcript.

Octavian

2/19/2006, 09:36 PM

I'm going to keep on digging the tunnel under spending." Because, he says, large deficits reverse the American tradition of making sacrifices for the benefit of rising generations

Im lost...you really like a senator that opposes massive deficits but support an administration that believes they dont matter?

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 09:37 PM

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 09:43 PM

Im lost...you really like a senator that opposes massive deficits but support an administration that believes they dont matter?Well, the spending for the war and increased defense for the homeland (in the fall out of 911) were unexpected. The question is should we tighten the belt with domestic spendin or defense in war time. I'll take the former, too bad most don't understand the dynamics.

By the way, did you notice the federal revenue ran a surplus in the last quarter under said administration under said circumstances.

My Daddy always told me, "Son, dogs don't bark at parked cars."

Octavian

2/19/2006, 09:47 PM

The question is should we tighten the belt with domestic spendin or defense in war time. I'll take the former, too bad most don't understand the dynamics.

or maybe not implement massive wealth-friendly tax cuts?

or go back to the Bush41/Clinton "pay-go" approach?....that balanced the budget.

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2006, 09:51 PM

So, has Coburn come out against federal farm subsidies yet?

Oh, right. Those aren't earmarks, so they're not pork.

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 09:59 PM

or maybe not implement massive wealth-friendly tax cuts?Actually we should make them permanent. Lost in all the demagoguery about the war and other BS on many that GWB has presided over the most prolific consecutive quarters of positive economic growth evar! Including Reagan and Clinton.

JFK cut taxes for the rich that would make GWB blush. It resulted in a huge economic recovery and increased revenue.

Reagan the same deal.

GWB too.

or go back to the Bush41/Clinton "pay-go" approach?....that balanced the budget.It's easy to balance the budget without any war. Especially when you raise taxes on everyone, including the middle classes.

OklahomaTuba

2/19/2006, 10:00 PM

Libz seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that being at war might actually have some effect on how much the government spends.

Sooner_Bob

2/19/2006, 10:00 PM

So, has Coburn come out against federal farm subsidies yet?

Oh, right. Those aren't earmarks, so they're not pork.

So are you saying they're pork?

OklahomaTuba

2/19/2006, 10:02 PM

or maybe not implement massive wealth-friendly tax cuts?

LOL

Those "tax cuts for the wealthy" that I got (not being rich even) only helped keep the economy afloat after 9-11

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 10:02 PM

So, has Coburn come out against federal farm subsidies yet?

Oh, right. Those aren't earmarks, so they're not pork.He came out against them as a Congressman, about ten years ago. The reason Carson was financially competative before his defeat. Farmers and Ranchers don't like ole TC.

Good thing Oklahoma's economy is moving to one of a more urban nature.

FaninAma

2/19/2006, 10:02 PM

disregard for public opinion seems to be a growing theme among Republican leaders.

So playing the game of spending like a drunken sailor is what it takes to be looked on favorably in the arena of public opinion?

Octavian, do you have kids?

Frozen Sooner

2/19/2006, 10:07 PM

He came out against them as a Congressman, about ten years ago. The reason Carson was financially competative before his defeat. Farmers and Ranchers don't like ole TC.

Good thing Oklahoma's economy is moving to one of a more urban nature.

No kidding? Well, then, good for him.

Octavian

2/19/2006, 10:11 PM

So playing the game of spending like a drunken sailor is what it takes to be looked on favorably in the arena of public opinion?

have you not heard the annoying "Polls dont matter" responses from GOP leaders whenever they see a poll that doesn't favor them?

Octavian, do you have kids?

its possible... :texan:

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 10:14 PM

have you not heard the annoying "Polls dont matter" responses from GOP leaders whenever they see a poll that doesn't favor them? :texan:Leadership isn't always popular during a given situation. However, when the end results are positive...well then people come around. That's why they call it leadership.

Polls are inherently participated in by followers.

Octavian

2/19/2006, 10:19 PM

Leadership isn't always popular during a given situation. However, when the end results are positive...well then people come around. That's why they call it leadership.

Polls are inherently participated in by followers.

yeah I know...

it was intented to be a funny jab...shoulda added a winkie.

That doesnt mean the point was wrong. GOP leaders will take a favorable poll and declare victory...they'll take an unfavorable poll and belittle public opinion and contrast their righteous leadership approach against Clinton's "finger in the wind" style

FaninAma

2/19/2006, 10:21 PM

have you not heard the annoying "Polls dont matter" responses from GOP leaders whenever they see a poll that doesn't favor them?

its possible... :texan:

Well, how responsible would it be for you to run up a massive credit card bill and leave it to your possible kids to pay off? If you don't think it's responsible at all why is it OK for idiots from both parties to keep doing the very same thing to your possible kids?

And yes, I include Bush among that group although at this point it may be impossible to reign in government spending without collapsing the enormous debt in this country and along with it, our economy.

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 10:22 PM

yeah I know...

it was intented to be a funny jab...shoulda added a winkie.

That doesnt mean the point was wrong. GOP leaders will take a favorable poll and declare victory...they'll take an unfavorable poll and belittle public opinion and contrast their righteous leadership approach against Clinton's "finger in the wind" styleI feel ya. The ultimate poll is the election though.;)

Octavian

2/19/2006, 10:29 PM

how responsible would it be for you to run up a massive credit card bill and leave it to your possible kids to pay off? If you don't think it's responsible at all why is it OK for idiots from both parties to keep doing the very same thing to your possible kids?

wow...you'll never know how many times I made the "think about your future kids and grandkids before you support more tax cuts" argument.

If you feel that strongly about it, then you probably shouldn't vote for Republicans. They don't believe that deficits matter. Seriously.

FaninAma

2/19/2006, 10:51 PM

wow...you'll never know how many times I made the "think about your future kids and grandkids before you support more tax cuts" argument.

If you feel that strongly about it, then you probably shouldn't vote for Republicans. They don't believe that deficits matter. Seriously.

Then can I ask you which party is responsible for creating the entitlement programs which account for most of the astronomically high budget deficits?

Trying to only blame the GOP for the massive deficits is merely burying your head in the sand. Tax revenues have increased every year since the deficits started mounting but spending has gone up faster. I'll buy into your "anti-tax cut" rhetoric when the the Dems admit there is a spending problem(and not just with military spending.)

Big Red Ron

2/19/2006, 10:55 PM

Then can I ask you which party is responsible for creating the entitlement programs which account for most of the astronomically high budget deficits?

BINGO

And which party refuses to help solve the problems, right now!?

SoonerProphet

2/20/2006, 12:12 AM

Ron Paul has been sticking it to the man in the House since 97.

Big Red Ron

2/20/2006, 12:19 AM

Ron Paul has been sticking it to the man in the House since 97.Coburn since 94. He's so hard core that he left after three terms as a huge supporter of term limits for congressman.

Where's Paul from?

SicEmBaylor

2/20/2006, 01:12 AM

Ron Paul has been sticking it to the man in the House since 97.

I am in near total agreement with Ron Paul on domestic issues, and totally opposed to his views on foreign policy.

Also, I have a problem with Ron Paul relating to his address to an organization I belong to. He essentially tried to turn us against the war by scaring us with the idea of being drafted after our college graduation. I respect his principles, however it's wrong to attempt to turn a group of students against the war by scaring them with the idea of having to serve their nation in a time of war. Absolutely abhorent thing to do.

SicEmBaylor

2/20/2006, 01:13 AM

Coburn since 94. He's so hard core that he left after three terms as a huge supporter of term limits for congressman.

Where's Paul from?

Texas
CD-14

Rhino

2/20/2006, 01:27 AM

Uhm, no. If there are good reasons he'll vote for it. See I-40 crosstown relocation funds. Uh, he voted against that in the Oklahoma House.

And the spending cut plan he backed (http://coburn.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=News.PressReleases&id=151) would've cut $130 million in federal funds for OKC’s I-40 rerouting.

Octavian

2/20/2006, 01:52 AM

...it's wrong to attempt to turn a group of students against the war by scaring them...

a conservative who disagrees w/ the politics of fear....I like that.

SicEmBaylor

2/20/2006, 02:02 AM

a conservative who disagrees w/ the politics of fear....I like that.

I don't totally disagree with your holier-than-thou statement either. It makes me extremely uncomfortable, and I don't identifiy well with the evangelical wing.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/20/2006, 02:08 AM

disregard for public opinion seems to be a growing theme among Republican leaders.Do you think pork projects are thought of positively by most voting Americans. I don't believe they are. Coburn is doing what the people elected him for. Most congressmen of both parties don't curtail social spending or pork projects(both for the purpose of buying votes) like they should. Bravo Dr. Coburn!:D

Octavian

2/20/2006, 02:09 AM

Then can I ask you which party is responsible for creating the entitlement programs?

It was a liberal initiative which began w/ FDR and apexed w/ LBJ. It was also supported by many Republican leaders b/c the majority of the electorate wanted it. It fit the times and seemed like a logical way to address socioeconomic problems. But it was pushed to extremes and turned out to be bad.

Trying to only blame the GOP for the massive deficits is merely burying your head in the sand....

Agreed. There are many Dem leaders that support tax cuts now b/c the majority of the electorate want it. It fits the times and seems like a logical way to address socioeconomic problems. But its being pushed to extremes and will turn out to be bad if not moderated.

There's something familiar about all this ;)

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/20/2006, 02:18 AM

Libz seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that being at war might actually have some effect on how much the government spends.Actually they refuse to acknowledge that we're at war. Those silly hooligans that destroyed the World Trade Towers and killed over 3000 Americans were just an abberation, and nothing like that will ever happen again. Social spending comes before national security, doncha know?:P

Big Red Ron

2/20/2006, 06:42 AM

Uh, he voted against that in the Oklahoma House.

And the spending cut plan he backed (http://coburn.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=News.PressReleases&id=151) would've cut $130 million in federal funds for OKC’s I-40 rerouting.There were still funds in there, just not the over bloated plan Istook supported.

OklahomaTuba

2/20/2006, 09:50 AM

Perhaps Bush is MORE conservative than Reagan was on spending?

Well, let’s take a look at the Reagan legacy on federal spending and deficits. In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP. (The economy was also a basket case, which is when you would expect budget deficits to be at their worse.) In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983.

Bush entered office with an economy that was booming: in 2000 government outlays ran at 18.4% of GDP with a budget surplus of 2.4%. But the stock market implosion, 9/11 and the war quickly changed the budget dynamics and the surplus switched to a deficit of 3.5% in 2003 and 3.6% in 2004. In 2005, the budget deficit came in at 2.6%, with government outlays running at 20.1% of GDP.

The point here is that there is lot of hyperventilating about the Bush administration’s spending and “out of control” deficits, much of it by folks who praise Reagan yet trash Bush. But the most recent “out of control” Bush deficit at 2.6% of GDP is far below the eight-year Reagan average of 4.2%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_17_06_JM.html

Hamhock

2/20/2006, 10:04 AM

I am from Muskogee, so i know a little about Dr. Tom. But even if you know nothing about him, all you have to do is pay attention to the Tulsa World's coverage of him to know he's good people.

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 10:57 AM

Then can I ask you which party is responsible for creating the entitlement programs which account for most of the astronomically high budget deficits?

Both.

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 10:58 AM

And which party refuses to help solve the problems

Whichever party isn't in power.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/20/2006, 12:32 PM

Whichever party isn't in power.The biggest problem is the dims don't do anything to attempt to solve problems, such as revamping social security, education, etc. WHEN THEY ARE in power. They certainly show no evidence of seeing a need for a strong natl. defense. Coburn has the right idea. Back off on pork spending, at least.:) Corngrats again, Tom.

FaninAma

2/20/2006, 02:39 PM

Both.

Name the entitlement programs started by Republican administrations other than the stupid Medicare drug benefit that Bush caved on.

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 02:42 PM

Name the entitlement programs started by Republican administrations other than the stupid Medicare drug benefit that Bush caved on.

Who cares who started it? They all let it continue, and politicians in both parties buy votes back home with pork projects. I'm more alarmed every day by the number of people that don't think all politicans will screw us equally if we don't keep our eyes on them.

Big Red Ron

2/20/2006, 02:47 PM

Name the entitlement programs started by Republican administrations other than the stupid Medicare drug benefit that Bush caved on.Not an entitlement program that costs the taxpayers like Medicade/Medicare/S.Sec./fed Welfare, etc... but an entitlement that was started by a Republican Affirmative Action. Nixon.

Octavian

2/20/2006, 02:52 PM

its not an entitlement program...but the EPA was also founded under Nixon.

FaninAma

2/20/2006, 03:20 PM

Who cares who started it? They all let it continue, and politicians in both parties buy votes back home with pork projects. I'm more alarmed every day by the number of people that don't think all politicans will screw us equally if we don't keep our eyes on them.

I don't disagree at all with your point. My contention is that anyone who thinks the Democrats care about a balanced budget anymore the the GOP is being hypocritical.

Money is power and power is money. And this country has a rrived at that critical juncture that de Toqueville warned us about when he opined that a democracy will fail when its constituents discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

SicEmBaylor

2/20/2006, 03:45 PM

Money is power and power is money. And this country has a rrived at that critical juncture that de Toqueville warned us about when he opined that a democracy will fail when its constituents discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

Precisely and that is a result of the incorrect view that Universal Suffrage was suppose to be or is an admirable goal. I totally disagree with that assumption. I'm not talking about taking the vote away from women, but I prefer a time when the right to vote was a little more discriminately dispensed with.

When the right to vote was extended to any bozo capable of taking up oxygen it included a whole new mass of people who previously had no experiance in choosing those candidates most capable of exercising power within the limits set upon them by the Constitution. Without a proper respect or even basic knowledge of the constitutional role of various elected officials, how should we expect them to make a decision that chooses the best candidate to stay within and protect those roles?

That's when they realized they could vote themselves a major chunk of the treasurery in the form of social programs and Federal services totally oblivious to the improper use of power those politicans exercise in order to bring those programs and services back to the people for the purpose of re-election. So if the people electing them don't care what their pork is doing to the Constitution then what hope do we have for the future of the Republic? Not much of one.

I'm totally in favor of restricting the right to vote in some shape, form, or fashion. How exactly I don't know, but I'm tired of this idiotic and stupid mantra that simply voting for the sake of voting is admirable of even desirable. It's dangerous to the future of the Republic.

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 03:54 PM

I don't disagree at all with your point. My contention is that anyone who thinks the Democrats care about a balanced budget anymore the the GOP is being hypocritical.

At least the Democrats are willing to raise taxes to along with their spending binges. When the Republicans lower taxes they're just buying votes. They give lip service to the Laffer Curve, but they don't really care if tax revenues increase or not because defecits don't scare them.

yermom

2/20/2006, 03:56 PM

Precisely and that is a result of the incorrect view that Universal Suffrage was suppose to be or is an admirable goal. I totally disagree with that assumption. I'm not talking about taking the vote away from women, but I prefer a time when the right to vote was a little more discriminately dispensed with.

When the right to vote was extended to any bozo capable of taking up oxygen it included a whole new mass of people who previously had no experiance in choosing those candidates most capable of exercising power within the limits set upon them by the Constitution. Without a proper respect or even basic knowledge of the constitutional role of various elected officials, how should we expect them to make a decision that chooses the best candidate to stay within and protect those roles?

That's when they realized they could vote themselves a major chunk of the treasurery in the form of social programs and Federal services totally oblivious to the improper use of power those politicans exercise in order to bring those programs and services back to the people for the purpose of re-election. So if the people electing them don't care what their pork is doing to the Constitution then what hope do we have for the future of the Republic? Not much of one.

I'm totally in favor of restricting the right to vote in some shape, form, or fashion. How exactly I don't know, but I'm tired of this idiotic and stupid mantra that simply voting for the sake of voting is admirable of even desirable. It's dangerous to the future of the Republic.

why do you hate black people?

Harry Beanbag

2/20/2006, 04:03 PM

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 04:12 PM

And that's okay?

No.

Short of revolution, I fail to see any way to stop what politics has become. And since that's not going to happen I guess we're all screwed.

Now you're coming around.

What we need to do is always vote the incumbent out of office. Always. That way, the only people who will run for office are those who are more interested in serving their constituents than in being a politican.

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 04:13 PM

why do you hate black people?

Why do you assume black people are the incompetent voters he's talking about? :eek:

yermom

2/20/2006, 04:34 PM

Why do you assume black people are the incompetent voters he's talking about? :eek:

that's just where it always goes... since tests are "culturally biased" and asking for photo ID is "racist"

SicEmBaylor

2/20/2006, 04:34 PM

Why do you assume black people are the incompetent voters he's talking about? :eek:

They're not. I hate everyone quite equally. :D

Harry Beanbag

2/20/2006, 04:40 PM

Now you're coming around.

What we need to do is always vote the incumbent out of office. Always. That way, the only people who will run for office are those who are more interested in serving their constituents than in being a politican.

I'm all for that. Actually, I have been doing that on a case by case basis. I did vote for Bush, mainly because Kerry scared me more than Bush scares you and Herr. ;)

Unfortunately our two votes aren't going to do the trick. And term limits are out since Congress has to actually vote for them, which won't happen in one million years.

DeadSolidPerfect

2/20/2006, 04:40 PM

... since tests are "culturally biased" and asking for photo ID is "racist"
That's a joke, right?

DeadSolidPerfect

2/20/2006, 04:42 PM

Unfortunately our two votes aren't going to do the trick. And term limits are out since Congress has to actually vote for them, which won't happen in one million years.
They would have to amend the Constitution.

Octavian

2/20/2006, 04:42 PM

Short of revolution, I fail to see any way to stop what politics has become.

comprehensive campaign finance reform.

yermom

2/20/2006, 04:45 PM

That's a joke, right?

in which way?

i'm being sarcastic, yes

am i joking about the photo ID thing? no

if someone prominent were to suggest what he was saying, i don't have a doubt that Jesse Jackson would be on TV in about 5 minutes

Harry Beanbag

2/20/2006, 04:45 PM

comprehensive campaign finance reform.

I agree with that. There should be a limit on how much can be spent during a campaign. Should be somewhere around $20.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/20/2006, 04:45 PM

comprehensive campaign finance reform.Thought you lib guys were big proponents of the first amendment. What gives?:confused:

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 04:47 PM

I'm all for that. Actually, I have been doing that on a case by case basis. I did vote for Bush, mainly because Kerry scared me more than Bush scares you and Herr. ;)

Kerry scared me more than Bush did. I only voted for him because I knew it wouldn't effect the Oklahoma electoral vote. Kerry lost and I was counted as part of the 49% that was fed up with things, so it was a good night.

I was hoping that the Republicans would have seen this narrowest of victories as a sign that they needed to shape up, but in their minds it was apparently a landslide. :rolleyes:

Harry Beanbag

2/20/2006, 04:51 PM

I was hoping that the Republicans would have seen this narrowest of victories as a sign that they needed to shape up, but in their minds it was apparently a landslide. :rolleyes:

Well, compared to 2000 it was. :)

Harry Beanbag

2/20/2006, 04:52 PM

They would have to amend the Constitution.

Yep. I highly highly doubt term limits would pass in both houses with 2/3 of the vote, so the rest of the amendment process is pretty much moot.

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 04:56 PM

pwned by vBulletin...n/m

Octavian

2/20/2006, 04:56 PM

Thought you lib guys were big proponents of the first amendment. What gives?:confused:

I dont consider that as falling under the 1st.

Since the 60s, pluralized democracy has given way to interest group democracy...thats not necessarily bad but we're in a situation now in which elected leaders from both parties quickly realize (once in office, maybe before then) that they must obey their wealthiest donors.

Often those wealthiest contributors dont give a damn about whats best for the majority of people in their state or country as a whole. The average guy that calls up his senator or congressman's office and voices an opinion is no match for a corporation, interest group, or other entity that shells out thousands of $$.

Problem is, the elected leaders have to implement it....thereby alienating their wealthiest donors before its passed. It'll be a tough goal to achieve.

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 04:56 PM

Thought you lib guys were big proponents of the first amendment. What gives?

Does spending money really count as free speech? Sounds like judicial activism to me. ;)

Octavian

2/20/2006, 04:58 PM

Does spending money really count as free speech? Sounds like judicial activism to me. ;)

score! :D

TUSooner

2/20/2006, 05:00 PM

So he does care, at least some, about being liked?

Thank you.
C'mon folks it's "COULDN'T CARE LESS" Buhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!11

DeadSolidPerfect

2/20/2006, 05:04 PM

am i joking about the photo ID thing? no

So, election integrity is only an issue when you loose.

FaninAma

2/20/2006, 05:07 PM

At least the Democrats are willing to raise taxes to along with their spending binges. When the Republicans lower taxes they're just buying votes. They give lip service to the Laffer Curve, but they don't really care if tax revenues increase or not because defecits don't scare them.

At least the Republicans are willing to slow spending to go along with their tax cuts. And I think its a weak, weak arguement to rale agaisnt tax cuts when tax revenues go up every year. If there were no tax cuts the government would spend even more.

See how this game works? Personally I think when you are running a business and that business is racking up huge deficits you need to cut spending first.

mdklatt

2/20/2006, 05:12 PM

At least the Republicans are willing to slow spending to go along with their tax cuts.

Not lately.

And I think its a weak, weak arguement to rale agaisnt tax cuts when tax revenues go up every year. If there were no tax cuts the government would spend even more.

Bush is cutting taxes and spending more.

Personally I think when you are running a business and that business is racking up huge deficits you need to cut spending first.

Tell Bush this.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/20/2006, 05:14 PM

I dont consider that as falling under the first amendment.:confused: Well, then maybe you should. I understand the SCOTUS has ruled that it is. (McCain/Feingold is in violation of that ruling)

Frozen Sooner

2/20/2006, 05:15 PM

Opinion. SCOTUS never issues rulings. Just opinions.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

2/20/2006, 05:28 PM

Opinion. SCOTUS never issues rulings. Just opinions.Then it is just their OPINION that abortion isn't murder? Sorta seems like a ruling, nowadays.

SicEmBaylor

2/20/2006, 05:31 PM

I dont consider that as falling under the 1st.

Since the 60s, pluralized democracy has given way to interest group democracy...thats not necessarily bad but we're in a situation now in which elected leaders from both parties quickly realize (once in office, maybe before then) that they must obey their wealthiest donors.

Often those wealthiest contributors dont give a damn about whats best for the majority of people in their state or country as a whole. The average guy that calls up his senator or congressman's office and voices an opinion is no match for a corporation, interest group, or other entity that shells out thousands of $$.

Problem is, the elected leaders have to implement it....thereby alienating their wealthiest donors before its passed. It'll be a tough goal to achieve.

Why would anyone call their Senator? This goes along with a lack of understanding of intended constitutional structure. The XVII Amendment has given people the mistkaen impression that their US Senator represents THEIR personal interests. They do not. A United States Senator is suppose to be the representative of his state as a whole to the Federal Union not individuals within the state. A Senator shouldn't even have to bother with constituency services.

The only district office a US Senator should have should be in their state Capitol building where they were chosen by the legislators in that building.

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Octavian

2/20/2006, 05:37 PM

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

elitist. :rolleyes:

;)

soonerscuba

2/20/2006, 07:06 PM

Dr. Tom is crazy as they come, but seems to be doing more good than harm at this point in time.

What I have always found funny about Coburn is that for a man that hates career politicians, he has been a politician for a long *** time.