Charlie Meadows
Tom Coburn
Charlie Meadows of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee has teed off on former Senator Tom Coburn, long known as one of the Senate’s most conservative members.
In a weekly email to OCPAC members, Meadows wrote:
There ended up being 2 Article V (Constitutional Convention) measures pass 2 weeks ago, one in the House and one in the Senate, with both passing by close margins. No doubt former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn’s hard work and influence made the difference as several lawmakers, especially in the Senate, changed their minds out of respect for Coburn’s support for the measure. Dr. Coburn has earned the honor and respect of most Republicans and many Democrats in his service to our state while serving 3 Terms in the U.S. House and 10 years in the U. S. Senate.
With all that said, I hope to bring some balance to try and show that Dr. Tom has not always used good judgment in many of his past decisions. I don’t want this to be seen as bashing Senator Coburn, but rather to encourage current state lawmakers to make decisions based on the good or bad merits of calling for another Con-Con, rather than on the personal relationship or friendship with Senator Coburn. The stakes on this issue are too serious for lawmakers to get it wrong. Should they open Pandora’s Box, they may find they can never put the trouble back into the box, even if they want to.
To make it easy, I suggest we see some of Dr. Coburns bad judgments identified by the letters in his first name, T.O.M. That would stand for TARP, Obama & McCain. Let me explain.
First, for the (T). In 2008, when the economic calamity began, Dr. (T)om voted for TARP, the government bail out or as some have called it the “bankster” bail out. Dr. Cobrun bought into the establishment line, that if he didn’t vote for the measure, the next day Oklahomans would wake up and not be able to use their ATM machines. I believe Senator Coburn was sincerely “fearful” of what might happen if he did not vote for the $750 Billion bailout. Senator Inhofe and Congressman Frank Lucas used better judgment as they both opposed the measure. It was a risky time, but we would have been far better off to begin righting our ship at that time than today as we now have almost twice the debt and are making no gains on solving our problems. Remember, the longer we wait to solve our problems, the more painful will be the solution.
Second, for the (O). In the summer to fall of 2007 Senator Coburn was speaking at OCPAC. I asked the final question which was: do you believe Senator Obama will run for President (Obama had yet to announce)? Senator Coburn’s answer was: I don’t think he will this time (he was wrong on this one) but I am sure he will someday and I am sure he will make a fine President! Sorry folks, but I would suggest he showed the poorest judgment of his life on this answer.
Third, for the (M). In 2008 during the Republican primary, during the heat of the South Carolina primary and at a crucial time, Senator Coburn used his “conservative persona” to endorse Senator John McCain and boost him above Governor Huckabee, Senator Santorum, Ron Paul and others.
Again, Senator Coburn used his conservative credentials to support one of the most liberal Republican Senators and worst Republican Presidential candidates to ever run for office.
While those big 3 should serve as enough evidence, please allow me the liberty to continue on as I am a little offended at Coburn’s editorial a week ago Sunday in the Oklahoman when he suggested the following to describe folks such as myself who oppose the call for another con-con. Coburn said, “It is hypocritical for us to profess reverence for our Constitution while we shun the very process it provides for our protection; and it’s cowardly for us to shun it out of fear.”
I would agree with Senator Coburn that in the days of our founders when we had people like Madison, Washington, Jay, Jefferson, Henry, Franklin, Mason and many others making decisions, this would have been a measure that could rescue us from the tyranny of the central or federal government. However, we live in a far different day with far different people and the use of an Article V call for another Con-Con will ABSOLUTELY not result in reducing the excessive power and overreach of the federal government. A con-con today would be much more likely to do harm than good. Call that fear and cowardice if you want, I call it good sense, the kind of good sense that would cause a person heading toward the edge of a cliff in an automobile to change course before it was too late.
Let me explain real respect for the Constitution and courage versus the hypocrisy and lack of courage by Senator Coburn. In the fall of 2013, the courageous Senator Ted Cruz stood in the well of the Senate and for 22 hours or so exhibited real courage and leadership when he was using a filibuster to force the “do nothing Republican leadership” in Congress to use the “Constitutional means” of the purse to fund every part of the bloated federal government except for Obamacare.
The strategy may well have worked if every Republican lawmaker would have rallied around the strategy and not deviated from the message! What was Coburn doing as Cruz in the Senate and Bridenstine in the House were working to kill Obamacare? He was yelling from the housetops, “it won’t work, it won’t work” and he was right on, it would not work with people like him cutting the legs out from under the true leaders like Cruz and Bridenstine. They were using a Constitutional means to end Obamacare, he was working to thwart them. Did that failed government shut down hurt the Republicans in the 2014 elections, NO.
Coburn had the reputation of trying to bring some fiscal responsibility to Congress, especially in his great efforts to stop the earmark spending that was completely out of control. However, there were times he was an unconstitutional big spender himself. Somewhere during the Bush Presidency Senator Coburn voted for a bill to send $50 Billion dollars (that is Billion with a B) to Africa to fight AIDS.
Right after the vote one of Coburn’s field reps came to an OCPAC meeting where I asked this simple question: “where does Senator Coburn find the Constitutional authority to send $50 billion dollars to Africa to fight AIDS and is that not a larger amount of money than any earmark he has ever fought? The answer was: “don’t ask me that question Charlie”. I said ok, then let me ask you this question, why did he vote for the bill? The answer was, he had fought hard to get a couple of amendments passed to try and make sure at least some of the money would be used for the benefit of those suffering from AIDS rather than just end up in the pockets of the local dictators. Therefore, he felt the need to vote for the measure since he had been successful in getting the amendments passed.
I understand Coburn working to make the measure better, but the measure was still unconstitutional and still fiscally irresponsible coming out of a government that is trillions of dollars in debt.
Now lets speak to courage. Approximately a year and a half ago, probably the last town hall meeting Senator Coburn held in Guthrie, I was in attendance along with a good size crowd of other folks. When it came time for the Q&A, I was standing along the elevated ramp with my hand up. Though he saw me several times he kept pointing to other folks for questions. About the 15th person he called on was OCPAC member, Steve Hampton. Rather than ask a question, Steve referred his question to me.
I then couched my question as follows: Senator Coburn, I give only a 3 or 4 percent chance of the federal government ever fixing our problems from within Washington. Therefore, I believe the only way to ever restore the proper balance between Washington and the states if for the states to push back against the tyranny of the federal government, and I believe the best way to accomplish that is through Nullification, what are your thoughts on Nullification?
His answer was: that is something the people of Oklahoma are going to have to decide, but I want to warn you, if the state of Oklahoma uses nullification the federal government may shut down our banking system! Really, where is the courage in that answer? The threat of such a shut down should show us just how serious the tyranny is and just how serious we need to begin to prepare ourselves to become as independent as possible and wean ourselves off of as many federal dollars and entanglements as possible and just as soon as possible.
Nullification USES the constitution we already have through the 10th Amendment rather than convening another Constitutional Convention where God only knows what might come out of such an effort. The Conference Of the States legislation Coburn is pushing through Senator Standridge doesn’t even call for a balanced budget Amendment. The balanced budget Amendment legislation being pushed by Representative Banz has a loop hole in it so large the Titanic could have maneuvered through it just before it sank.
I share Senator Coburn’s sentiment that Washington will never fix our spending problems even with a Republican President (unless it might be Ted Cruz but I doubt Coburn would ever support Cruz in the primary season).
If Senator Coburn and others which support another Constitutional Convention would spend their time, energies and the millions of dollars currently being spent to work to work toward nullification we could make a huge difference in short order. Working with lawmakers in conservative states to stand up to the federal government overreach such through nullification, such as is occurring at this time in Alabama, would give us a far better chance of reducing the overreach of the central government with much less risk then through their dangerous con-con efforts.
Oklahoma lawmakers should oppose all con-con legislation based upon the risks as well as the IMPOSSIBILITY of ever getting anything ratified in our closely divided society, anything that would actually stop the federal overreach. They should make those decisions based upon reality rather than upon blind respect for a man that has done far more good than harm during his service in Washington and is deserving of a lot of respect, but not blind worship.
I’m not sure “tees off on Tom Coburn” is an accurate description of Charlie’s comments. To me, his assessment of Senator Coburn is balanced, recognizing both strengths and weaknesses. But, the point of the piece, I believe, is the complete failure of the federal government to follow the constitution and the folly of believing that any attempt to “improve” it will result in a government more closely aligned with true conservative principles. Unfortunately, while Senator Coburn has recognized and attacked the failures of our current government, he seems to believe that the foxes will repair the henhouse to keep the hens safe! Charlie is correct in pointing out the usefulness of Nullification. Hopefully, Oklahoma will be a leader in resisting federal tyranny.
Russsell, you need to read Charlie’s remarks again. “Teed off” is polite.
Thanks for this article and reprint of Mr Meadow’s letter. Really do appreciate your work.
Nullification is reactive. Dr. Coburn is proactive. A Convention of States will move federal authority in a conservative direction, because the majority of states are conservative. If the states were more evenly divided between conservative and liberal leanings, I would be concerned. As it is, I just cannot see a
Convention of Statesgiving federal government more power than it already takes.
Thanks Mike for covering this important subject.
I have to agree with Russell above and say that I would more accurately describe Charlie Meadows’ comments as “opposition” or “agreeing to disagree” rather than using words that make it sound as if he is attacking former Sen. Coburn. Charlie was simply stating the facts and pointing out his opposing views.
On the subject at hand, as a respected student of the U.S. Constitution, I generally support the idea of an Article V Convention of States (which Meadows is talking about and is mistakenly calling a “Con-con or Constitutional Convention” a different animal altogether) and I support Mark Meckler and Michael Farris of The Convention of States Project in their efforts to call an Article V Convention for the purpose of working on and bringing possible amendment(s) up for limiting the size, scope and power of the federal government. However, like a lot of critics, I worry that this process is going to take too long and that there won’t be much left to reform by the time we get the 34 states needed to call a convention. Also, I seriously doubt that given Congress’s record of following the Constitution, what makes anyone think that they WOULD call a convention if the threshold were met as opposed to simply brushing it under the rug or simply asserting that the applications do not meet the requirements in some fashion, etc…? Who would or could hold them accountable? I also have serious questions about the Convention of States folks’ seemingly lack of a game plan for the conduct of such a convention when and if Congress DID call it as required. So far I have not been able to get any answers to how they see things going forward from that point which leaves me thinking they have little confidence in the success of their overall campaign.
And finally, at least in the short term, I think both Russell and Rick’s points on Nullification are equally good too. The tenth amendment has long been the basis for States’ rights and the boundary between the States’ jurisdiction in governing and the Federal jurisdiction in governing. And, ironically, both article V and nullification deal with the very same subject that the Convention of States’ folks have a problem with- limiting the size, authority and power of the federal government.
Regardless of which view you take it’s important to note that action on the part of “We the People”, average American citizens, is the key as recently proven by the proposed ban on ammunition for the popular AR-15 rifle. After only 2-3 days in the mainstream media and internet social communities, public outcry over the proposed ban by the ATF was so overwhelming and unexpected that it caused the ATF to do an abrupt about face and drop it’s plans for the proposed ban.
Proof once again that if we stand together as “We the People” against the tyranny of the federal burearacracy, we CAN make a difference and effect change where Congress won’t.