Coburn on the election result

| | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

From Sen. Tom Coburn's office today. Pay special attention to the bits I highlighted:

On November 4, the American people had the opportunity to choose between two candidates with the character and temperament to be not just good presidents but great presidents. John McCain ran the best campaign he could in a very difficult environment and he showed the country, once again, with his moving and gracious concession speech, what it means for a statesman and leader to put the interests of America and the next generation ahead of his own self-interest.

Barack Obama's election last night was an historic victory not for any party or ideology but for America's aspiration to be a country where anything is possible, and where all men are created equal. His election also was a victory for democracy. Even if many Americans don't like the electoral results, his campaign proved that when the American people are inspired and mobilize they can seize the reins of government and demand change.

Our president-elect offered an olive branch to Republicans last night to "heal the divides that have held back progress." We would be wise to accept his offer, roll up our sleeves and work together on areas where we can agree. The unmistakable mandate everyone in public office can take from this election is that it's time to define a "new kind of politics" with our actions, not just our words. The space between the parties is a vast frontier of consensus and possibility. The American people have always called this area "common sense." It's time for elected officials to put aside their careerist aspirations in service to this ideal.

Conservatives should be reassured that our president-elect did not seek an ideological mandate in this election, nor did he receive one. The failure of the Republican Party in this election does not represent the failure of conservatism, but of the big government Republicanism that took over our party in 1996. Had the Republican Party not governed as the party of socialism-lite for the past 12 years, our candidates' concerns about the excessive spending on the other side would have had more relevance.

Republican efforts to build a governing majority through spending and earmarks have ended in disgrace. The Republican Party can either restore its identity as the party of limited government or go the way of the Whigs. When Republicans decide to come home to the timeless conservatism present at our founding, the conservatism of Abraham Lincoln - which our president-elect graciously acknowledged last night - and the conservatism of Ronald Reagan that won the Cold War and led to unprecedented prosperity, they know where to find us.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Coburn on the election result.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Jeff Shaw Author Profile Page said:

That is a great letter, pretty much spot on.

We'll have to start by defining conservatism to the satisfaction of ALL Republicans, not just the dittoheads. A lot of people couldn't stand John McCain, fueled by Rush and others, then they were forced to support him, and that speaks to the proposition that the party has a weak disjointed, pied piper-like base, with no room for dissagreement. It's hard to be credible when we act like that toward our own guys, and its no way to elect a leader. If Rush and his likes speak for the base, then I'm out too, I'm afraid. And the dittoheads would all predictably reply: good riddance.

That's part of the problem, as I see it.

Dr. Coburn is a smart guy.

Tyson Wynn Author Profile Page said:

It seems to me that we conservatives are in need of what cooperative Christians are learning they must do: agree on esseantials and allow liberty on non-essentials.

We're going through this in the Southern Baptist Convention. There are those who presume to speak for "the Baptist way" and if you disagree with them (on secondary issues of faith) you get the idea you're very welcome to ake your ball and go home.

We need to reach a consensus of the core, essential values of conservatism, around which we will unify and rally, while understanding there are secondary issues that we can differ on, yet work together, so long as the core is honored.

We're in a period we need to use wisely.

Jeff Shaw Author Profile Page said:

Tyson, that is a wise, well put comment. You said it so much less divisively than I did, so good for you.

Bob said:

Senator Coburn is being very generous to the incoming President.

Obama's the most Leftist senator since George McGovern.

Probably even more radical, as he is a TWENTY YEAR adherent to the Marxist-oriented Black Liberation Theology espoused by the ranting Reverand Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church.

As to the demise of the GOP: It's been declared officially dead before.

However, there are some irrefutable changes in this year's election:

1) MANY White, middle class working women have chosen to have a Career over having Children. Therefore, minority percentages are growing as a percentage of the electorate, and they vote almost entirely Democrat.

2) Runaway legal and illegal immigration from Socialist leaning countries are making a number of our states into mini-Mexico's. Like California has been for 15 years, and like New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and Colorado are rapidly becoming.

3) The Mainstream Media is TOTALLY in Obama's camp.

NEVER asking him the hard questions, or drilling down persistently to get answers to basic Character questions like:

-His "Certificate of Live Birth" instead of a real Birth Certificate
-His college transcripts, his grades and the courses he took. Marxism 101, 201, 301 and 401 at Columbia University??
-Did he make good grades, or was he an Affirmative Action Minority Set-Aside beneficiary.
-WHO actually paid for his Harvard education. A Saudi Prince???
-His actual medical history, genital warts if any, and all.
-His associations with Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers, Reverand Wright, the PLO Spokesman Rashid Khalidi, and Pastor Pfleger.
-His close associations with race-hater/race baiter Louis Farakkhan.
-His close associations with convicted Felon and Democrat Party Financier Toni Rezko.
-Obama's intimate ties to the Cook County Democrat Political Machine.
-His YEARS of work as a Cook County Community Organizer for ACORN Affiliates.
-His current associations with ACORN.

Do you think we'll get any answers to these questions NOW that the election is finally over?

Don't hold your breath.

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:

We would be wise to accept his offer, roll up our sleeves and work together on areas where we can agree.

Great advice. I just haven't found much I can agree with Obama about.


There are those who presume to speak for "the Baptist way" and if you disagree with them (on secondary issues of faith) you get the idea you're very welcome to ake your ball and go home.

Yes, but growing up Southern Baptist, I am familiar with this issue and I don't agree with your analogy. When people are being asked to deny the virgin birth, or parts of Genesis, etc...and then agree that these are issues of "discussion" and not division, then it is time for someone to hit the door.

I would rather lose everytime than cave on core principles and basic tenets. If that is what it takes, then count me out of the Republican party. I'll gladly remain in the minority and you can call me what you want.

sbtulsa Author Profile Page said:

I went from Mehtodist to Southern Baptist 35 years ago.

What I found attractive in the SBC was certainty of Bible interpretation. It is much easier to have faith in consistent, Biblically documented principles rather than trying to follow or execute Biblical Principals that are "of discussion". A foundation of certainty is an elemant of the strength of faith. I'm not talking about blind faith here, but studied faith that does not change.

I believe we were all supposed to be one church since the crucifixion. Denominations are the product of the minds and interpretation of sincere men and women. Given the number of denominations in the world, it is more imperative than ever that we address our differences by staying connected and proving doctrine through study. We therefore end up helping each other to understanding.

Brian Blackwell Author Profile Page said:

Ironic letter coming from a Senator that voted for the largest spending bill in the history of the country to bail-out and buy-out private insitutions for their stupidity.

Well done TOM!!!!!!!!!

Keep talking like a conservative, but voting like a liberal and we'll keep getting what we've gotten the last two elections...and that's our butts handed to us by the real liberals.

I will not forget.'s your time to go.

Good luck finding anything that Obama/Pelosi/Reid even talk to you about much less become willing to work with you on coming "to that middle ground" of common sense.

McCain was a squishy liberal wearing an R behind his name. Name every bill of substance that John McCain has authored, and you will see that it is anithema to the conservative cause. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, I need to go on?

We keep running liberal-lite candidates out there for election and we're gonna keep getting our butts kicked.

Be sure to thank Mike Duncan and crew for not having the stones to tell the first four states in the primaries that open elections are not an option, and then for not climbing inside McCain sideways to make him toe the conservative line, instead of running to get beat. Which is exactly how he ran this campaign.

Palin/Jindal '12

Tyson Wynn Author Profile Page said:


Please don't misunderstand my sentiment. There are some doctrines of faith that are essential (your example of virgin birth would be one of those), and as such are matters we rightly separate over. There are other issues that are secondary and tertiary rather than essential. For many, many years, Southern Baptists have agreed on essentials and allowed liberty on non-essentials as a means of forming a cooperative effort to reach as many with the Gospel of Christ as possible. It is the root of our missions endeavors.

Please understand, I am not advocating watering down core principles; abandoning our first principles (as Fred Thompson called them) is to blame for Republicans' loss of power. I am about as conservative as they come. What I am advocating is a clearly defined core set of conservative ideals around which we can all rally and for which we can work, persuade, and fight, while understanding that one some non-core issues true conservatives might have legitimately different views that do not endanger their overall philosophy.

What we're seeing is the failure of the big-tent mentality that wants to redefine conservatism in order to get more Republicans. I'm in favor of a drive, defined by core ideals, that helps us convert persons to genuine conservatism.

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:

For many, many years, Southern Baptists have agreed on essentials and allowed liberty on non-essentials as a means of forming a cooperative effort to reach as many with the Gospel of Christ as possible. It is the root of our missions endeavors.

Well, I would certainly have to know exactly what you think represents secondary or tertiary issues because if this is some of that "cooperative" Christianity I've been reading of where everyone in the pew sings Kumbaya, and talks of tolerance, and kind of interprets their own set of rules, while mouthing about the "love" of Jesus, they belong with Obama.

And Tyson, that would include not only the Gospels but everything Paul instructed as well. Either the Bible is the inspired word of God, or it isn't. Don't mean to sound harsh but I've met a lot of Christians, even some calling themselves Pastor, who are as deceived as the lost.

That, the watered down and repetitive messages, and the general intellectual laziness of the Southern Baptist Church are the reasons I left the church some years back.

Tyson Wynn Author Profile Page said:

I posted this earlier, but it didn't show up.



I have obviously struck a nerve with you that is taking this conversation terribly askew of the point of Jeff's and my original comments. So as not to hijack Michael's blog, you are welcome to contact me via email (tyson at tysonwynn dot com) if you think there's any value in discussing things further.

For the record, however, (and this is the last I choose to respond here) if you knew me or anything about me, you'd know I am certainly not one who "sings Kumbaya, and talks of tolerance, and kind of interprets their own set of rules, while mouthing about the 'love' of Jesus." If anything I have stated here leads you to believe I am as "deceived as the lost," I'd certainly love to discuss it with you.

That said, yes, you do sound harsh (and I honestly doubt that you don't mean to).

Further, there is no such thing as "the Southern Baptist Church." There are very many Baptist churches who cooperate via the Southern Baptist Convention, state conventions, and/or local associations of churches.

I am genuinely sorry that you encountered watered-down, repetitive messages, and intellectual laziness with your specific church, and I hope since leaving you have found a church to your liking. Those symptoms, however, are not limited to Baptist churches. Thankfully, both God and our government allow us to freely associate with the local congregation be believe is best.

I do not equivocate on the essentials of the Gospel (and notice I did not say the gospels). However, I also do not yell when Holy Scripture whispers or is silent. It's interesting that you mention the Apostle Paul, because a great deal of Scripture that flowed through his pen is instructive on this matter. He himself refused to issue judgment on certain issues, instructing Christians to be guided by their Christian conscience.

Most non-essentials have to do with cultural customs. Quick example: drinking alcoholic beverages. Scripture is clear that drunkenness is sinful, though it never gives a command to abstain totally. There are Christians whose consciences exhort them to abstain totally. Other Christians believe it is not sinful to drink alcohol moderately (not to drunkenness). Both views can be supported by Scripture and are perfectly legitimate based on teaching of Scripture. Where Christians err is being dogmatic about something on which Scripture issues no clear command (e.g., demanding, because I am an abstainer, that you also abstain or you're not really a Christian). In this example, I would argue, teetotalers should not refuse to cooperate with Christians who drink in moderation (and vice versa). Now, if the issue is on essential elements of Christian doctrine, we rightly divide. (Elements of essential and non-essential doctrine are easily researched as they are commonly discussed by many good Christian teachers and theologians, so I'll go no further here.)

Since you mentioned Paul, it might be instructive to close with this:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."(Romans 13:1-2, ESV)

And before you say it, I know we are to obey God rather than man, but as a general principle, we are to honor and respect our authorities, though we may disagree with them vehemently. I, for one, refuse to behave like the Bush-haters have.

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:

I'll leave this as my last comment as well Michael.

Tyson, you would be wrong about striking a nerve. I took a quick gander at your link. Quite the contrary, I simply stated an obvious truth. I greatly admire your standing if I understood your current occupation. The job is both demanding and sometimes may appear thankless. I commend both you and your family.

But you of all people should recognize what we find today for the most part are 'churches' catering to the whims of the culture, thinking increasing membership is the key to spreading the Gospel (and notice I did not say the gospels). That is both a fraud and a farce IMHO.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons (1st Timothy 4:1, NAV).

I do find your response about semantics and formality concerning a definition somewhat ironic being that I was a Southern Baptist for 40+ years. I am well aware there is no Southern Baptist Church being that my own brother-in-law is currently a Southern Baptist preacher right here in Oklahoma.

Being that apologetics is also an interest of mine, and being I have the both the education of business, medicine and science so woefully lacking amongst some attending masses, you might have found my opinions interesting about certain subjects currently being debated in theology, academia and science.

However, it has been my personal experience most pastors terribly insecure when challenged. That alone would preclude me from discussing the issues further with you except to say I have no desire to ever again attend formal church services (except when personal duty calls). I now spend my time listening to the greats each Sunday morning. David Jeremiah is my current favorite. And before you state it, I am well aware of God's instruction to gather.

The bottom line is that I think it best to remember Christ came not to unite but to divide.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on November 5, 2008 12:36 PM.

Watching the returns was the previous entry in this blog.

Steyn on the election results is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]