POL: Did he really say that?

[Barkeep49]

I cannot believe that this was said, but the source, The Hill is credible.

This from Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn: "It’s OK if the Republicans lose control, for our country in the long run, because one cycle won’t make a difference, two cycles won’t make a difference...Republican politicians are the same as Democratic politicians in that they like to spend money. Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for it, and Republicans allow the next generation to pay for it."

Now I don't know the context, so it could very well have been a "pox on both your houses" sort of thing, but it seems like a very strange thing for a Republican Senator to be saying.

[Huckleberry]

At least he's honest.

[flere-imsaho]

Whomever's running against Coburn in his next election just got an early, really Big Christmas present.

[Crapshoot]

Its Oklahoma. It doesnt matter whose running against Coburn.

[sterlingice]

In the Senate race last year, he was going against a conservative Democrat and got in trouble for talking about "rampant lesbianism" in their public schools, called state legislators a "bunch of crapheads", favored the death penalty for abortion doctors, and (allegedly) committed Medicaid fraud and sterlizied a woman without her consent when he was a practicing doctor. But, yeah, Coburn has an R next to his name and in Oklahoma that makes him pretty safe.

SI

[CamEdwards]

Coburn is a small government Senator. He's on a tear right now to reduce pork, including taking on Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" that's a pork project of a fellow Republican.

And yeah, he's saying a lot of Republicans aren't interested in cutting the budget. I can't say I disagree with him.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In the Senate race last year, he was going against a conservative Democrat and got in trouble for talking about "rampant lesbianism" in their public schools, called state legislators a "bunch of crapheads", favored the death penalty for abortion doctors, and (allegedly) committed Medicaid fraud and sterlizied a woman without her consent when he was a practicing doctor. But, yeah, Coburn has an R next to his name and in Oklahoma that makes him pretty safe.

Ah, forgot it was this guy. Nevermind.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In the Senate race last year, he was going against a conservative Democrat and got in trouble for talking about "rampant lesbianism" in their public schools, called state legislators a "bunch of crapheads", favored the death penalty for abortion doctors, and (allegedly) committed Medicaid fraud and sterlizied a woman without her consent when he was a practicing doctor. But, yeah, Coburn has an R next to his name and in Oklahoma that makes him pretty safe.

SI

I don't claim to know all the details about Coburn, his comments or his past deeds. But to say he's safe just because he has a R next to his name is not very educated on Oklahoma politics. I will grant you that nationally Oklahoma is a very conservative state and tends to send Republicans to the House and Senate. But our Governor, currently very popular, is a Democrat. And there are more registered Democrats in the state than Republicans. Of course, they need to be somewhat more conservative on social issues to succeed in Oklahoma, but being a Republican guarantees Coburn nothing.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And yeah, he's saying a lot of Republicans aren't interested in cutting the budget. I can't say I disagree with him.

Yep.

[Barkeep49]

I agree that Coburn is likely safe in OK. But to me this seems like a huge boon to any Democratic Senate candidate.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I don't claim to know all the details about Coburn, his comments or his past deeds. But to say he's safe just because he has a R next to his name is not very educated on Oklahoma politics. I will grant you that nationally Oklahoma is a very conservative state and tends to send Republicans to the House and Senate. But our Governor, currently very popular, is a Democrat. And there are more registered Democrats in the state than Republicans. Of course, they need to be somewhat more conservative on social issues to succeed in Oklahoma, but being a Republican guarantees Coburn nothing.

Well, from what I understand it's a lot like Kansas. Sure, we have a Democratic governor, too, but that's because the Republicans are so powerful that they've split into two camps- the religious faction and the small government faction and they put up such a crazy candidate last time that the Democrat actually won. Don't get me wrong- there are pockets of blue and Lawrence is one of them, being a college town full of the stereotypical hemp wearing, activist wannabe's- but the state is overwhelmingly red anyways.

Looking at stats, one of your six House members is Democrat, tho your state legislatures are split with the House having a huge Republican majority but the Dems actually holding a slight edge in the Senate. So, no, it doesn't guarantee anything but you can't tell me that it doesn't help quite a bit come election time.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I agree that Coburn is likely safe in OK. But to me this seems like a huge boon to any Democratic Senate candidate.

Except that he just started last year so he's not up for reelection until 2010

SI

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, from what I understand it's a lot like Kansas. Sure, we have a Democratic governor, too, but that's because the Republicans are so powerful that they've split into two camps- the religious faction and the small government faction and they put up such a crazy candidate last time that the Democrat actually won. Don't get me wrong- there are pockets of blue and Lawrence is one of them, being a college town full of the stereotypical hemp wearing, activist wannabe's- but the state is overwhelmingly red anyways.

Looking at stats, one of your six House members is Democrat, tho your state legislatures are split with the House having a huge Republican majority but the Dems actually holding a slight edge in the Senate. So, no, it doesn't guarantee anything but you can't tell me that it doesn't help quite a bit come election time.

SI

Well, the change in the State legislature is very recent. Democrats have dominated there for years. And Henry beat Steve Largent, not exactly a push over candidate. And he will likely beat Istook in the upcoming election as well, another popular Oklahoma Republican.

Again, I'm not saying that we aren't conservative, especially on a national level. But many, many Republicans lose to Democrats in Oklahoma. It is not anywhere near a sure thing, ever.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Except that he just started last year so he's not up for reelection until 2010

SI

No no. I'm talking about 2006 races. Seems like a great quote to use against a Republican incumbant (such as the Ohio race).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Coburn is a small government Senator. He's on a tear right now to reduce pork, including taking on Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" that's a pork project of a fellow Republican.

And yeah, he's saying a lot of Republicans aren't interested in cutting the budget. I can't say I disagree with him.

Heck, I agree with you and him on this. The National Review, of all places, pointed out that Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill in his term. For a Republican, that's shameful.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Well, the change in the State legislature is very recent. Democrats have dominated there for years. And Henry beat Steve Largent, not exactly a push over candidate. And he will likely beat Istook in the upcoming election as well, another popular Oklahoma Republican.

Again, I'm not saying that we aren't conservative, especially on a national level. But many, many Republicans lose to Democrats in Oklahoma. It is not anywhere near a sure thing, ever.

Fair enough - my point (when I started this vein) is that at a national level, Oklahoma is a slam dunk Republican state - much like California is Democratic - despite their elections on a local level.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

No no. I'm talking about 2006 races. Seems like a great quote to use against a Republican incumbant (such as the Ohio race).

Only if you're willing to suggest there's a Democrat out there that's going to run on a position of cutting spending. I don't see that happening. Raising taxes, yes (especially on "the rich"). Perhaps cutting spending on military. But cutting overall spending? Doubt it.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Fair enough - my point (when I started this vein) is that at a national level, Oklahoma is a slam dunk Republican state - much like California is Democratic - despite their elections on a local level.

I would agree with you with the only exception of calling it a slam dunk. That was my only point. Is Oklahoma heavily Republican on a national level? Absolutely. But I don't think that guarantees Coburn anything, depending of course on the demographics of his district which I do not know in detail. Coburn has been scrutinized quite a bit in Oklahoma and criticized as well. A socially conservative Democrat with good credentials would likely have a legitimate chance of beating him.

[Crapshoot]

He's a Senator - his district is the entire state

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

A socially conservative Democrat with good credentials would likely have a legitimate chance of beating him.

So basically he could be beaten by a unicorn?

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

He's a Senator - his district is the entire state

D'oh! Rough day for Cuckoo today...

Edit: I remembered he faced off against Brad Carson, and for some reason I was thinking of that as a House race. But Carson came from the House and was running for Senate. My bad.