Coburn Not Mulling Prez Run
With all of the candidates running for president, why not an Oklahoman?
Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, a Republican, flirted (very briefly) with the idea but decided against it and is now campaigning occasionally for Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.
Now comes a rumor passed on by the conservative American Spectator magazine, and repeated by a blog connected with the Libertarian Reason magazine, that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, is “mulling” a run for the White House.
Coburn, elected to the Senate in 2004 and a U.S. House member from 1995 to 2001, thinks he could be the true Reagan conservative in the race, according to the magazine item.
Which is why Keating also pondered the race. And apparently why former Sen. Fred Thompson is considering the race. And it may be why all of the Republicans are in the race.
John Hart, one of Coburn’s top aides, responded to The Oklahoman with a brief statement:
“Dr. Coburn has never ‘mulled’ running for president and has no intention of running.”
The next Oklahoma rumor will likely focus on OU President David Boren, a former U.S. senator, whose name always seems to come up as either a potential presidential contender or running mate.
A conservative, but a Democrat, Boren would likely not use the Reagan rationale. At least for the primaries.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Coburn versus (A Different) Carson
Another week, another Oklahoma senator in the spotlight for alleged wayward views on heroes of the environmental movement.
Usually it’s Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, whose skepticism about man-made global warming have made him the anti-Gore.
Now, however, it’s Sen. Tom Coburn. The Muskogee Republican is taking on Rachel Carson, the late scientist and author who is widely credited with inspiring the modern environmental movement with her book “Silent Spring.”
Carson’s book, released in 1962, warned of the dangers of widespread and indiscriminate use of pesticides, including DDT, a chemical that was ultimately banned in the United States ten years after the book came out.
It has been 100 years this month since Carson was born and some lawmakers want to mark that milestone by naming a post office after her and with a resolution honoring her contribuitons to the environment.
But Coburn won’t let them. Last week, he blocked an attempt to bring up the resolution honoring her and vowed to do the same on the post office bill.
The reason: Coburn, a physician, is among those who believe Carson’s warnings about DDT _ and the stigma to the chemical that resulted _ have led to millions of people dying needlessly from malaria.
The majority of deaths from malaria, he says, are children and pregnant women in Africa.
In a statement, Coburn’s office said Carson’s book had been “debunked.”
COBURN SIDES WITH WHO
Last year, the World Health Organization approved the use of DDT for “indoor residual spraying”
“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” Dr Arata Kochi, director of WHO’s Global Malaria Program, said in a press statement. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”
Coburn was quoted in the WHO press release as saying that the organization’s endorsement would help “put to rest the junk science and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”
The same press release said that environmental groups Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club now “endorse” the indoor residual spraying of DDT.
That would be extraordinary since Environmental Defense was formed five years after Carson’s book came out because of the concerns she expressed _ that DDT was killing birds and having a tragic ripple effect throughout the ecosystem.
The groups don’t exactly endorse indoor DDT spraying. According to information on their websites, they support a 2001 treaty that allows the indoor useage when there are no locally safe and effective alternatives. But Environmental Defense wants all uses of DDT phased out as alternatives become available.
REID WON’T STAY SILENT
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, tried to bring up a resolution honoring Carson but a Republican member _ on Coburn’s behalf _ objected. Under Senate rules, a single senator can keep legislation bottled up for a long time with a “hold,” and Coburn has a hold on all things Carson right now.
Reid came close to questioning Coburn’s “courage.” Actually, he did kind of question it, when Coburn wasn’t on the Senate floor. Here’s what Reid said:
“I think it is too bad, first, that the person who objected to this would not have the _ I should not say courage. But that person who objects to this should come and do it on their own behalf, not have some other Senator object.”
Coburn’s been accused of a lot of things, but the guy who challenges powerful senators’ pork barrel projects (Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?) on the Senate floor and tries to take them out of bills hasn’t been called a coward.
Reid apparently knew Coburn was objecting, but he didn’t name him. But he said he had heard the reason the bill was being held was because Carson “relied on flawed science to come to her conclusions.”
“I do not know anything about flawed science,” Reid said, “but I do know this woman turned the minds of young people to the environment, turned the minds of the academic world to the environment. As a result of her work …we became conscious of our need to make sure we do things to protect the environment.”
Reid also vowed to try again, saying he felt strongly about the issue.
Not sure if that means there’s going to be a Rachel Carson debate on the Senate floor at some point, but I’ll try to post a heads-up here if I hear that.
BTW: The headline of the post refers to the fact that Coburn’s 2004 opponent was Brad Carson.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Coburn: No Confidence in Congress
Sen. Tom Coburn has no confidence in U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He told the embattled AG last month at a public hearing that he should resign.
But Coburn, R-Muskogee, has a problem with the whole Senate expressing no confidence in Gonzales.
In a letter sent to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, today, Coburn said he wants to be notified before there is any agreement for senators to offer a resolution on a no-confidence vote on Gonzales.
Gonzales has been under fire for months now because of the way the Justice Department handled the dismissals of at least eight U.S. attorneys. Shifting explanations about why the U.S. attorneys were replaced, along with strong suspicions that White House political operatives were involved, have led some lawmakers, including Coburn, to conclude that the matter has hurt the credibility of the Justice Department and left Gonzales without the authority to run it.
But, Coburn wrote McConnell, “The Senate has a responsibility to be good stewards and secure the future for our children and grandchildren.
“We must, therefore, first hold Congress accountable for its failures, before pointing fingers at the shortcomings of others, by acknowledging and accepting the lack of confidence that the public has in Congress’ unwillingness to cut wasteful spending and balance the budget.”
If senators offer a resolution expressing no confidence in Gonzales, he wrote, he will offer an amendment “expressing no confidence in Congress’ ability to cut wasteful spending or balance the budget.”
Coburn wrote, “It is hypocritical for the Senate to grandstand for political purposes while ignoring its own shortcomings that threaten the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and the standard of living of future generations.”
Coburn also said he would reserve the right to object to any unanimous consent agreement to consider a no-confidence resolution. Such a move could prevent the Senate from even debating the resolution.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
New Boss for Inhofe
A major change is occurring in Sen. Jim Inhofe’s D.C. office. Inhofe’s press secretary, Ryan Thompson, is taking over as chief of staff.
Thompson is replacing Glenn Powell, who has been Inhofe’s chief of staff here for about seven years and is going to work for a Pennsylvania-based pipeline company that has holdings in Oklahoma.
At 27, Thompson is Inhofe’s youngest chief of staff ever and is easily one of the youngest chiefs of staff on Capitol Hill, if not the youngest.
Inhofe, R-Tulsa, is 72 and recently announced that he would be running for reelection next year. Inhofe has been in Washington since 1987, first as a U.S. House member. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Immigration Deal Panned
The latest immigration deal, forged by Senate Democrats and Republicans with the White House this week, is already getting a bipartisan thumbs-down from Oklahoma lawmakers.
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, and John Sullivan, R-Tulsa, both said it included “amnesty” provisions for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
The reaction is hardly surprising.
All of the Oklahoma lawmakers hear constantly from their constituents about the issue, and most of that feedback comes in the form of complaints about the number of illegal aliens and the fact that the federal government hasn’t done enough to stem the flow or punish employers who hire undocumented workers.
The Oklahoma Legislature recently passed _ and Gov. Brad Henry signed _ a bill that is considered the toughest in the nation to prevent people in the state illegally from receiving taxpayer funded services. If the state’s congressional delegation didn’t already know how strong the feelings were back home, they knew after that bill passed.
The Senate is expected to take up the new bill first and may have a test vote early next week. The legislation has measures for securing the border and requiring employers to verify citizenship. When certain border security benchmarks were met, people here illegally could apply for visas, and future immigrants could apply to a guest worker program.
Boren said today, “Any effective immigration reform has to start with securing the border, and the Senate bill makes some positive steps in that direction. But I have concerns with other provisions in the bill.
“Amnesty sends the wrong signal. Immigration reform should reflect a commitment to enforcement, not reward those who blatantly break the rules.”
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Tulsa, who has been fighting for more secure borders and a crackdown on illegal immigrants for years, said, “It is irresponsible for Congress to even consider amnesty or guest worker legislation until our current immigration laws are enforced and our borders secure.
“Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would be an utter failure, just like it was in 1986. We are rewarding law breakers with a path to U.S. citizenship, our nation’s highest honor.”
Sens. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, and Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, voted against legislation last year that included guest worker and path to citizenship provisions. That bill passed in the Senate, but an agreement on it could not be reached with the House.
If the Senate bill progresses, Inhofe is expected to offer an amendment to make English the official language of the United States. The Senate approved his amendment on the topic last year, but it died when the 2006 immigration bill did.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
“Have a Great Day”
Witnesses who appear before congressional committees typically end their testimony by saying something like this: “I want to thank the committee and I’ll be glad to answer any questions.”
But Albert Sochor, an insurance company executive from Oklahoma City, had a novel, if no less courteous approach, before the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Sochor, who gave impassioned testimony about how some elderly people in Oklahoma have been hoodwinked into buying Medicare plans they don’t need and can’t afford, urged the committee to do something to protect them and to give them an opportunity to get out of plans they didn’t mean to join.
A novice at testifying, Sochor seemed momentarily at a loss for how to conclude his remarks, and then said, “I appreciate your time and have a great day.”
Amid some soft laughter in the hearing room, the chairman of the committee, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, said, “It will be pretty hard to do that after your testimony.”
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Senatorial Split
Oklahoma’s senators split Wendesday on a couple of big votes. The votes were in character, showing both senators holding fast to principles they’ve articulated many times in the past.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, who has spent more than 10 years (counting his time in the House) in Washington railing about misplaced priorities and excessive spending voted against a huge water projects bill. Coburn complained that the bill violated rules on “earmarks” approved earlier this year by the Senate and authorized funding for projects that weren’t urgent priorities.
Coburn was one of only four senators to oppose the bill, which includes millions of dollars for water projects in Oklahoma. He tried unsuccessfully last week to block consideration of the bill and tried unsuccessfully this week to reorder some priorities.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, not only supported the bill. He helped write it. Inhofe, who also helped write the huge highway bill that passed two years ago, has said numerous times that he considers government spending to be justified in two areas _ defense and the nation’s infrastructure.
“Oklahoma’s water resources are one of its greatest assets,” Inhofe said. “We have taken an important step towards securing significant federal funds to study the use of water within our state in order to identify our water needs and plan for the future.”
The other split came on a mostly symbolic procedural vote about the Iraq war. Coburn voted with most of the Republicans in the Senate for an amendment that would have called for redeploying U.S. troops if the Iraqi parliament voted to request it.
The amendment would also have set benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi government and allowed the president to withhold rebuilding aid if the benchmarks weren’t met. Most Democrats voted against it because they thought it was too weak; there was no requirement that the president withhold foreign aid under any conditions.
Inhofe was one of only three Republicans who opposed it.
Coburn has consistently called for accountability in spending, something that the amendment made at least a gesture to. And Inhofe has consistently resisted attempts by Congress to tell the administration how to conduct the war in Iraq.
The amendment got 52 votes, a majority, but failed to get the 60 votes necessary to pass.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Hollywood and Toilet Paper
Had to do a Yahoo search to figure out what Sen. Jim Inhofe may have been talking about when he uttered these words on the Senate floor Tuesday night.
Speaking about former Vice President Al Gore’s movie about climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Inhofe said, “If you look at the movie _ I confess, I have not seen it _ the last frame of the movie says … ‘Are you ready to change the way you live?’
“The whole idea of the movie was to get people to start not using toilet paper and all this stuff the elitists in Hollywood want everybody else to do except for them.”
I confess I haven’t seen the movie either but I’ve seen parts of it and have read and heard about it. I didn’t know it made any recommendations about toilet paper usage.
Turns out, Inhofe’s comment was a reference to something written, apparently in jest, by singer Sheryl Crow, suggesting there be a limit on the number of squares that could be used “in one sitting.”
Ryan Thompson, Inhofe’s spokesman, said today that Inhofe knew Crow wasn’t serious but that the senator was trying to make a larger point about how “the Hollywood elite are constantly putting out recommendations about how people should live.”
In his remarks last night, Inhofe, R-Tulsa, went on to repeat the criticism that Gore’s Tennessee home sucks up a lot of power at the same time he’s asking others to conserve energy.
“I say these not in a light vein, because this isn’t light,” Inhofe said. “This is serious stuff.”
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
New Poll: McCain and Clinton Leading
The early frontrunners in the presidential race in Oklahoma are Sen. Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side and Sen. John McCain for Republicans, but nearly 30 percent of the voters in both parites are undecided, according to a poll released today.
The Sooner Survey, conducted by the Oklahoma City firm of Cole Hargrave Snodgrass and Associates, shows McCain, of Arizona, had the support of 27 percent of the 300 registered Republicans polled in late April.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani finished second, with 17 percent, while former Sen. Fred Thompson, who hasn’t even said he’s running, got 12 percent. The rest of the candidates were in single digits.
Many have questioned Giuliani’s viability in conservative states like Oklahoma. He has supported abortion rights and some gun control measures. Republican Pollster Pat McFerron, writing in the Sooner Survey, notes that Giuliani only garnered the support of 10 percent of those describing themselves as evangelical Christians and only got support from 8 percent of those who say abortion is their top issue.
The undecideds on the GOP side totalled 28 percent.
McCain and Giuliani have made multiple visits to the state. Former Masssachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who got 7 percent in the poll, canceled an appearance scheduled for last month in Oklahoma Cith.
On the Democratic side, 27 percent of those polled didn’t have a favorite yet.
Clinton got 29 percent, followed by former Sen. John Edwards, of North Carolina, with 20 percent, and Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois, with 15 percent.
McFerron says the Democratic race is a dead-heat among Clinton, Edwards and Obama when just counting the preferences of the most regular voters.
Meanwhile, the self-described liberals favor Clinton by a two-to-one margin over Obama, while the self-described conservatives favor Edwards by more than a two-to-one margin over Clinton, McFerron says.
Clinton has not visited Oklahoma yet. Obama, Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who got 7 percent in the poll, have made appearances in the state.
Edwards spent a lot of time in Oklahoma in 2004 and finished a very close second in the state’s Democratic primary that year.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
A Lawyer-Free Zone
When Mary Fallin replaced Ernest Istook in the U.S. House in January, it was an historic moment for the Oklahoma congressional delegation. Any guesses why?
Fallin, R-Oklahoma City, wasn’t the first woman; she’s the second. So that’s not it.
Ok, maybe there’s more than one right answer, but here’s one: It marked the first time in state history that there wasn’t a lawyer in the delegation, now made up of five House members and two senators.
I realized it had at least been a long time since there wasn’t a lawyer in the delegation. When I came up here, in 1990, there were four who were lawyers, or at least had law degrees, though they hadn’t practiced in awhile: Sen. David Boren, Rep. Dave McCurdy, Rep. Mickey Edwards and Rep. Mike Synar.
Istook, who got his law degree from Oklahoma City University, replaced Edwards in 1993. Edwards was first elected in 1976, taking office in early 1977. That same year former House Speaker Carl Albert retired, after serving for 30 years.
I knew Albert had been a lawyer, so that meant there had at least been one lawyer in the delegation since he took office in 1947.
This week, I decided to figure out if there had ever been a time in the delegation when there hadn’t been a lawyer. It turned out to be easier than I thought because I just started _ and ultimately ended _ with U.S. senators.
Here’s what I did: I first looked at Sen. J. Elmer Thomas, whose service in the Senate overlapped a few years with Albert’s (until early 1951) and stretched back to 1927. According to his biography on the U.S. Senate web page, www.senate.gov, Thomas was admitted to the Oklahoma bar in 1900 and practiced law in Oklahoma City and Lawton.
I then looked at his predecessor, J.W. Harreld, who served from 1920 until Thomas took over in 1927. According to the U.S. Senate bio of him, he had been a prosecuting attorney in Kentucky before moving to Oklahoma and practicing law there.
The biography of his predecessor, Thomas P. Gore, who was blind, does not mention any profession or college degrees. So I looked at Robert L. Owen, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1907, the year of statehood, and served until 1924 (overlapping with Harreld).
According to his U.S. Senate biography, Owen was admitted to the bar in 1880 and practiced law in Indian Territory and then practiced law in Washington after leaving the Senate.
So, there it is _ from Istook back to Robert L. Owen, always at least one lawyer in the bunch.
I didn’t look at all of the House members serving at the same time as those early senators, so there may very well have been multiple lawyers in the delegation.
What’s the significance?
Just some good centennial trivia.
And it might make for an unusual campaign approach for someone running for the House or Senate in Oklahoma. Instead of the old “I ain’t no lawyer” come-on, a candidate could say the delegation needs an attorney.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
