“There needs to be a renewed sense of awareness of what the real problems are facing this country. And a redoubling of our commitment to shed partisan robes and get down to fixing the real problems in front of us. And parochialism has no place in that discussion. The political careers of members have no place in that discussion. The real future of our country is at risk.”
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floorstatements?ContentRecord_id=17ef79f0-b98b-4178-8917-5b1c51bf4ca1
When we find ourselves $16 trillion in debt and we're going to pay for another bill over five years by ten years of changes, we never get out of the problem. We make the problem worse. What are we doing? And who are we doing it for?
And are we really thinking about veterans when we don't solve the bigger problems, and we have manifest presence in this bill of the very problems we say we need to be addressing but yet we're making them worse with this bill? We're making the financial problems worse with this bill.
Context: Senator Coburn is going into several arenas to explain his reluctance for not supporting and not voting for a Veteran-friendly jobs bill. Democrats are crying obstructionist. Coburn is calling for restraint. I want to pursue the points made by Coburn when, on the surface, a bill looks like a no-brainer.
Assertion: We need to "shed partisan robes."
Mr Coburn has here established a piece of circumstantial evidence; however, he does not illustrate the point or give credence to either party's core values or goals in the gridlocking public conflicts. To understand this is to give the history of each position separately. Many other circumstantial pieces of evidence will emerge when and if he does. The comment has merit, but it really calls for a larger discussion, a discussion that he appears to avoid. The result would produce an outcome that would undoubtedly undermine both major positions. It is really easy to make a snark, but it does not help if one stops before he does the work.
Assertion: Member of Congress are more concerned with political careers.
Without a person to person interview and a careful analytic investigation of each elected representative or official, the comment has no merit. This is like beating up on society. Ultimately, we are all society.
Assertion: The real future of our country is at risk.
Too general to be of use.
Mr Coburn has here established a piece of circumstantial evidence; however, he does not illustrate the point or give credence to either party's core values or goals in the gridlocking public conflicts. To understand this is to give the history of each position separately. Many other circumstantial pieces of evidence will emerge when and if he does. The comment has merit, but it really calls for a larger discussion, a discussion that he appears to avoid. The result would produce an outcome that would undoubtedly undermine both major positions. It is really easy to make a snark, but it does not help if one stops before he does the work.
Assertion: Member of Congress are more concerned with political careers.
Without a person to person interview and a careful analytic investigation of each elected representative or official, the comment has no merit. This is like beating up on society. Ultimately, we are all society.
Assertion: The real future of our country is at risk.
Too general to be of use.
Assertion--Rhetorical Question: Are we really thinking about veterans?
Too general to be of use. It is a generalized opinion, applied blindly, with little or no specifics.
Assertion: Is this bill making them (problems with the national debt) even worse?
Here again, someone who starts this debate must follow it wherever it might lead.
Conclusions:
I think Mr Coburn's comments are really statements of frustration. They do not solve any problems. They do not have antecedents for the public to learn their purpose. It could be a self positioning projection of his own views. The problem here is that it is really a call for a larger discussion, but then it shuts down before the actual conversation. I admire Mr Coburn's integrity and his service, but I cannot see how these current statements help him or the country. They are more descriptive than useful.
Too general to be of use. It is a generalized opinion, applied blindly, with little or no specifics.
Assertion: Is this bill making them (problems with the national debt) even worse?
Here again, someone who starts this debate must follow it wherever it might lead.
Conclusions:
I think Mr Coburn's comments are really statements of frustration. They do not solve any problems. They do not have antecedents for the public to learn their purpose. It could be a self positioning projection of his own views. The problem here is that it is really a call for a larger discussion, but then it shuts down before the actual conversation. I admire Mr Coburn's integrity and his service, but I cannot see how these current statements help him or the country. They are more descriptive than useful.
No comments:
Post a Comment