(no subject)
Yes! Back on January 30 I said someone needed to remind Rep. Hastert of this, and now George Will tells us someone did. Sen. Tom Coburn did it.
Sen. Coburn stands his ground
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.
I wonder if Will has also provided a key to understanding why Coburn is able to do the right thing. He tells us Coburn an obstetrician. He has salable skills to use to make a living when he is finished in the Senate. He doesn't see his job as perpetuating his stay in that body until he is as ossified as Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd. He says, "If I don't get re-elected? Great. The Republic will live on."
Which makes me wish there was some requirement to get into the Senate similar to what some countries require before they will let you come for a long visit. Before you are allowed in, you need to first prove you have the means to get back home. They don't want you to stay and become a burden on the economy.
That doesn't mean we need a regulatory body to do this for the Senate. But if enough people made it an issue, we could end up seeing candidates use their campaign ads to brag about their work skills to show that they can make a living again once their time is up.
This points out the real key, though. It's not so much that we need to reform Congress as that we need to reform ourselves. I suggest that we need to study the people of Oklahoma to find out what made them so willing to elect someone to serve the national interest even at possible risk to their own local self-interest.
Coburn doesn't do earmarks. Usually the only way to get re-elected is to show how you're going to bring home the bacon. Newspaper editors will even criticize leftwingers who share their ideology, if they don't bring jobs and money to the home district. I've seen it happen. Newspapers editors will endorse candidate X, saying they don't share their ideology, but endorse them because they bring home the bacon. I've seen that happen, too. Republicans will betray their principles by saying they will vote for candidate Z because he helped grandma get her social security.
How did the people of Oklahoma rise above their parochial concerns to elect someone like Tom Coburn. Tom Coburn is fascinating enough, but maybe what we really need to study is the people who elected him.
Sen. Coburn stands his ground
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.
I wonder if Will has also provided a key to understanding why Coburn is able to do the right thing. He tells us Coburn an obstetrician. He has salable skills to use to make a living when he is finished in the Senate. He doesn't see his job as perpetuating his stay in that body until he is as ossified as Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd. He says, "If I don't get re-elected? Great. The Republic will live on."
Which makes me wish there was some requirement to get into the Senate similar to what some countries require before they will let you come for a long visit. Before you are allowed in, you need to first prove you have the means to get back home. They don't want you to stay and become a burden on the economy.
That doesn't mean we need a regulatory body to do this for the Senate. But if enough people made it an issue, we could end up seeing candidates use their campaign ads to brag about their work skills to show that they can make a living again once their time is up.
This points out the real key, though. It's not so much that we need to reform Congress as that we need to reform ourselves. I suggest that we need to study the people of Oklahoma to find out what made them so willing to elect someone to serve the national interest even at possible risk to their own local self-interest.
Coburn doesn't do earmarks. Usually the only way to get re-elected is to show how you're going to bring home the bacon. Newspaper editors will even criticize leftwingers who share their ideology, if they don't bring jobs and money to the home district. I've seen it happen. Newspapers editors will endorse candidate X, saying they don't share their ideology, but endorse them because they bring home the bacon. I've seen that happen, too. Republicans will betray their principles by saying they will vote for candidate Z because he helped grandma get her social security.
How did the people of Oklahoma rise above their parochial concerns to elect someone like Tom Coburn. Tom Coburn is fascinating enough, but maybe what we really need to study is the people who elected him.