Senate plots to get rid of doc

"Last time I checked being as senator is a full time job. A lot is expected from them and if I were a resident of Oklahoma I would be a little peeved that his attention was not focused solely on working for Oklahoma. I hope he realizes this and gets back to being a full time senator."
---

Article I, Section IV Constitution of the United States:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, [and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,] unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

Our founders wrote this because back then (before the spread of American socialism) Government didn't have the power to tax and spend all your families money, in fact it didn't have the power to do much of anything besides negotiate with foreign powers and declare war(which was good)! Our founders wrote like this becasue they were actually afraid that Congress wouldn't meet ENOUGH. Which is really fine, this is the whole idea - a citizen politician.

However, over the years Government has given itself tyrannical powers and now a power hungry bunch of elected thieves now sits in Washington year round getting their friends rich at our expense. When one good man stands against the flow he gets slammed for it.

Perhaps you think what I'm saying is 'radical', but I think if you look into it, its really 'right'.

On some level, I agree with you but there still remains the problem of conflict of interest. If we let Coburn do it, we have to let others as well. This could mean that a Senator could be a CEO of a major corporation (and would probably vote for pork directed at his industry). If they can et around that and the people of Oklahoma are okay with it, why not.

This could mean that a Senator could be a CEO of a major corporation (and would probably vote for pork directed at his industry)
---

I think some of our CEOs would be pretty good Senators. In fact, JP Morgan and a group of private bankers once were looked to by the public when the economy turned south, not the Congress - because the Congress didn't have the power to do much!

So, if Congress didn't have the power to pork barel spend, then it wouldn't matter who was elected to the position. Congress has given itself the power to pork barrel spend -and create regulations that are = to pork barrel spending in that they steal money from us in the future rather then in the present.

I think the best question is, if you're a pregnant woman in Oklahoma, do you really want your doctor being in Washington half the time?

That would be none of your damn business. Unless it's you.
Then fire him and get a differant doc.

Hey Tony,

I'm not suprised. Back on election night I was at this party for the Cuyahoga County Republican Party. I was chatting up this Voinovich intern until she told me she was rooting for Coburn's opponent. I'm certain she must have gotten her anti-Coburn bias from her boss.

If you knew his history in the US House you would not be saying this at all. I am from Oklahoma and believe me when I say this he can do both jobs very well. His main point is you do not have to be a career politician. Coburn was one of the few who kept his promise of self term limits in the House. He was elected in 94 and KEPT ALL OF HIS PROMISES on the Contract with America. We from Oklahoma know him well and want him to stay in the Senate. I'm afraid he won't if the Senate does not let him practice medicine.

That would be none of your damn business. Unless it's you. Then fire him and get a differant doc.

It wasn't a criticism of HIM holding both jobs. It was me just wondering why a pregnant woman would want a doctor that is RARELY around?

By the way . . . "different"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.