Shawnee legislator plans bill that he hopes will help 'Oklahoma redeem itself'
State Representative Shane Jett -R, Shawnee- plans to introduce a bill calling for a GUEST WORKER program to fix what he says are the "unintended consequences” of Oklahoma's recently implemented immigration reform bill. You can read the entire story at the link below.
http://newsok.com/article/3167533/1194796112
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
TIP-GATE
From the NPR website
Anita Esterday, a waitress at the Maid-Rite in Toledo, Iowa, told NPR's David Greene in a report that aired on Morning Edition Thursday that "nobody got left a tip" on Oct. 8, when Clinton sat at the lunch counter and ordered up the restaurant's famous loose-meat sandwich.
Esterday served Clinton, chatted with her and later ended up as an example of a hard-working single mom in Clinton's stump speech. She told NPR she's considering voting for Clinton, but was disappointed the senator and her staff didn't make sure she got a tip for her labor.
The tip issue was a small part of an eight-minute piece about how everyday people get caught up in political campaigns. Half the story was about an incident in which another presidential candidate, Barack Obama, failed to follow up on a letter he said he might send to a supporter he met at a rally. The Obama campaign Thursday said they fired off a letter to the supporter after the story aired. But that part of the story received little mention in the blogosphere after airing Thursday.
Not so the reference to Hillary Clinton and the tip. As soon as that story aired in the 5 o'clock hour Eastern Time, it was picked up by a number of political blogs. And the Clinton campaign immediately contacted news organizations to tell its side of the story. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer wrote to NPR in an e-mail: "The campaign spent $157 and left a $100 tip at the Maid-Rite Restaurant. Wish you had checked in with us beforehand."
Esterday said "nobody got tipped that day," and NPR should have checked with the Clinton campaign before the story aired to see if any tip was left and how it was done. We regret that this was not done. On Thursday, Esterday was sticking by her story.
"Why would I lie about not getting a tip?" she told NPR. She also maintained that her co-workers at the restaurant had not received tips.
A Clinton campaign staffer called on Esterday at the restaurant Thursday after the story aired. The staff member apologized to her and gave her a $20 bill, according to Esterday. The Clinton campaign confirmed that visit. The campaign also produced photocopies of receipts showing $157.46 was paid to Maid-Rite on a VISA card on Oct. 8 for meals consumed by the candidate's entourage. The tip was supposed to have been paid in cash, and the campaign insisted such a payment was made but has declined to make available a staff member who was present at Maid-Rite and left tip money.
Maid-Rite's manager, Brad Crawford, said Thursday that while he was not present at the restaurant on Oct. 8, he knew that a bill was paid by the campaign that day. He also said that he believed three of six servers working that day received tips from people he thought were working for or affiliated with the Clinton campaign.
Crawford said he didn't know if campaign staffers meant "for their tips to be distributed to everybody" or whether they were meant only for individual servers.
The manager said he can't say for sure if Esterday was tipped for serving Clinton and her guests, Christie Vilsack and Ruth Harkin. (Vilsack is the wife of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Harkin is the wife of Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin). But Crawford said he believes Esterday's account that she received no tip.
"Where Hillary was sitting, there was no tip left," Crawford said.
The restaurant has a lunch counter, where Clinton and her guests were seated. Esterday and several other servers were working behind that counter. There are a dozen or so other booths and tables around the restaurant, and other servers were helping diners seated there.
Esterday, speaking to NPR from home later Thursday, said the Clinton campaign staffer who visited the diner apologized to her and said a $100 tip was left on a credit card the day of Clinton's visit. Esterday said the staff member said the money was meant to be shared.
"I explained to her that our credit card machine, you know, doesn't add on the tip," Esterday said. "And she said, 'Well, then, they left a $100 bill there.' And I said, 'Well, it didn't get divided up amongst us, because I had gotten nothing.'
"She just said, 'Well, there was one left,'" Esterday said. "She just kept repeating, 'There was one left.'
After the campaign staffer stopped at the diner Thursday, Esterday said, the $100 tip was a hot topic.
"Two others that had worked with me that day turned around and said, 'We didn't know about any $100 tip,' because they both turned around and said 'We didn't get a part of it.' And they didn't. So, it's like 'OK, where did it go?' That's the mystery question: Where did it go?"
Esterday said it would surprise her if money that was intended to be split among the staff was never shared.
"The ladies that were working that day have been working there for years — some of them for 30 years, some of them for 25 years," Esterday said. "And I've known a lot of these ladies most of my life living here, too. And I can't imagine them pocketing it."
The campaign has made the the tip question the top feature on a new Web site it has created called "Fact Hub." Campaign spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement: "In the minute-to-minute media cycle we live in, we believe it is critical to correct the record in real time."
Esterday served Clinton, chatted with her and later ended up as an example of a hard-working single mom in Clinton's stump speech. She told NPR she's considering voting for Clinton, but was disappointed the senator and her staff didn't make sure she got a tip for her labor.
The tip issue was a small part of an eight-minute piece about how everyday people get caught up in political campaigns. Half the story was about an incident in which another presidential candidate, Barack Obama, failed to follow up on a letter he said he might send to a supporter he met at a rally. The Obama campaign Thursday said they fired off a letter to the supporter after the story aired. But that part of the story received little mention in the blogosphere after airing Thursday.
Not so the reference to Hillary Clinton and the tip. As soon as that story aired in the 5 o'clock hour Eastern Time, it was picked up by a number of political blogs. And the Clinton campaign immediately contacted news organizations to tell its side of the story. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer wrote to NPR in an e-mail: "The campaign spent $157 and left a $100 tip at the Maid-Rite Restaurant. Wish you had checked in with us beforehand."
Esterday said "nobody got tipped that day," and NPR should have checked with the Clinton campaign before the story aired to see if any tip was left and how it was done. We regret that this was not done. On Thursday, Esterday was sticking by her story.
"Why would I lie about not getting a tip?" she told NPR. She also maintained that her co-workers at the restaurant had not received tips.
A Clinton campaign staffer called on Esterday at the restaurant Thursday after the story aired. The staff member apologized to her and gave her a $20 bill, according to Esterday. The Clinton campaign confirmed that visit. The campaign also produced photocopies of receipts showing $157.46 was paid to Maid-Rite on a VISA card on Oct. 8 for meals consumed by the candidate's entourage. The tip was supposed to have been paid in cash, and the campaign insisted such a payment was made but has declined to make available a staff member who was present at Maid-Rite and left tip money.
Maid-Rite's manager, Brad Crawford, said Thursday that while he was not present at the restaurant on Oct. 8, he knew that a bill was paid by the campaign that day. He also said that he believed three of six servers working that day received tips from people he thought were working for or affiliated with the Clinton campaign.
Crawford said he didn't know if campaign staffers meant "for their tips to be distributed to everybody" or whether they were meant only for individual servers.
The manager said he can't say for sure if Esterday was tipped for serving Clinton and her guests, Christie Vilsack and Ruth Harkin. (Vilsack is the wife of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Harkin is the wife of Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin). But Crawford said he believes Esterday's account that she received no tip.
"Where Hillary was sitting, there was no tip left," Crawford said.
The restaurant has a lunch counter, where Clinton and her guests were seated. Esterday and several other servers were working behind that counter. There are a dozen or so other booths and tables around the restaurant, and other servers were helping diners seated there.
Esterday, speaking to NPR from home later Thursday, said the Clinton campaign staffer who visited the diner apologized to her and said a $100 tip was left on a credit card the day of Clinton's visit. Esterday said the staff member said the money was meant to be shared.
"I explained to her that our credit card machine, you know, doesn't add on the tip," Esterday said. "And she said, 'Well, then, they left a $100 bill there.' And I said, 'Well, it didn't get divided up amongst us, because I had gotten nothing.'
"She just said, 'Well, there was one left,'" Esterday said. "She just kept repeating, 'There was one left.'
After the campaign staffer stopped at the diner Thursday, Esterday said, the $100 tip was a hot topic.
"Two others that had worked with me that day turned around and said, 'We didn't know about any $100 tip,' because they both turned around and said 'We didn't get a part of it.' And they didn't. So, it's like 'OK, where did it go?' That's the mystery question: Where did it go?"
Esterday said it would surprise her if money that was intended to be split among the staff was never shared.
"The ladies that were working that day have been working there for years — some of them for 30 years, some of them for 25 years," Esterday said. "And I've known a lot of these ladies most of my life living here, too. And I can't imagine them pocketing it."
The campaign has made the the tip question the top feature on a new Web site it has created called "Fact Hub." Campaign spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement: "In the minute-to-minute media cycle we live in, we believe it is critical to correct the record in real time."
THE FENCE!
There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence. The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence Over the next next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down. He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence. Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all. He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.
The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone. The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence He said, "You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out. It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound is still there. " A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one. If I were that little boy, I would still be driving nails into the back of the fence or at the lumber year buying a truckload of nails. Great story- Thanks to Steve Hallam for sending it my way.
There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence. The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence Over the next next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down. He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence. Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all. He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.
The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone. The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence He said, "You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out. It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound is still there. " A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one. If I were that little boy, I would still be driving nails into the back of the fence or at the lumber year buying a truckload of nails. Great story- Thanks to Steve Hallam for sending it my way.
WHY SENATOR INHOFE VOTED TO OVERRIDE
$30 million dollars in this bill is going to continue the buy out of TAR CREEK According to an informational website about TAR CREEK, "The land in the very northeastern corner of Oklahoma has been deeply wounded by almost a century of lead and zinc mining. Now abandoned and neglected, that wound is poisoning the land, water, and air and through them, the people. Lead poisoning has taken a toll on many of Ottawa County's children and lead is but one of many heavy metals of concern. Everyday tons of metal leaves the flooded mine workings in rust-colored acid mine water and flows downstream, extending the injury." Inhofe has been at the forefront of the fight to help this area of Oklahoma and these poor people. It is a worthy cause. Senators Coburn and Inhofe disagree on this subject, but to be fair, both are consistent in their stance on the bill. Coburn because he says the bill has too many unworthy projects in it and Inhofe because he realistically realizes this is the only best hope these Oklahomans have to alleviate this terrible situation. Rational people can disagree. This appears to be one of those times.
Inhofe's own words
$30 million dollars in this bill is going to continue the buy out of TAR CREEK According to an informational website about TAR CREEK, "The land in the very northeastern corner of Oklahoma has been deeply wounded by almost a century of lead and zinc mining. Now abandoned and neglected, that wound is poisoning the land, water, and air and through them, the people. Lead poisoning has taken a toll on many of Ottawa County's children and lead is but one of many heavy metals of concern. Everyday tons of metal leaves the flooded mine workings in rust-colored acid mine water and flows downstream, extending the injury." Inhofe has been at the forefront of the fight to help this area of Oklahoma and these poor people. It is a worthy cause. Senators Coburn and Inhofe disagree on this subject, but to be fair, both are consistent in their stance on the bill. Coburn because he says the bill has too many unworthy projects in it and Inhofe because he realistically realizes this is the only best hope these Oklahomans have to alleviate this terrible situation. Rational people can disagree. This appears to be one of those times.
Inhofe's own words
“Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the President’s veto of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007. I will be voting to override this veto and urge my colleagues to join me. As everyone might imagine, I don’t take the decision to support overriding a veto by a President of my own party lightly. So let me explain why I came to this decision.
“As a staunch fiscal conservative, I have long argued that the two most important functions of the federal government are to provide for the national defense and to develop and improve public infrastructure. That means I am not shy about voting for increased authorization and spending on national defense needs or public infrastructure. This WRDA bill authorizes and modifies numerous critical projects in the areas of navigation, flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration. The bill also includes many important policy provisions for the Army Corps of Engineers to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current process. The President’s veto message asserted that the bill ‘lacks fiscal discipline.’ In fact, enactment of this bill will constitute our best tool for enforcing fiscal discipline. Let’s be clear – the WRDA bill is not a spending bill. It is an authorizing bill that establishes which projects and programs are eligible for future funding, thereby setting a maximum limit on what can be appropriated in the future...
“Without regularly enacted WRDA bills, the Appropriations Committee faces enormous pressure to use the annual spending bills to authorize and fund projects that haven’t gone through a full Congressional review. The authorization committees, such as the Environment and Public Works Committee, should provide the first Congressional review, and that is what we have done with this WRDA bill.”
“As a staunch fiscal conservative, I have long argued that the two most important functions of the federal government are to provide for the national defense and to develop and improve public infrastructure. That means I am not shy about voting for increased authorization and spending on national defense needs or public infrastructure. This WRDA bill authorizes and modifies numerous critical projects in the areas of navigation, flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration. The bill also includes many important policy provisions for the Army Corps of Engineers to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current process. The President’s veto message asserted that the bill ‘lacks fiscal discipline.’ In fact, enactment of this bill will constitute our best tool for enforcing fiscal discipline. Let’s be clear – the WRDA bill is not a spending bill. It is an authorizing bill that establishes which projects and programs are eligible for future funding, thereby setting a maximum limit on what can be appropriated in the future...
“Without regularly enacted WRDA bills, the Appropriations Committee faces enormous pressure to use the annual spending bills to authorize and fund projects that haven’t gone through a full Congressional review. The authorization committees, such as the Environment and Public Works Committee, should provide the first Congressional review, and that is what we have done with this WRDA bill.”
WHY SENATOR COBURN VOTED TO SUSTAIN!
This article by Danielle Knight illustrates why Coburn did not vote with Inhofe to override Bush's veto of the water bill. Like him or not, Tom Coburn is not your normal run of the mill politician. He is the most fiscally conservative Senator to serve in the U.S. Senate in modern history. He votes consistently against any excess spending even if the pork is in Oklahoma. Knight's questions are in bold print.
By Danielle Knight
U.S. News & World Report
As the Senate hammers out next year's spending bills, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is on high alert. The physician turned lawmaker has become known on Capitol Hill as the chief fiscal whistleblower, irritating Republicans and Democrats alike when he holds up bills he deems wasteful. Several weeks ago, he embarrassed Democrats by removing a $1 million spending earmark from the Labor appropriations bill that would have gone to a performing arts center in New York that included a tribute to the 1969 Woodstock festival.
The senator recently spoke in his office about why he's so fired up against pork barrel spending. How did you become the spokesperson against earmarks? Earmarks is the symptom of the disease. What's the disease? The disease is a comparison of us versus what's best for our country. When I ran, what I said is that the biggest problem in our country was the culture of Congress because the culture is the thing that limits the Congress from doing what is best in the long term for the country. The people up here are good people. But they are human, and their desire for themselves oftentimes gets in the way of the desire for the best interest of the country. Earmarks cause us to think short term about, "How do I satisfy the desires of people from my state?"... Earmarks really aren't about helping your state. They're really about helping you look good in your state. And if it is about helping you look good in your state, then it is about you, which means it's about your next election, not what's in the best long-term interest of the country. How did this become your bailiwick? (Coburn points to a photo of his four grandchildren.) My grandkids. Don't we all want them to have the same opportunities or better to advance themselves, live free, be personally responsible, and take advantage of this greatest economic experiment and greatest experiment of freedom that's ever been? Don't we want that to continue? We're walking on a ledge. We're letting the political dynamic of partisanship and parochialism undermine the future of our country. The dollar fell to its lowest level today again. The index was down again. Why is the euro worth $1.42 now? Does it have anything to do with people thinking that perhaps we can't repay our debts and maybe we're living beyond our means? What I'm partisan for is the next generation, and we're really loading them [down with debt]. We're loading them to such an extent that most of them probably won't own a home, won't get a college education, because they will be carrying just the interest on our debt. When you start looking, even with a growth rate of 4 or 5 percent, we can't grow out of the problem. So we aren't ever going to be trusted to fix those big problems until the American people have confidence that we're doing with the discretionary budget what we should be doing. I don't have a sophisticated strategy other than, "Here's what I believe." And I'm not worried about losing friends to get there because our country is worth more than that. Our future is worth more than that. Do you think this has hurt you politically? Sen . Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, was quite annoyed about you going after that bridge in Alaska earmark. It already has. If I had an idea for an amendment today, I'd try not to run it. I'd try to give it to someone else because if it had my name on it is automatically going to get no votes from the appropriators. That may be a little bit harsh. It's probably not that bad. But there's no question that I'm an irritant. I understand that. But this body needs an irritant. It needs us to focus on the long run. It needs us to focus on the next generation. But I'm not discourteous. And I'm consistent. They know I'll be out there and I'm not partisan when I attack somebody and I really am thinking about the future. So, it's kind of like Phil Gramm said, I didn't come here expecting to find a lot of friends, and I have not been disappointed. Barack Obama said recently that if he were elected president you would be one of the people he would reach out to across the aisle. He called you a friend. We met back in orientation.... We kind of hit it off...and I think he's a neat guy, a smart guy. I wish him the best. He actually believes in transparency in government and believes that we shouldn't waste money. Now, he'll spend a whole lot more than I ever would. But lobbyists and interests from your state must come to you asking for you to secure funding for various museums, stadiums, etc. They did the first three months. Here's what I asked them: "What program do you want to cut for us to do this?" And they didn't have any answers? No, they didn't. They just want more. So they stopped coming?
They still come; they just stopped asking. They know that I'm not about to sponsor an earmark. I'll never sponsor an earmark.... If you start doing earmarks, what you do is not do the rest of your job and that's this: oversight. You hear all the appropriators say, "We can't just let the bureaucracy spend this money. We need to direct it." Well, what our Founders say is, "It's our responsibility to make sure the government is spending it the right way and hold them accountable when they make poor choices."... Earmarks take your focus off what your job is. Do you think it's hurt you with constituents back home? No, I get letters all the time that say: "I didn't vote for you. I voted for your opponent, but you're doing exactly what you said you'd do. I trust you now and I'll vote for you." That's Democrats and Republicans. I poll about equally in both parties right now. And that's in the mid to upper 60s.... So, for every Chamber of Commerce that's irritated because I won't direct a sewer system to them, I'll get 150 regular citizens who say, "We'll pay for our sewer system. You fix the rest of the problems so our kids are going to be OK." I heard that you returned about $200,000 of unused Senate office funds.
It's about $350,000 now. Where did you cut corners? I expected to come in here and find an understaffed office with paint peeling off the walls. We get plenty of money. If I were a big state and had a whole lot of constituents to take care of, it might be different. But I have seven field representatives—we're in every town all the time.... I have a great staff. They do a super job. We're just efficient. I was a businessman before I was a doctor. I know how to run an organization.... I see when we spend money in our office, we're taking money away from the next generation. If I don't have to spend it, I won't. What made you decide to get into politics back in 1994 when you ran for the House? I was just irritated. I was just sick and tired of being sick and tired, like a lot of other people. I didn't really think I'd come back. Earmarks wasn't your focus back then, though. No, but spending was. Look, you can't do much about earmarks in the House. I did filibuster in the House for the first time in its history. Some of your critics have portrayed you as crazy. The Daily Show mocked your presentation against embryonic stem cell research. The Wall Street Journal has called you Coburn the Barbarian. Does this ever get to you? No.... If I see a bill that is wrong, I'm going to hold it, no matter what the political or press pressure is. Members up here run to the press to try and make me look bad, but what they've now figured out is that it doesn't work. I'm not moving. I don't care how many editorials are written. If I think I'm right, I'm not going to move until I get a bill fixed. How many bills have you held up? Well over 100. On the first of this year, I sent a letter to every member of the Senate that said, "I'm going to object to moving anything by unanimous consent if you are authorizing new spending without deauthorizing old spending."... The paradox in politics, I've found, is the more you stand on principle, the more criticism you get—but the more support you get from your constituency. What do you make of all the spending on the war in Iraq? We should be paying for it.... But the politicians here are not willing to cut expenses here in the country or raise taxes. I don't want us to raise taxes because I know how much waste we've got. But politicians here won't make the hard choices of cutting waste in this government to be able to pay for this war. What they do is just charge it to our grandkids. And that's what we're doing. You're still a practicing physician? I delivered a baby last weekend. A 9-pound, 13-ounce girl. I've delivered over 4,000 babies. Is being a physician at all similar to being a senator? It's a real advantage to being a physician up here because you're taught about how to read people through their body language. You read all the signs instead of what they say. I've heard you prefer being called Doctor Coburn to Senator Coburn. Oh, it doesn't matter to me. You call me to dinner and I'll come.
U.S. News & World Report
As the Senate hammers out next year's spending bills, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is on high alert. The physician turned lawmaker has become known on Capitol Hill as the chief fiscal whistleblower, irritating Republicans and Democrats alike when he holds up bills he deems wasteful. Several weeks ago, he embarrassed Democrats by removing a $1 million spending earmark from the Labor appropriations bill that would have gone to a performing arts center in New York that included a tribute to the 1969 Woodstock festival.
The senator recently spoke in his office about why he's so fired up against pork barrel spending. How did you become the spokesperson against earmarks? Earmarks is the symptom of the disease. What's the disease? The disease is a comparison of us versus what's best for our country. When I ran, what I said is that the biggest problem in our country was the culture of Congress because the culture is the thing that limits the Congress from doing what is best in the long term for the country. The people up here are good people. But they are human, and their desire for themselves oftentimes gets in the way of the desire for the best interest of the country. Earmarks cause us to think short term about, "How do I satisfy the desires of people from my state?"... Earmarks really aren't about helping your state. They're really about helping you look good in your state. And if it is about helping you look good in your state, then it is about you, which means it's about your next election, not what's in the best long-term interest of the country. How did this become your bailiwick? (Coburn points to a photo of his four grandchildren.) My grandkids. Don't we all want them to have the same opportunities or better to advance themselves, live free, be personally responsible, and take advantage of this greatest economic experiment and greatest experiment of freedom that's ever been? Don't we want that to continue? We're walking on a ledge. We're letting the political dynamic of partisanship and parochialism undermine the future of our country. The dollar fell to its lowest level today again. The index was down again. Why is the euro worth $1.42 now? Does it have anything to do with people thinking that perhaps we can't repay our debts and maybe we're living beyond our means? What I'm partisan for is the next generation, and we're really loading them [down with debt]. We're loading them to such an extent that most of them probably won't own a home, won't get a college education, because they will be carrying just the interest on our debt. When you start looking, even with a growth rate of 4 or 5 percent, we can't grow out of the problem. So we aren't ever going to be trusted to fix those big problems until the American people have confidence that we're doing with the discretionary budget what we should be doing. I don't have a sophisticated strategy other than, "Here's what I believe." And I'm not worried about losing friends to get there because our country is worth more than that. Our future is worth more than that. Do you think this has hurt you politically? Sen . Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, was quite annoyed about you going after that bridge in Alaska earmark. It already has. If I had an idea for an amendment today, I'd try not to run it. I'd try to give it to someone else because if it had my name on it is automatically going to get no votes from the appropriators. That may be a little bit harsh. It's probably not that bad. But there's no question that I'm an irritant. I understand that. But this body needs an irritant. It needs us to focus on the long run. It needs us to focus on the next generation. But I'm not discourteous. And I'm consistent. They know I'll be out there and I'm not partisan when I attack somebody and I really am thinking about the future. So, it's kind of like Phil Gramm said, I didn't come here expecting to find a lot of friends, and I have not been disappointed. Barack Obama said recently that if he were elected president you would be one of the people he would reach out to across the aisle. He called you a friend. We met back in orientation.... We kind of hit it off...and I think he's a neat guy, a smart guy. I wish him the best. He actually believes in transparency in government and believes that we shouldn't waste money. Now, he'll spend a whole lot more than I ever would. But lobbyists and interests from your state must come to you asking for you to secure funding for various museums, stadiums, etc. They did the first three months. Here's what I asked them: "What program do you want to cut for us to do this?" And they didn't have any answers? No, they didn't. They just want more. So they stopped coming?
They still come; they just stopped asking. They know that I'm not about to sponsor an earmark. I'll never sponsor an earmark.... If you start doing earmarks, what you do is not do the rest of your job and that's this: oversight. You hear all the appropriators say, "We can't just let the bureaucracy spend this money. We need to direct it." Well, what our Founders say is, "It's our responsibility to make sure the government is spending it the right way and hold them accountable when they make poor choices."... Earmarks take your focus off what your job is. Do you think it's hurt you with constituents back home? No, I get letters all the time that say: "I didn't vote for you. I voted for your opponent, but you're doing exactly what you said you'd do. I trust you now and I'll vote for you." That's Democrats and Republicans. I poll about equally in both parties right now. And that's in the mid to upper 60s.... So, for every Chamber of Commerce that's irritated because I won't direct a sewer system to them, I'll get 150 regular citizens who say, "We'll pay for our sewer system. You fix the rest of the problems so our kids are going to be OK." I heard that you returned about $200,000 of unused Senate office funds.
It's about $350,000 now. Where did you cut corners? I expected to come in here and find an understaffed office with paint peeling off the walls. We get plenty of money. If I were a big state and had a whole lot of constituents to take care of, it might be different. But I have seven field representatives—we're in every town all the time.... I have a great staff. They do a super job. We're just efficient. I was a businessman before I was a doctor. I know how to run an organization.... I see when we spend money in our office, we're taking money away from the next generation. If I don't have to spend it, I won't. What made you decide to get into politics back in 1994 when you ran for the House? I was just irritated. I was just sick and tired of being sick and tired, like a lot of other people. I didn't really think I'd come back. Earmarks wasn't your focus back then, though. No, but spending was. Look, you can't do much about earmarks in the House. I did filibuster in the House for the first time in its history. Some of your critics have portrayed you as crazy. The Daily Show mocked your presentation against embryonic stem cell research. The Wall Street Journal has called you Coburn the Barbarian. Does this ever get to you? No.... If I see a bill that is wrong, I'm going to hold it, no matter what the political or press pressure is. Members up here run to the press to try and make me look bad, but what they've now figured out is that it doesn't work. I'm not moving. I don't care how many editorials are written. If I think I'm right, I'm not going to move until I get a bill fixed. How many bills have you held up? Well over 100. On the first of this year, I sent a letter to every member of the Senate that said, "I'm going to object to moving anything by unanimous consent if you are authorizing new spending without deauthorizing old spending."... The paradox in politics, I've found, is the more you stand on principle, the more criticism you get—but the more support you get from your constituency. What do you make of all the spending on the war in Iraq? We should be paying for it.... But the politicians here are not willing to cut expenses here in the country or raise taxes. I don't want us to raise taxes because I know how much waste we've got. But politicians here won't make the hard choices of cutting waste in this government to be able to pay for this war. What they do is just charge it to our grandkids. And that's what we're doing. You're still a practicing physician? I delivered a baby last weekend. A 9-pound, 13-ounce girl. I've delivered over 4,000 babies. Is being a physician at all similar to being a senator? It's a real advantage to being a physician up here because you're taught about how to read people through their body language. You read all the signs instead of what they say. I've heard you prefer being called Doctor Coburn to Senator Coburn. Oh, it doesn't matter to me. You call me to dinner and I'll come.
COLORADO CONGRESSMAN AND WIFE RETIRE IN OKLAHOMA!
Joel M. Hefley (born April 18, 1935) is a Congressman who served the 5th Congressional District of Colorado from 1987 to 2007. His wife, Dr. Lynn Hefley, served in the Colorado State House. They have three daughters.
He was born in Ardmore, OK, earned his BA at OBU and his M.A. at OSU. He worked as a management consultant, executive director of the Colorado Community Planning and Research Council, and a member of the Colorado House and Senate before entering the U.S. House of Representatives.
He served as chairman of the House Ethics Committee until 2005. His tenure propelled him from being "among the most obscure members" in the House to gaining national attention, when the Committee formally admonished Tom Delay three times over actions that allegedly went "beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct." Hefley also handled the expulsion case of James Traficant who went on countless tirades and used derogatory language before the committee.
When the new Congress opened in January 2005, House Republicans pushed through new rules curtailing the ways ethics investigations can be launched. While Hefley voted for the rules, he criticized the procedure, "saying he thought the changes were a mistake since they were done without bipartisan discussion." Within a month, Hefley was ousted as chair, because, he said, that "he was too independent." Doc Hastings of Washington was chosen as his replacement.
On February 16, 2006, Hefley ended speculation as to whether he would seek re-election in 2006, instead retiring after 10 terms in Congress. Now he's an Okie- hopefully we will see him at some future party functions. A very principled, unassuming man of character. Welcome back home Congressman and Ms. Representative. The McCarville Report has a story on their move at the link below.
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/11/colorado-leaders-quietly-retire-to.html
Joel M. Hefley (born April 18, 1935) is a Congressman who served the 5th Congressional District of Colorado from 1987 to 2007. His wife, Dr. Lynn Hefley, served in the Colorado State House. They have three daughters.
He was born in Ardmore, OK, earned his BA at OBU and his M.A. at OSU. He worked as a management consultant, executive director of the Colorado Community Planning and Research Council, and a member of the Colorado House and Senate before entering the U.S. House of Representatives.
He served as chairman of the House Ethics Committee until 2005. His tenure propelled him from being "among the most obscure members" in the House to gaining national attention, when the Committee formally admonished Tom Delay three times over actions that allegedly went "beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct." Hefley also handled the expulsion case of James Traficant who went on countless tirades and used derogatory language before the committee.
When the new Congress opened in January 2005, House Republicans pushed through new rules curtailing the ways ethics investigations can be launched. While Hefley voted for the rules, he criticized the procedure, "saying he thought the changes were a mistake since they were done without bipartisan discussion." Within a month, Hefley was ousted as chair, because, he said, that "he was too independent." Doc Hastings of Washington was chosen as his replacement.
On February 16, 2006, Hefley ended speculation as to whether he would seek re-election in 2006, instead retiring after 10 terms in Congress. Now he's an Okie- hopefully we will see him at some future party functions. A very principled, unassuming man of character. Welcome back home Congressman and Ms. Representative. The McCarville Report has a story on their move at the link below.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Rasmussen has a DAILY national tracking poll for the Presidential race- both major parties. Check it out at the link below:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history
Rasmussen has a DAILY national tracking poll for the Presidential race- both major parties. Check it out at the link below:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Pat Robertson Backs Giuliani's Bid
By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Televangelist Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, endorsed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday.
"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans," Robertson said during a news conference with Giuliani in Washington.
The former New York mayor backs abortion rights and gay rights, positions that put him in conflict with conservative GOP orthodoxy, and has been trying to persuade evangelical conservatives like Robertson to overlook their differences on those issues.
Evangelicals have split in their support for the leading Republican candidates. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a favorite of Christian conservatives who dropped out of the race last month, endorsed fellow Sen. John McCain of Arizona on Wednesday. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently announced that Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III were on board with his candidacy.
Asked about the Robertson endorsement, McCain, at a news conference with Brownback in Dubuque, Iowa, said: "Every once in a while, I'm left speechless. This is one of those times."
Giuliani is best known to voters for leading New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Shortly after 9/11, Robertson released a statement in which he said the attacks occurred because Americans had insulted God and lost the protection of heaven by allowing abortion and "rampant Internet pornography."
Robertson made no mention of his differences with Giuliani on social issues in Wednesday's statement.
"Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today," Robertson said.
Robertson, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1988, founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Christian Coalition and Regent University in Virginia Beach.
Also Wednesday, Giuliani said he asked two GOP friends in Congress, Rep. Peter King of New York and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, to introduce bills to keep states from giving licenses or similar identification to illegal immigrants.
The Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, was criticized after a televised debate last week when she hedged an answer on whether she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's effort to grant licenses to illegal immigrants. Her aides say she generally supports the idea in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform. Talk about a surprise! Robertson has definitely compromised with this endorsement. There is no doubt that Rudy is probably the candidate the terrorists would hate to see at the helm, but I'm not sure he could convince SWING voters where he is that much different than Hillary.
By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Televangelist Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, endorsed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday.
"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans," Robertson said during a news conference with Giuliani in Washington.
The former New York mayor backs abortion rights and gay rights, positions that put him in conflict with conservative GOP orthodoxy, and has been trying to persuade evangelical conservatives like Robertson to overlook their differences on those issues.
Evangelicals have split in their support for the leading Republican candidates. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a favorite of Christian conservatives who dropped out of the race last month, endorsed fellow Sen. John McCain of Arizona on Wednesday. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently announced that Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III were on board with his candidacy.
Asked about the Robertson endorsement, McCain, at a news conference with Brownback in Dubuque, Iowa, said: "Every once in a while, I'm left speechless. This is one of those times."
Giuliani is best known to voters for leading New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Shortly after 9/11, Robertson released a statement in which he said the attacks occurred because Americans had insulted God and lost the protection of heaven by allowing abortion and "rampant Internet pornography."
Robertson made no mention of his differences with Giuliani on social issues in Wednesday's statement.
"Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today," Robertson said.
Robertson, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1988, founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Christian Coalition and Regent University in Virginia Beach.
Also Wednesday, Giuliani said he asked two GOP friends in Congress, Rep. Peter King of New York and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, to introduce bills to keep states from giving licenses or similar identification to illegal immigrants.
The Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, was criticized after a televised debate last week when she hedged an answer on whether she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's effort to grant licenses to illegal immigrants. Her aides say she generally supports the idea in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform. Talk about a surprise! Robertson has definitely compromised with this endorsement. There is no doubt that Rudy is probably the candidate the terrorists would hate to see at the helm, but I'm not sure he could convince SWING voters where he is that much different than Hillary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
