New at Reason

Radley Balko | November 30, 2006

Katherine Mangu-Ward looks at Sen. Tom Coburn's one-man anti-pork crusade.

Comments

|11.30.06 @ 11:23AM|#

Coburn makes me happy. Nice article, Katherine!

Hey, by the way there's some random code appearing in the article.

|11.30.06 @ 11:39AM|#

"The hope is that even the most hardened earmarker will feel a bit sheepish about approving half a million dollars of federal money for an ovine think tank in Montana, especially after many of them ran for re-election on platforms of fiscal responsibility."

Right.

And Space Aliens will land on Sunday.

|11.30.06 @ 11:43AM|#

Good that he's got something going for him. He's plain socially medieval:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn

Yuck!

|11.30.06 @ 12:14PM|#

It's interteresting that Stevens and Inouye come from our 49th and 50th states, the two geographical outliers, which, coupled with their small size and large military populations, makes them natural pork machines.

Hawaii was made a state in part so that retired naval officers could vote, and Alaska was added to appease southerners who felt that non-whites should be outnumbered in the Senate by at least 49 to 1 instead of 48 to 1. And now we pay the price. Such are the fucking ironies of history. (It is OK to swear, isn't it?)

|11.30.06 @ 12:19PM|#

By "anti-pork crusade" I have to assume you mean his anti-gay policies.

|11.30.06 @ 12:37PM|#

By "anti-pork crusade" I have to assume you mean his anti-gay policies.

I would really like to know what you think anti-gay policies are.

Last I checked the republican controlled congress and senate did not restrict gay marriage...you have to talk to your state on that that one.

|11.30.06 @ 12:46PM|#

Last I checked the republican controlled congress and senate did not restrict gay marriage...you have to talk to your state on that that one.

Not for lack of trying. Remind me again who introduced bills to amend to constitution to ban gay marriage?

Just because the asshats failed doesn't mean that being anti-gay isn't their policy.

|11.30.06 @ 1:41PM|#

Y'know, I really wouldn't have nearly as much issue with abortion regulators or even drug warriors, if they were truly federalist in their approach to governance. I doubt Coburn would qualify, however.

Maybe common common ground could be found among social conservatives who embraced federalism, and libertarians, if such social conservatives exist. Do they?

R C Dean|11.30.06 @ 1:46PM|#

Maybe common common ground could be found among social conservatives who embraced federalism, and libertarians, if such social conservatives exist. Do they?

As we learned during the Schiavo kerfuffle, social conservatives are foul-weather federalists - they believe in it only when they are out of power. There are undoubtedly a few exceptions, but they appear to be too few to bother creating an alliance with.

|11.30.06 @ 1:50PM|#

Will Allen,

They exist. I'm one of them. Sort of. I'm a 'personal' social conservative, but I don't expect anyone else to behave the way I choose to live my life. On the other hand, I'm also a libertarian who's hunkered down in the GOP (painful as it is) and am not a member of the religious right, so maybe that already disqualifies me from your description.

Coalitions can be built. They are often painful, but they can be built.

|11.30.06 @ 1:51PM|#

Coburn has said that homosexuality is the biggest threat to America. Not terrorists, mind you, but homosexuals.

Coburn is quoted in Salon: "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today."

That's right, the biggest threat are the gays. But let's see how rational his BS is:

"Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."

Uh, 'cause gays are so affected by abortion. Tom Coburn hates gays, fabricated a lesbian crisis in Oklahoma, has advocated abstinence as the method to eradicate HIV and discourages condom use even though it helps fight the spread of HIV.

Last I checked..... he he he. I'll keep that in mind next time.

|11.30.06 @ 2:46PM|#

Maybe libertarians could rebrand themselves in a new Federalist Party, and gain some electoral power. Maybe I'm daydreaming to avoid work.

|11.30.06 @ 3:26PM|#

As long as he believes in limited federal power, Oklahoma is the only state that has to worry about his social agenda.

Larry A|11.30.06 @ 5:20PM|#

They exist. I'm one of them. Sort of. I'm a 'personal' social conservative, but I don't expect anyone else to behave the way I choose to live my life.

Then you don't fit the definition of "social conservative."

When you get past the labels, there are two fundamental political philosophies. One side believes that their way of life is best, therefore the state should write laws so you will enjoy the benefit of their wisdom. The other side believes that their way of life is best, but understands that the only way they can protect their right to live the way they want to is to protect your right to live according to your beliefs.

In the US today liberals, Democrats, Republicans, and conservatives all belong in the first camp, with the difference being which values they want to enforce. The second camp consists of libertarians and anarchists.

"Federalism" today means, "If we don't have a majority in Congress, we'll regulate your life with state laws."

|11.30.06 @ 6:15PM|#

We got a bit off track. Kudos to Coburn for his crusade against pork.