Reacting to Coburn's unsettling far-right relapse yesterday in an interview with the Tulsa World, Greg Sargent reviews the full transcript. This didn't make the cut. When asked if he thinks Obama wants to destroy the country, Coburn replies
“No, I don’t… He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was… “His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.
I'm still confused about how exactly Obama was a product of programs that create "dependency." He seems to disprove that entirely. But the full context is important, because it shows that Coburn hasn't actually gone off the deep end entirely. Sargent:
As Adam Serwer notes, the problem with Coburn’s remarks as they were originally reported is that he seemed to be saying that blacks get unfair advantages, thanks to the welare state — an implication that’s central to the conservative case against it. I think the full transcript shows that this isn’t quite what Coburn was saying, but his use of the phrase “create dependence” is still highly questionable. Because as Serwer also notes, Coburn is also implicitly conceding that these programs succeed in their objective of helping people who lack the means to protect themselves.
What’s funny to me about this whole episode is that it reveals how challenging it is for the saner variety of Republicans to reason with some of their constituents about the President. Coburn is struggling to talk a constituent out of his anxiety that Obama actively wants to destroy the country. He needs to find a way of defending Obama’s motives that a constituent inclined to believe the worst about Obama might be able to listen to and even tolerate. So Coburn hit on this way of defending Obama while still keeping his argument confined within a world view that this constituent might find acceptable. It’s not easy being a Republican official these days.
Elias Isquith also pooh-poohs the outcry against Coburn, adding:
If Coburn’s affection for Obama has undercurrents of patronization or condescension, well, it wouldn’t be the first time such a thing has happened — and we could reasonably chalk it up to the two mens’ difference in age, experience and worldview as we could to race…doesn’t the example of Obama, even if we accept Coburn’s framing, argue in favor of the President’s supposed views? I mean, the man in question, here, who has benefited from such “tremendous advantage[s]” is, by Coburn’s own estimation, a “very bright” President.
The Dish 