Say “Yes!” to D’r No.

Ryan Avent is “simply livid at the hero treatment the press is giving Tom Coburn, a crazed, ego-maniacal, anti-democratic grandstanding buffoon.”

The man thinks he knows better than the duly elected representatives of a considerable majority of the American population. That’s contemptible. A responsible press might ask him why seems not to believe in the democratic process.

Well, Ryan, certainly, is entitled to his own opinion. How-ever, I must, respectfully, dis-agree with his assessment of the situation at hand. Call me crazy, but I struggle to find fault with one of these duly elected representatives who, when the Washington Post (and every other news outlet) reports “Record $482 Billion ’09 Deficit Forecast”, uses parliamentary procedure to stymie the passage of bills that he, acting as trustee for his constituents and, ultimately, for all Americans(:

Coburn said his colleagues have lost appreciation for the broad national interest and instead hope to pass legislation in their names so they can win reelection. “When you take that oath, it doesn’t say anything about your state,” he said. “The parochialism needs to die.”),*

believes amount to fiscal irresponsibility. Perchance not quite as principled (speaking with regard to the Constitution, that is) as the original D’r No, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), also an obstetrician, Sen. Coburn, none-the-less, rather than acting contemptibly, as Ryan suggests, behaves admirably, showing financial restraint not displayed with much vigor or regularity by his Republican compeers in quite some time.

Maybe, if Ryan is so bitter about “having voters from elsewhere overrule the collective will of [his] city, even on issues concerning Washington alone”, he ought to vacate the Federal city, to do some-thing beyond whining (which, I concede, not knowing him personally, he may well do), or to deal with it. Detecting animosity toward the “fly-over states” is not hard here; I cannot help wondering if, were Coburn a Democrat from New York, California, or some other “progressive” state, M’r Avent would offer his support, or, at least, more politely criticize him. (Again, not knowing Ryan, I may un-fairly depict him here, but I call it as I see it.) Moreover, that some-one who considers him-self to be sufficiently aware and astute to proffer political commentary would frame this story in such a way as to imply that Coburn is some tyrant, trying to usurp the sovereignty of the United States in the name of at least half of the voting public of Oklahoma, forcing their will on the majority (the specific opinions of whom Ryan fails statistically, or at all, here, to describe), rather than a “duly elected representative” doing his job as he sees appropriate, baffles me. Not that any non-sense spouted out from the land of Fenty ever truly surprises me.

Update: Rod comments on the Democrats’ ethics-violation attack on Sen. Coburn. It’s refreshing to see that, when our national legislators receive a fourteen per cent approval rating, they think the best way to improve upon their popularity is to prevent one of their compeers from delivering babies gratis.

*I agree with the point Sen. Coburn makes, but diverge with respect to his blanket rejection of what he dubs parochialism. My readers, doubtless, already, know of my localist persuasions, though.

5 Responses

  1. […] News » News Say “Yes!” to D’r No.2008-07-29 12:01:50Specific voting public of the name of the voting public of the sovereignty of the […]

  2. […] such juvenile high-jinks as these and the Democrats’ attack on Senator Coburn, I find my-self questioning how Congress has managed even to receive an approval rating of fourteen […]

  3. […] hand, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina […]

  4. While I agree with fiscal responsibility that Coburn may or may not be showing here, I know Ryan is a decent guy, and your harsh comments about him are not justified. He continues to be a strong voice in favor of re-building the infrastructure of the United States, including, but not limited to, public transportation. Had we invested more in projects Ryan supports as opposed to mere consumption, we might not be in the same place we find ourselves today.

    To assume that politicians are not ultimately self-serving, regardless of party, is idiotic. While I appreciate your view on the issue, I applaud Mr. Avent for taking a strong stand on the issue, and driving the debate.

  5. Hi, Matt. Welcome, and thanks for the comments.

    I admit that my words about Ryan might have been a bit harsh; I had no intention of making a personal attack on him; I just, as is obvious, took issue with his thoughts on the matter. You’re spot-on in pointing out the places where Ryan thinks correctly, and I’m wholly in agreement with most of what I’ve read by him w/r/t infrastructure and urbanism.

    I’m not sure that I wholly agree with your comment about politicians’ motives. In many cases, sure, it’s true, and it might be in the case at hand, but I like, perhaps naïvely, to believe that, somewhere, a few good statesmen — left, right, or center — actually still give a damn about something other than maintaining power. *fingers crossed*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: