The Nuts COBURN Represents! Beg Your Pardon?

[FOTD]

This lack of decorum and civility enhances the chance of miltia hate groups in this region succeeding. Tom Coburn is an a$$hat. The rest the country is seeing what C Street and these POS are all about.

OP-ED COLUMNIST http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23rich.html?_r=1
The Guns of August

By FRANK RICH
Published: August 22, 2009


"IT is time to water the tree of liberty" said the sign carried by a gun-toting protester milling outside President Obama's town-hall meeting in New Hampshire two weeks ago. The Thomas Jefferson quote that inspired this message, of course, said nothing about water: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That's the beauty of a gun — you don't have to spell out the "blood."

The protester was a nut. America has never had a shortage of them. But what's Tom Coburn's excuse? Coburn is a Republican senator from Oklahoma, where 168 people were murdered by right-wing psychopaths who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Their leader, Timothy McVeigh, had the Jefferson quote on his T-shirt when he committed this act of mass murder. Yet last Sunday, when asked by David Gregory on "Meet the Press" if he was troubled by current threats of "violence against the government," Coburn blamed not the nuts but the government.

"Well, I'm troubled any time when we stop having confidence in our government," the senator said, "but we've earned it."

Coburn is nothing if not consistent. In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, he was part of a House contingent that helped delay and soften an antiterrorism bill. This cohort even tried to strip out a provision blocking domestic fund-raising by foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas. Why? The far right, in league with the National Rifle Association, was angry at the federal government for aggressively policing America's self-appointed militias. In a 1996 floor speech, Coburn conceded that "terrorism obviously poses a serious threat," but then went on to explain that the nation had worse threats to worry about: "There is a far greater fear that is present in this country, and that is fear of our own government." As his remarks on "Meet the Press" last week demonstrated, the subsequent intervention of 9/11 has not changed his worldview.

I have been writing about the simmering undertone of violence in our politics since October, when Sarah Palin, the vice-presidential candidate of a major political party, said nothing to condemn Obama haters shrieking "Treason!," "Terrorist!" and "Off with his head!" at her rallies. As vacation beckons, I'd like to drop the subject, but the atmosphere keeps getting darker.

Coburn's implicit rationalization for far-right fanatics bearing arms at presidential events — the government makes them do it! — cannot stand. He's not a radio or Fox News bloviator paid a fortune to be outrageous; he's a card-carrying member of the United States Senate. On Monday — the day after he gave a pass to those threatening violence — a dozen provocateurs with guns, at least two of them bearing assault weapons, showed up for Obama's V.F.W. speech in Phoenix. Within hours, another member of Congress — Phil Gingrey of Georgia — was telling Chris Matthews on MSNBC that as long as brandishing guns is legal, he, too, saw no reason to discourage Americans from showing up armed at public meetings.

In April the Department of Homeland Security issued a report, originally commissioned by the Bush administration, on the rising threat of violent right-wing extremism. It was ridiculed by conservatives, including the Republican chairman, Michael Steele, who called it "the height of insult." Since then, a neo-Nazi who subscribed to the anti-Obama "birther" movement has murdered a guard at the Holocaust museum in Washington, and an anti-abortion zealot has gunned down a doctor in a church in Wichita, Kan.

This month the Southern Poverty Law Center, the same organization that warned of the alarming rise in extremist groups before the Oklahoma City bombing, issued its own report. A federal law enforcement agent told the center that he hadn't seen growth this steep among such groups in 10 to 12 years. "All it's lacking is a spark," he said.

This uptick in the radical right predates the health care debate that is supposedly inspiring all the gun waving. Nor can this movement be attributed to a stepped-up attack by Democrats on this crowd's holy Second Amendment. Since taking office, Obama has disappointed gun-control advocates by relegating his campaign pledge to reinstate the ban on assault weapons to the down-low.

No, the biggest contributor to this resurgence of radicalism remains panic in some precincts about a new era of cultural and demographic change. As the sociologist Daniel Bell put it, "What the right as a whole fears is the erosion of its own social position, the collapse of its power, the increasing incomprehensibility of a world — now overwhelmingly technical and complex — that has changed so drastically within a lifetime."

Bell's analysis appeared in his essay "The Dispossessed," published in 1962, between John Kennedy's election and assassination. J.F.K., no more a leftist than Obama, was the first Roman Catholic in the White House and the tribune of a new liberal order. Bell could have also written his diagnosis in 1992, between Bill Clinton's election and the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton, like Kennedy and Obama, brought liberals back into power after a conservative reign and represented a generational turnover that stoked the fears of the dispossessed.

While Bell's essay remains relevant in 2009, he could not have imagined in 1962 that major politicians, from a vice-presidential candidate down, would either enable or endorse a radical and armed fringe. Nor could he have imagined that so many conservative intellectuals would remain silent. William F. Buckley did make an effort to distance National Review from the John Birch Society. The only major conservative writer to repeatedly and forthrightly take on the radical right this year is David Frum. He ended a recent column for The Week, titled "The Reckless Right Courts Violence," with a plea that the president "be met and bested on the field of reason," not with guns.

Those on the right who defend the reckless radicals inevitably argue "The left does it too!" It's certainly true that both the left and the right traffic in bogus, Holocaust-trivializing Hitler analogies, and, yes, the protesters of the antiwar group Code Pink have disrupted Congressional hearings. But this is a false equivalence. Code Pink doesn't show up on Capitol Hill with firearms. And, as the 1960s historian Rick Perlstein pointed out on the Washington Post Web site last week, not a single Democratic politician endorsed the Weathermen in the Vietnam era.

This week the journalist Ronald Kessler's new behind-the-scenes account of presidential security, "In the President's Secret Service," rose to No. 3 on The Times nonfiction best-seller list. No wonder there's a lot of interest in the subject. We have no reason to believe that these hugely dedicated agents will fail us this time, even as threats against Obama, according to Kessler, are up 400 percent from those against his White House predecessor.

But as we learned in Oklahoma City 14 years ago — or at the well-protected Holocaust museum just over two months ago — this kind of irrational radicalism has a myriad of targets. And it is impervious to reason. Much as Coburn fought an antiterrorism bill after the carnage of Oklahoma City, so three men from Bagdad, Ariz., drove 2,500 miles in 1964 to testify against a bill tightening federal controls on firearms after the Kennedy assassination. As the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in his own famous Kennedy-era essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," these Arizona gun enthusiasts were convinced that the American government was being taken over by a "subversive power." Sound familiar?

Even now the radicals are taking a nonviolent toll on the Obama presidency. Obama complains, not without reason, that the news media, led by cable television, exaggerate the ruckus at health care events. But why does he exaggerate the legitimacy and clout of opposition members of Congress who, whether through silence or outright endorsement, are surrendering to the nuts? Even Charles Grassley, the supposedly adult Iowa Republican who is the Senate point man for his party on health care, has now capitulated to the armed fringe by publicly parroting their "pull the plug on grandma" fear-mongering.

For all the talk of Obama's declining poll numbers this summer, he towers over his opponents. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 21 percent approve of how Republicans in Congress are handling health care reform (as opposed to the president's 41 percent). Should Obama fail to deliver serious reform because his administration treats the pharmaceutical and insurance industries as deferentially as it has the banks, that would be shameful. Should he fail because he in any way catered to a decimated opposition party that has sunk and shrunk to its craziest common denominator, that would be ludicrous.

The G.O.P., whose ranks have now dwindled largely to whites in Dixie and the less-populated West, is not even a paper tiger — it's a paper muskrat. James Carville is correct when he says that if Republicans actually carried out their filibuster threats on health care, it would be a political bonanza for the Democrats.

In last year's campaign debates, Obama liked to cite his unlikely Senate friendship with Tom Coburn, of all people, as proof that he could work with his adversaries. If the president insists that enemies like this are his friends — and that the nuts they represent can be placated by reason — he will waste his opportunity to effect real change and have no one to blame but himself. "

Civility? Not amongst Okiehoma Republicans and Dimocrats and hate talk media....

[Ed W]

Wait!  Doesn't Senator Coburn represent ALL the people of Oklahoma, not just those benighted ones who voted for him?  Sooooo, that would mean that the rest of us are....oh....never mind.

[FOTD]

Wait!  Doesn't Senator Coburn represent ALL the people of Oklahoma, not just those benighted ones who voted for him?  Sooooo, that would mean that the rest of us are....oh....never mind.

Exactly my point posting this stuff. No wonder we can't retain our educated children....they're smarter than that by the time they get to a civilized state to learn the difference between people who just hate and people who are real Americans.

[T-Town Now]

Don't forget that Coburn also represents the health care corporations. He wants to make sure they don't suffer due to any health care reform. Thousands of Oklahomans can go without insurance at all--die--or whatever. Coburn doesn't care. He's more interested in protecting the corporations, which don't appear to need any protection in the first place:

Percentage change since 2002 in average premiums paid to large US health-insurance companies: +87%

Percentage change in the profits of the top ten insurance companies: +428%

Chances that an American bankrupted by medical bills has health insurance: 7 in 10

—Harper's Index, September 2009

Thanks a lot, Senator. I don't know WHO you're representing, but it sure isn't ME.

[Conan71]

Really, you think those dirty ol' Republicans like Coburn are alone?  Let's get to the truth of the matter.  The GOP is shilling for healthcare and the insurance industry, right?

Far and away, the highest contributing industry to House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi:

Health Professionals $104,000 $0 $104,000
Building Trade Unions $46,000 $0 $46,000
Industrial Unions $37,500 $0 $37,500
Transportation Unions $34,500 $0 $34,500
Insurance $33,500 $3,500 $30,000

Stenny Hoyer:

Lawyers/Law Firms $79,568 $56,443 $23,125
Electric Utilities $76,000 $1,500 $74,500
Health Professionals $69,210 $2,210 $67,000
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $60,200 $17,700 $42,500
Lobbyists $50,150 $49,150 $1,000

Harry Reid:

Lawyers/Law Firms $1,327,388 $1,194,089 $133,299
Securities & Investment $564,410 $470,410 $94,000
Casinos/Gambling $506,000 $449,000 $57,000
Real Estate $418,671 $381,571 $37,100
Lobbyists $375,998 $373,872 $2,126
Health Professionals $357,350 $217,750 $139,600
Retired $259,790 $259,790 $0
Business Services $259,536 $241,036 $18,500
Insurance $242,800 $95,500 $147,300
Misc Finance $218,740 $215,240 $3,500
Computers/Internet $182,217 $102,100 $80,117
TV/Movies/Music $163,000 $141,500 $21,500
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $150,650 $113,150 $37,500
Misc Business $135,800 $131,300 $4,500
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $135,050 $33,550 $101,500
Commercial Banks $130,550 $77,050 $53,500
Lodging/Tourism $122,750 $90,450 $32,300
Finance/Credit Companies $107,850 $64,050 $43,800
Health Services/HMOs $106,700 $56,650 $50,050
Education $106,400 $101,800 $4,60


Top industries contributing to the Democrat party:

Top Industries Industry Total
Candidate Committees
$9,966,397
Lawyers/Law Firms
$5,623,513
Retired
$4,612,060
Securities & Investment
$4,274,226
TV/Movies/Music
$2,423,365
Real Estate
$2,377,101
Business Services
$1,738,621
Misc Finance
$1,438,385
Computers/Internet
$1,381,227
Lobbyists
$1,308,560
Health Professionals
$1,187,751
Misc Business
$1,000,444
Insurance
$904,253
Non-Profit Institutions
$879,068
Education
$755,377
Printing & Publishing
$707,809
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
$692,602
Hospitals/Nursing Homes
$646,728
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing
$492,644
Civil Servants/Public Officials
$475,462


Top industries contributing to Republicans:

Top Industries Industry Total
Retired
$4,835,766
Securities & Investment
$2,062,346
Real Estate
$1,703,750
Candidate Committees
$1,681,540
Misc Business
$1,506,352
Misc Finance
$1,237,986
Health Professionals
$1,093,474
Lawyers/Law Firms
$978,834
Oil & Gas
$946,409
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
$748,518
Insurance
$730,682
Business Services
$606,846
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing
$566,475
TV/Movies/Music
$465,200
Building Materials & Equipment
$449,100
General Contractors
$427,686
Commercial Banks
$414,541
Electric Utilities
$411,862
Home Builders
$376,011
Food & Beverage
$352,285


Not exactly what you were expecting, eh?  Out of the key players in health care reform, only big pharma wound up contributing more to the Republican Party rather than the Democrat Party.

Source:

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

[waterboy]

Now that explains "blue dogs". Combine them with solid red states like OK and that explains their failure to work earnestly for reform.

But I'm sure they would all say the money has no influence upon them.

[T-Town Now]

Since the Democratic Party is in control now, you would expect them to receive more contributions. I'm not saying that the Democrats are innocent, but let's not forget who created this huge mess in the first place.

They didn't have a (D) after their name.

Republicans idea of health care is a pine box. (Unless it's for them, of course, then they want the best.)

Those statistics on the out of control profits of the health care companies also happened on the Republican watch.

[Conan71]

Since the Democratic Party is in control now, you would expect them to receive more contributions. I'm not saying that the Democrats are innocent, but let's not forget who created this huge mess in the first place.

They didn't have a (D) after their name.

Republicans idea of health care is a pine box. (Unless it's for them, of course, then they want the best.)

Those statistics on the out of control profits of the health care companies also happened on the Republican watch.

Eh, nevermind.  If you are that far in the tank for the DNC, there's no point trying to educate you.

[FOTD]

Since the Democratic Party is in control now, you would expect them to receive more contributions. I'm not saying that the Democrats are innocent, but let's not forget who created this huge mess in the first place.

They didn't have a (D) after their name.

Republicans idea of health care is a pine box. (Unless it's for them, of course, then they want the best.)

Those statistics on the out of control profits of the health care companies also happened on the Republican watch.

Blue Dog Dimocrats are DINO's just as Turncoat RINO's who have changed their "affiliation".

Rachel Maddow: The Growing Threat Posed by Gun-Strapped Right-Wingers at Obama's Townhalls
By Rachel Maddow and Frank Rich, MSNBC. Posted August 24, 2009.

Rachel Maddow and Frank Rich discuss the use of intimidation as a political tactic.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/142150/rachel_maddow:_the_growing_threat_posed_by_gun-strapped_right-wingers_at_obama's_townhalls/?page=3

"RICH:  Well, I think we all have a role to play and I also think that politicians have a role to play.  And it's shocking to me that very few Republican leaders have really condemned this kind of activity.  In fact, they've sort of encouraged it.  Well, it's the Second Amendment right and so on.

Where does that get us?  While I have the same faith you do in the people who protect us, the Holocaust Museum was not some obscure little back water.  It was very understandably a well-protected site in the center of Washington, D.C., and an 80 something-year-old man could go in there and create havoc and commit murder."

[T-Town Now]

Eh, nevermind.  If you are that far in the tank for the DNC, there's no point trying to educate you.

I understand. It's hard to defend the indefensible. 

[FOTD]

Can you believe this idiot represents you?

[Conan71]

Yes, that was most definitely a non-partisan report.  No hyperbole, no mock horror on the part of the *ahem* reporter at all.

Coburn didn't pass this off at face value as did the producer of this piece.  What we don't know is if this is a legit issue or if the woman was placed in the audience to stir up crap (think that hasn't happened at Democrat town halls?), whether or not her husband is eligible for some sort of government coverage (SSD, Medicaid/Soonercare) and they simply have not figured out how to go about getting it, or if the folks at the nursing home attempted to get coverage and he's simply not elligible.

"Contact my office and I will see what I can do to help."  What more was he to say to the woman?  That is a  part of what Senators and Reps do to help their constituents.

He's dead on that the government is not the solution for every issue.  That's not a cold, callous comment.  He went further to say that we all as individuals should be more willing to look out for our neighbors.  What's so wrong with that concept?

Oh, I know that's some sort of C-street mafia code-speak for God in government, I forget.

[FOTD]

Yes, that was most definitely a non-partisan report.  No hyperbole, no mock horror on the part of the *ahem* reporter at all.

Coburn didn't pass this off at face value as did the producer of this piece.  What we don't know is if this is a legit issue or if the woman was placed in the audience to stir up crap (think that hasn't happened at Democrat town halls?), whether or not her husband is eligible for some sort of government coverage (SSD, Medicaid/Soonercare) and they simply have not figured out how to go about getting it, or if the folks at the nursing home attempted to get coverage and he's simply not elligible.

"Contact my office and I will see what I can do to help."  What more was he to say to the woman?  That is a  part of what Senators and Reps do to help their constituents.

He's dead on that the government is not the solution for every issue.  That's not a cold, callous comment.  He went further to say that we all as individuals should be more willing to look out for our neighbors.  What's so wrong with that concept?

Oh, I know that's some sort of C-street mafia code-speak for God in government, I forget.

It's always fun to see you come out for the weird.

Praise this! http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/08/republican-town-haller-im-proud-right.html

SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 2009
Republican town haller: I'm "a proud right wing terrorist."
By GottaLaff


What has happened to normal, everyday people on "the other side of the aisle"? Do they even exist any more?
[Rep. Wally] Herger did not hold back on his opinion of the health care plan and the administration's appointment of "czars" to head various departments and task forces. "Our democracy has never been threatened as much as it is today," Herger said to a loud standing ovation.

The audience also loudly cheered a man who stood up and declared himself to be "a proud right wing terrorist." "Amen, God bless you," Herger responded. "There is a great American."

[FOTD]

Can you believe this idiot represents you?

Demonized! http://newsok.com/u.s.-sen.-tom-coburn-finds-mixed-views-at-forum-on-health-care/article/3395387

Coburn,

"The idea that government is a solution to problems is a very inaccurate statement." How can anybody make such a false claim. Especially after telling this woman to call HIS office for help.

Tom, what about last year at this time? Did government jump in to keep us from the greatest depression?

This guy is a threat to civility and the American way.

KOTV failed to show Coburn saying this bit about government in our lives....lousy report by a weak mainstream Tulsa media station...

[T-Town Now]

He's dead on that the government is not the solution for every issue.  That's not a cold, callous comment.  He went further to say that we all as individuals should be more willing to look out for our neighbors.

And yet, Coburn doesn't seem to realize that HE IS THE GOVERNMENT. And how about Coburn setting the example and being a good neighbor to the people he is supposed to represent here in Oklahoma without health care. What is his solution? I haven't heard anything.

Life expectancy in the U.S. is less than that of other countries where they provide health care to everyone. As a doctor, I expect Coburn to have more compassion, but that apparently is only applied when he sees fit. There are thousands of people he represents who are sick and/or dying right now due to no health care. And he's doing nothing about it. In fact, he's trying to PREVENT them from having it. So much for the hypocritic oath. (Spelling intentional.)