I do NOT have time to be writing this. I have to be at work at 6:00am tomorrow, I still have a sinus infection I caught over a week ago, and I am dead tired. But this simply has got me riled up. Not in a fuming way, but in a resigned way, as much of the political news these days has dulled the rage.

Mallard Fillmore is an unfunny comic added to the sadly anemic and unfunny pages of the Los Angeles Times a few years back during some strange effort to balance the left-leaning stance of the funny pages with a conservative voice. There’s a good reason there were no conservative comics in the Times a decade ago (unless you count the barely disguised rantings of The Wizard of Id): conservatives tend to not be very funny. Granted, the liberal La Cucaracha is sadly, painfully unfunny as well, but on the whole, the more liberal comics have a better track record of being funny where the conservative comics just aren’t. I think liberals are more funny because they can laugh at themselves and others. Conservatives can not laugh at themselves, only at others.

But that’s another subject I’ve been meaning to write about for eons now.

No, today I’m disgusted by this. Here are the last three days of Mallard, reprinted here without permission:

See? Not funny. Not even a smidgen. But again, that’s not why I’m writing this.

When I saw the first one on Monday, I had a feeling this Tom Coburn guy, though taking what sounded through Mallard author Bruce Tinsley’s eyes like an admirable stance on less government spending, was going to be a meany in other matters, just like everyone else Bruce and his staunch lot love.

After today’s comic, I had to check. So I did a little reading.

This is from Tom’s official Senate webpage: “Dr. Coburn’s priorities in the Senate include reducing wasteful spending, balancing the budget, improving health care access and affordability, protecting the sanctity of all human life including the unborn and representing Oklahoma values.”

So okay, not a surprise that Tom is a pro-lifer. But then I came upon a Salon article from before Tom was elected, back in September of 2004. Here’s an early snippet from the article:

For Coburn, the imminent danger facing America is apparently not terrorism but the “gay agenda.” His thumping about this menace within contributed to the pressure that led to Bush’s endorsement of a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. At a Republican meeting this spring, Coburn warned: “The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power … That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.”

Oh, my, but it gets better.

In 1997, Coburn proposed a bill that would have ended anonymous testing for HIV/AIDS and required reporting the names of those who tested positive to public health authorities, among other draconian measures—including withholding Medicaid funding from states that failed to comply.

This from the guy President El Busho appointed as Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS.

But there’s more. Remember, Bruce thinks Tom is for less governmental spending:

In 1996, after voting for provisions of an agriculture bill that aided Oklahoma farmers, Coburn told the Wall Street Journal that it made him sick for days afterward and that Washington was “a dirty place.” In 1997, he boasted, “I don’t ask for anything from Appropriations.” The year after that, he complained to USA Today that he was underpaid as a congressman: “You have to be able to earn more money to attract good people.”

Uh huh. How about this?

As far right as Coburn is on fiscal issues, he is even farther right on social issues. “I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life,” he told the Associated Press in July.

What a sweet fellow. Here are more juicy bites:

A year later, Coburn gained a moment of national attention when he condemned NBC for televising the Academy Award-winning movie on the Holocaust “Schindler’s List.” According to Coburn, the film encouraged “irresponsible sexual behavior,” and he called for outrage against the network from “parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere.” He added, “I cringe when I realize that there were children all across this nation watching this program.”

In 1999, after the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, Coburn opposed President Clinton’s proposal for making adults liable if they allow their children to buy guns and harm others. “If I wanted to buy a bazooka to use in a very restricted way, to do something, I ought to be able to do that,” said Coburn.

I have to wonder if someone like Bruce is so very, very concerned with smaller taxes and government that he ignores Tom’s more hateful posturing. I mean, really, is it more desirable for our government to spend less than it is for it to treat all those in our country fairly and equally? Just looking at Tom alone, you have to wonder how someone like this can espouse the concept of as little government interference as possible in one area—bazooka Tom—but increased government interference in several others—gays, mothers who desire abortion, or even gay mothers who desire abortion.

It’s the same argument we’ve all made a thousand times in the last five years, but it can not be repeated enough.

What I forgot to mention about the Salon article is that Tom himself was once charged with an illegal Medicaid claim. Read the story to find out more, because to me, it’s the least interesting part of the article.

So I’m a ranting liberal faggot, huh? Of course I would not see eye-to-eye with Tom. Of course I would only site one source and milk it for all its worth. Well, an article on Fox 23’s site (an Oklahoma station, as far as I can tell) points out some of the good ideas Tom has, such as emphasizing prevention to help tackle medical costs and importing drugs from Canada. These are typically not conservative concepts. But the story shows more of Tom’s crackpot side than his good side. Regarding abortion, he says, “Under the mores we live under today, my lineage wouldn’t exist.” You see, it appears that his great-grandmother was raped by a territorial sheriff. Had she been allowed to get an abortion—and it seems Tom’s assuming she would have made that CHOICE—Tom would not exist today. Shucks.

Yeah, better she should have suffered against her will so we could have this kind and thoughtful leader in office.

How about this quote from the same article? “The oath that people in Congress take isn’t to bring back pork to their state. The oath they take is to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.” Unless, of course, you’re gay or a woman. “I’m going to check with what I know is right and what I think the Constitution says and does it fit with the moral code that I follow.” Well, I guess the Constitution loses out to Tom’s moral code. Thank the Lord!

But what about this nice gesture? On Tom’s own site, it says he introduced legislation updating the Ryan White CAR Act, which funds care for those with HIV and AIDS. Nancy Pelosi liked it. That’s good.

Also from Tom’s site, an interesting speech relating wise government spending to Katrina relief. Some smart comments, though he does over-use the conservative watch words “children and grandchildren.” There go my heart strings. He also said, “We have an oath to uphold the Constitution, but we have a higher oath, and that higher oath is to keep the obligations that our forefathers put forward to create the best, brightest, the country providing the most opportunity of any in the world.” Unless you’re gay or a woman wanting an abortion.

I could go on. Tom, as a “maverick” Republican, surely does have some good ideas. Many Republicans do. But how genuinely generous and caring is someone going to be if they can also suggest that abortion doctors be executed, that gays are the cause of society’s supposedly lax mores, and that gun rights are more important than reproductive ones? Not very.

I agree that individuals need to take more responsibility for their actions and lives. But gun-wielding pro-lifers who believe in killing others to protect people who aren’t even born yet do not fall into that category for me. Bruce Tinsley and all the rest are nauseating in their selective inclusion of those who deserve the freedoms they so highly covet. Freedom for all or freedom for none. There can not be an in-between. Sorry, fellas!