Coburn

"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. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."-U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn quoted in Salon.com

Oklahoma’s famous U.S. Senator “Dr. No” is making news again for not playing well with others.

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, a physician and one of Oklahoma’s radical right-wing politicians, was featured in The New York Times over the weekend for blocking unanimous consent votes on dozens of proposed Senate measures.

Under arcane and decisively undemocratic Senate rules, one Senator can place a hold on any given legislation, thus preventing routine unanimous consent votes. Coburn, playing the obstructionist for political expediency back home, has placed holds on 80 pieces of legislation, which he argues cost too much. Democrats, according to the story, say Coburn exaggerates. Many of the bills have broad bi-partisan support and will not break the budget. All of this has earned Coburn the nickname "Dr. No."

Democrats have now rolled together 35 of the Coburn-held measures in a bill known as the Tomnibus Bill and the official title Advancing America’s Priorities Act. They tried to pass the bill Monday, but it failed even though a clear majority of Senators voted for it. This, again, is because of the arcane rules of the Senate. At the very least, the bill called attention to the fact that Coburn’s belief in democracy seems tenuous at best.

According to The Times story, "Democrats say that by thwarting unanimous consent with his aggressive application of holds, Mr. Coburn is practicing a procedural tyranny of one, blocking popular legislation that has bipartisan Senate support, has easily cleared the House and has received committee review."

In The Times story, readers also learn this nifty fact about Coburn: “He was a top anti-abortion crusader who conducted regular workshops for young staff members on sexually transmitted diseases, complete with graphic slideshows.” Coburn also made an outrageous and untrue comment about lesbians in his 2004 campaign. (Check out this article about Coburn and his earlier comments on the gay community.) He won election to the Senate with strong support from conservative energy company executives in the Oklahoma City area.

The Oklahoman, of course, loves Dr. No, but here are two problems with his agenda: (1) Coburn brings a lot of bad publicity to the state. His radical gay-bashing and ultra-conservative agenda makes Oklahoma seem like a place of intolerance and hate. (This has been the emerging Oklahoma story in the last few years, and Coburn validates it.) Virtually every time Coburn is mentioned in the national media we learn how “radical” he is or what a “rogue” he is or how “far right” he is. (2) His actions could potentially hurt Oklahoma, a relatively poor state with low per capita income levels, from receiving federal dollars for projects and programs. His holds might make good political theater here for certain segments of the population, but ultimately they could hurt the state in tangible financial ways. Why doesn’t Coburn work to do something on the federal level to help Oklahoma?

Ultimately, Coburn shows us how the American political system needs massive change. How can one Senator from a poor state with a terrible history of providing health care and decent wages to its citizens hold up legislation that would benefit the entire country? Does the rogue Coburn want California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts to become just like Oklahoma? Is this what the Republican Party wants? Does Coburn really think no one except him should get to vote? Does he even believe in democracy?

(What exactly are the mixed vibes in Oklahoma City these days? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette to find out.)

He is known as an obstructionist, a rascally contrarian, a political stuntman, “Dr. No,” the politician adored by the local corporate media and extreme GOP ideologues, but Oklahoma U.S. Senator Tom Coburn crosses a new line in depravity in his efforts to stop world AIDS relief.

Coburn is leading a group of seven U.S. Senators, all Republicans, who have signed a letter against the reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Under the arcane rules of the Senate, the letter halts action on reauthorization unless it receives 60 “yes” votes, which might yet be accomplished since the reauthorization enjoys wide bipartisan support in Congress.

The plan is designed to treat 3 million HIV-infected people throughout the world.

Coburn and the other Senators says the program costs too much, according to Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, and, of course, they “are concerned that AIDS funds might be used for things such as abortion referrals and needle distribution, though the legislation doesn't mention these possibilities.” The senators also want 55 percent of PEPFAR money’s devoted solely to treatment

But, incredibly, the reauthorization of the program does not even actually appropriate any money to the program.

The other Senators are Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, Jim Bunning, and Richard Burr. They have become known as the Coburn Seven because Coburn has taken the lead role in the obstructionism.

Coburn recently led an effort to stop a bill outlawing genetic discrimination, which later passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, and he once apparently proudly claimed to have placed 87 holds on various Senate business in 2007.

Coburn, a physician, is lauded by GOP ideologues, such as pundit George Will, and editorial writers at The Oklahoman, but some of his antics bring up moral questions. His battle against world AIDS relief and the genetic anti-discrimination legislation puts Coburn’s moral compass in the public limelight. Here are some questions: Is it right for a physician to actively work to deny dying people a chance to live? Does this stance not show Coburn has problems with basic judgment? Why did he choose these particular issues to grandstand? Does Coburn’s ego get in the way of sound decision making?

Coburn’s stunts do nothing to help those state voters who elected him. It may be great on a short-term visceral level to some voters here, for example, that George Will has become a Coburn sycophant, but for every adoring pundit like Will there is another pundit or another organization that vehemently opposes the Senator and considers him a cruel egomaniac. The bad publicity outweighs the good. Coburn’s controversial stances continue to harm the state’s image.

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn continues to create image problems for the state with meaningless political stunts and obstinate support for corporations over people.

Coburn, a Republican, recently put a “hold” on legislation known as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). The bill, authored by U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York), prohibits employers from discriminating against anyone for their genetic predisposition. Recent advances in DNA research have made such a law crucial. This is a pressing contemporary issue.

The bill is nonpartisan and has overwhelming support. It passed the House on a 420-3 vote and passed on two Senate votes by 95-0 and 98-0 margins. The Bush White House has issued statements of support for the bill.

Any Senator can place a hold on legislation to stop it from advancing. Coburn did just that with the GINA bill because, according to a news report, he believes the bill raises the “possibility that an employer who provides health insurance for its workers could be sued both as an insurer and as an employer. That means employers could be hit for much higher damages than insurers.”

Coburn is siding with corporations over people. Thanks to Coburn's "hold," employers might be able to deny employment, promotion and insurance to anyone who might be predisposed to disease or cancer. So if a parent, for example, has ever had cancer or suffered from a chronic illness, her/his children may well be denied health care in the future because of the connection between genetics and heredity.

Coburn’s love of big corporations over ordinary, hard-working Oklahomans, has made its way around the Internet and news outlets, and there is even a petition drive underway to try to force Coburn to remove the hold. Click here and here and here to find out how the rest of the world views Coburn’s actions.

Coburn has a reputation for what can only be described as political stunts or meaningless political gestures. The GOP national base may see him as a jolly ol’ contrarian, “Dr. No,” as George Will describes him, but his actions only further embarrass and isolate the state. (U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe does this almost daily with his bizarre obsession with denying scientific evidence about global warming.) Why is a Senator from Oklahoma doing so much to work against the interests of his own state, which has high rates of uninsured people, historically low per capita income levels and poor health care access? When will the state again elect a Senator who will actually do something positive for its residents?

Meanwhile, Coburn continues to draw support from the corporate media here.