Jim Inhot Water

Inhofe Goes After CNN...Again...

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:24:00 +0000

Jim Inhofe took to the airwaves again this week to hammer CNN for their piece on his global warming crusade. This time, he confronted Miles O'Brien head on. Check it out...highly amusing.

James Inhofe Parades his “Senior Advocacy” Award from Pharmaceutical Industry Front Group

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:06:00 +0000

Earlier this week, Jim Mountain Inhofe issued a press release praising himself for receiving the Guardian of Seniors’ Rights Award for “his continued support of seniors’ rights during the 109^th Congress.” The organization that presented Inhofe with this award, the 60 Plus Association, is described in the release as “a non-partisan seniors’ citizens association [that] advocates a prescription drug benefit for seniors as well as tax fairness, fiscal responsibility, and other current seniors citizen issues.”

In fact, 60 Plus is anything but a senior’s advocacy group. According to the AARP, the largest and most recognized group representing America’s seniors, and Public Citizen, a non-profit public interest organization, 60 Plus is actually a conservative front group for the nation’s pharmaceutical industry, namely PhRMA, the drug industry’s chief trade association. According to an investigation conducted by the AARP Bulletin, virtually all of the contributions to 60 Plus in recent years have come from the same source – America’s pharmaceutical industry. 60 Plus is actually one of three front groups for the industry, according to that study and one conducted by Public Citizen. The other two are United Seniors Association and the Seniors Coalition. From AARP: “All three organizations claim to be nonpartisan, though they support – almost without exception – the campaigns and causes of one party.” Bet you can’t guess which one!

Indeed, lobbying disclosure forms filed by 60 Plus reveal that the group has spent inordinate amounts of money, well over $14 million since 2000 on issues such as repealing the estate tax (a well-known Republican priority), private accounts for Social Security, CAFTA, the Patriot Act, conservative judicial nominations, drilling in ANWR, and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, which was widely criticized as a giveaway to drug companies. (Baltimore Sun, 12/1/03; Chicago Tribune, 10/30/03; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/26/03; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/26/03; News and Observer, 11/23/03)

When President Bush spoke at the signing of the Medicare bill, he specifically thanked the president of 60 Plus, Jim Martin, along with the chair and CEO of United Seniors Association, for their hard work on the legislation. (Washington Post, 12/8/03)

In addition, Mr. Martin, along with other 60 Plus representatives, have penned a variety of interesting editorials over the years in the name of 60 Plus, but many of the issues he endorses aren’t exactly your run-of-the-mill serniors’ issues. They include: “Global Warming: Emissions treaty would devastate the US economy,” (Kansas City Star, 7/17/05); “One man, one woman, no compromises,” (Scripps Howard, 4/23/04); USA Patriot Act: It’s about safety, not snooping.” (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/9/03); “Over-due drilling in ANWR,” (Washington Times, 2/2/03); and my personal favorite, “Don’t blame ‘Big Oil’ for high energy costs,” (Herald News, 11/27/05).

It would take a conservative front group to recognize a senator like Inhofe for his supposed crusade for seniors. Inhofe has most certainly sided more with the drug industry than with seniors. Surprising, since, at 71, he's a senior himself. Inhofe voted against allowing for the negotiation of lower prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. (Senate Roll Call Vote 50, 3/15/06) He penalized seniors by repeatedly voting against extending the deadline for enrolling in the Medicare prescription drug plan. (Senate Roll Call Vote 5, 2/2/06; Senate Roll Call Vote 342, 11/17/0/5) He voted for significant cuts in Medicare and Medicaid with his support of the Budget Reconciliation package. (Senate Roll Call Vote 303, 11/3/05) And, of course, he voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill, largely a giveaway to drug companies at the expense of America’s seniors. (Senate Roll Call Vote 459, 11/25/03)

Congratulations Senator, guess you earned it.

CNN on Inhofe's Global Warming Attack...

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:35:00 +0000

This morning, CNN anchor Miles O'Brien aired a piece on Jim Inhofe's recent Senate floor rant on the media and global warming. According to Inhofe, the media has falsely hyped the existence of global warming and have become environmental advocates and (his favorite word), "alarmists."

"I am a realist. I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, stop ignoring legitimate voices in this scientific debate, and stop being used by the hysterical left. Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells and it is very profitable, but I really believe the issue is getting worn out. They have not been able to come up with anything to support their side. ," he said. Borrowing a term from a British group, Inhofe told the media to give up their "climate porn."

O'Brien covers the highlights of Inhofe's speech and offeres rebuttals from scientists and even Republican Congressmen Chris Shays of Connecticut. O'Brien also notes, "In the recent five year period, Inhofe has received more than $850,000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Inhofe challenged the media to get their story straight in his speech. But when we asked for an interview with him, we were told he's just too busy to speak with us."

See for yourself.

Jim “Iraq is nothing short of a miracle” Inhofe Could Take Over Armed Services Committee

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:21:00 +0000

There has been much speculation lately over which Senators would take over which committees when Congress convenes next session. Due to term limits, some senators are being forced to step down and others will rise to the helm. Interestingly enough, this could mean the end of Jim Inhofe’s reign as Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, but unfortunately could elevate him to the powerful position of Armed Services Committee chair. Yes, that’s right, the same man who called what’s happened in

Iraq

“nothing short of a miracle” would be in charge of all defense related issues.

According to a recent story in Roll Call, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) will have to step down as Armed Services chairman due to Republican term limits. But, according to the article, “Warner may have the option to oust Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) from the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee, because Warner outranks him.”

Now, I know what you’re thinking…this calls for a celebration! But don’t whip out those party hats just yet. When Warner steps down, Sen. John McCain is expected to take over. But, McCain is largely expected to run for president in 2008, and many have questioned whether or not he can juggle such an important chairmanship while running for the highest government office in the country. So, another senator may have to take over for him. “And, eventually, if McCain remains a viable candidate in the presidential race, he could take a leave of absence from the chairmanship and choose an interim successor. One option may be Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the third-most-senior Republican on the committee.” (Arizona Republic, 9/19/06)

That’s a little bit scary. Jim Inhofe doesn’t exactly have the sanest record when it comes to defense. Just for fun, let’s review:

Inhofe claims that what’s has happened in Iraq is “nothing short of a miracle”

Recently, Inhofe said that “what’s happened [in Iraq] is nothing short of a miracle.” This has largely been contradicted by both newspapers and testimonials from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. This, even though Inhofe has been to Iraq 11 times. (Tulsa World, 8/22/06)

Inhofe said “civil war is not going on” in Iraq

Earlier this month, Inhofe gave a grossly inaccurate picture of the state of the Iraq war on the Senate floor. He argued that immense progress had been made, that violence was not, in fact, quickly escalating, and that Iraqis were actually quite happy about the American presence. “Civil war is not going on,” Inhofe insisted. (Congressional Record, 9/6/06) This in the face of a dismal Pentagon report that asserted, “Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months.” (Associated Press, 9/1/06)

Inhofe was more “outraged by the outrage” over the Abu Ghraib prison controversy than by the abuse itself

During the hearings on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in 2004, Inhofe created quite the stir when he said he was fed up with all the “humanitarian do- gooders” making such a fuss over the inhumane treatment of prisoners. (Washington Post, 5/12/04) He said he was “more outraged by the outrage” than by the treatment of the prisoners. (New York Times, 5/12/04)

Inhofe is displeased with the conditions at Guantanamo…because they’re too nice!

After visiting the compound at Guantanamo Bay, Inhofe said that the conditions were much better than the prisoners deserved. “We’re dealing with terrorists here,” he said. (Wichita Eagle, 1/26/02)

Inhofe suggested that the 9-11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against America for failing to defend Israel

In a speech on the Senate floor in 2002, Inhofe explicitly suggested that the 9-11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the US for failing to adequately defend Israel. “One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them." He went on to cite the most important reason for defending Israel: “Because God said so.” (Congressional Record, 3/4/02)

Really? This is the guy they’re going to choose to serve as the chair of the Armed Services Committee? Be afraid, be very afraid.

Cross-posted at SenateMajority.com

Do We See a Pattern Here? Jim Inhofe Invites Another Controversial Author to Testify at Environment Committee Hearing

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:30:00 +0000

It seems Jim Inhofe is up to old tricks in the Environment and Public Works Committee. Tomorrow, the committee Inhofe chairs will hold a hearing on the Asia-Pacific Partnership, a six country agreement to boost private investment in climate technologies. The partnership is designed to help member nations reach strategies for improving energy security, reducing pollution, and addressing climate change. Inhofe has decided to invite as his star witness Bjorn Lomborg, controversial author and professor, best known for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which was widely criticized by environmental scientists. (Greenwire, 9/18/06) Looks like this could be a Michael Crichton repeat!

The Skeptical Environmentalist challenged the claims of the world’s environmentalists, characterizing them as grossly exaggerated. The book received much criticism from the scientific community. (Oregonian, 8/21/06) In fact, after a group of scientists brought formal complaints against the assertions made in the book, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, a body under Denmark’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, found that the book was scientifically dishonest, citing among other things: fabrication of data, distorted interpretation of conclusions, plagiarism, and deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results. (BBC News, 12/22/03)

A number of science publications, including Scientific American, Grist, and Nature Magazine published extensive criticism of the book. The Nature critique argued, “the text employs the strategy of those, who, for example, argue that gay men aren’t dying of AIDS, that Jews weren’t singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.” (Nature, 11/8/01)

In addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists strongly criticized the book, claiming it to be “seriously flawed and fail[ing] to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis.”

It is no wonder that Jim Inhofe, renowned climate change skeptic, invited someone like Bjorn Lomborg to testify at a hearing concerning climate change and pollution reduction. After all, this is not the first time this has happened. In a 2005 Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on climate change, Inhofe called as his star witness author Michael Crichton, and tried to make his book, State of Fear, required reading for all senate members, arguing, “while ‘State of Fear’ is a novel, it is fiction, the footnotes are incontrovertibly scientific.” (Congressional Transcripts, 9/28/05)

In fact, the book had been largely dismissed by the scientific community and the science employed in the book was dismissed as distorting actual research. “The best face I can put on this is he doesn’t know what he’s doing. The worst is that he’s intentionally deceiving people as he accuses environmentalists (of doing) in ‘State of Fear,’” said NYU physics professor Martin Hoffert. (Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 1/28/05)

With Inhofe at the helm and skeptic Bjorn Lomborg the featured guest, this promises to be a circus hearing aimed largely at debunking the current science on climate change and global warming.

Another Conservative Admits the Effects of Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:11:00 +0000

Yesterday, Saxby Chambliss, a typical opponent of greenhouse gas reduction, finally came around on the issue, admitting that “there really is something to it.” Chambliss made that statement upon returning from a trip to Greenland to view melting polar ice. Chambliss has long been opposed to forcing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other sources. Last year, he was one of 60 Senators to vote against legislation that would have set caps on emissions from industrial polluters.

Yet, as evidence mounts showing the devastating effects of global warming, and more Republicans admit that it is a serious problem, Jim Inhofe continues to fight against capping emissions. In fact, he was so angered by California’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases, that just last week he introduced new “Clean Air” legislation that would have denied California some of the federal highway funds. He removed the bill from the Environment Committee’s agenda a few days later due to opposition within the committee.

How many conservatives will it take to convince Inhofe that this problem needs to be addressed?

Inhofe Drops His Crusade Against California…For Now

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:39:00 +0000

Last week, Sen. Jim Inhofe announced that he had introduced an update to the Clean Air Act to “improve air quality for the dirtiest areas of the country.” The bill, entitled, the Clean Air Attainment Enforcement Act, was nothing more than a veiled attempt to get back at California for enacting an apparently offensive global warming legislation. According to Inhofe’s press release, “This bill is a narrow amendment that targets only those areas of the country that are out of compliance with multiple pollutants and will not come into compliance by their attainment deadlines.” What the release doesn’t mention is that, according to the EPA’s ozone designations, the only areas affected by this legislation are the Los Angeles Basin and the San Joaquin Valley. This move came just a week after California enacted a ground breaking bill to cap emissions on manmade greenhouse gases, which Inhofe failed to hide his disdain for. As the Contra Costa Times notes, if Inhofe were anyone else, “he’d be on his dust farm throwing a tantrum.”

Apparently Inhofe realized he wasn’t fooling anyone, because, according to today’s Environment and Energy Daily, he has removed the bill from the committee’s markup agenda. Democrats objected to the bill and argued Inhofe “had not properly vetted the measure.” (Environment and Energy Daily, 9/12/06)

Perhaps Inhofe has dropped his retaliation war for now, but we’re assuming there’s much more to come from Senator Inhofe, (R-Exxon).

Inhofe Says No To Alternative Fuel Production

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:20:00 +0000

At a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing yesterday on the possible use of ethanol, Sen. Jim Inhofe made clear his refusal to invest in alternative fuel production.

“Corn cannot be the answer,” Inhofe said, suggesting that consumers would pay additional costs as a result of ethanol production. (Reuters, 9/7/06)

What is more telling is the amount of money Inhofe has received from the oil and gas industry since he has been in office; perhaps that is who he is protecting. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Inhofe has received nearly $900,000 from the industry since 1989. Seems it would be in his best monetary interest to hate the corn…

Yet even President Bush, arguably one of the largest receivers of oil money, has endorsed the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel source. In an energy speech last year, Bush said:

“We've got to be aggressive about finding alternative sources of fuel. And one such source is ethanol. Ethanol comes from corn -- and we're pretty good about growing corn here in America, we've got a lot of good corn growers. Therefore, it makes sense to promote ethanol as an alternative to foreign sources of oil. Ethanol can be mixed with gasoline to produce a clean, efficient fuel.”

Sick of paying record gas prices while the oil and gas companies reap the benefits? Then give old Inhofe a shout. I’m sure he’d love to hear from an angry constituent.

More Gross Distortions on Iraq From James Inhofe

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:53:00 +0000

Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma took to the Senate floor this evening to give a grossly inaccurate picture of the state of the Iraq war. Inhofe argued that immense progress has been made in Iraq, that violence was not, in fact, on the rise, and that Iraqis are quite happy about the American presence there. “Civil war is not going on,” said Inhofe. He could not have been more wrong.

On Friday, the Pentagon released a rather dismal report on the progress that has been made in Iraq. According to the Associated Press, Iraq is experiencing a rising tide of sectarian violence, and increasing security problems. From the report, “Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months.”

The report also detailed how optimism among Iraqi citizens has declined as well, contrary to what Inhofe said on the floor. When asked if things will be better in the future, the number of respondents answering positively has been steadily declining, according to polling in the report. (AP, 9/1/06) Doesn’t exactly sound like the pretty picture Inhofe painted.

Inhofe went on to say that the only reason the Democratic senators were expressing this criticism is because they are all running for president. In fact, only two senators even rumored to be running for president had spoken thus far, Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry. Others included Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Edward Kennedy, Mark Dayton, Barbara Mikulski, Tom Harkin, and Frank Lautenberg. Inhofe must be reading some pretty strange newspapers if he thinks they’re all running for president…

At the end of his speech, Inhofe urged his colleagues to keep politics out of the debate:

“The greatest possible disservice we can do, not just to the Iraqi people, but to our troops over there, is to use Rumsfeld and the war politically, for advancement.”

This from a Republican? Maybe Inhofe should direct his comments elsewhere, like to those in his own party, as they have openly admitted that they will use the issues of national security to better their chances of winning in November.

Sadly, Inhofe’s mischaracterizations shouldn’t be all that surprising. After all, it is certainly not the first time this has happened. Remember that “nothing short of a miracle” comment?

Calling Michael Crichton…Jim Inhofe Stands Steadfast Against California’s Emissions Capping, Calls for More Hearings

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:24:00 +0000

Well it didn’t take long for global warming champ Jim Inhofe to come out against California’s landmark legislation to control greenhouse gases. Yesterday’s Congressional Quarterly reports that Inhofe has labeled the bill a “job-killer” that would cost the state more than it’s worth.

“The impact of this ‘symbolic’ legislation is a steep price to pay for the thousands who will lose their jobs and for the disadvantaged communities which will suffer because of this bill.” (CQ Today, 8/31/06)

This statement couldn’t be farther from the truth. The legislation, in fact, is anything but “symbolic.” The new law is expected to cut carbon dioxide pollution by 25 percent by 2020, bringing the levels back down to what they were in 1990. The bill is also expected to attract new and better technologies to the area. "California is positioning itself to become the hub of a new clean energy economy based on solar energy, ethanol and other renewable fuels," says Bernadette del Chiaro of Environment California, a Sacramento-based group. "These will be the next Silicon Valley industries for California to export to the rest of the world." (Time, 8/31/06)

In addition, the emissions legislation is expected to create new jobs in California, not cost them. According to a recent study conducted by University of California, Berkeley economists, the law could boost the state’s economy by more than $60 billion and create as many as 89,000 new jobs by the year 2020. Even the state’s largest electric utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, endorsed the law, saying that it "strikes the right balance between improving the environment and protecting the economy."

Other industry leaders have also increasingly come out in favor of greenhouse gas capping legislation. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle had the head of the American Public Power Association acknowledging that inaction on global warming “is not a viable strategy.” According to the story, several industry leaders, including Shell and Exelon have even testified in front of the Senate on their support for mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

Despite the emerging public and industry consensus on the dangers of ignoring catastrophic global warming, Jim Inhofe has refused to budge. The newly enacted California legislation has led him to call for more hearings on climate change, according to the CQ article. Remember, last time the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee held such a hearing, his star witness was novelist Michael Crichton, whose novel on the subject, State of Fear, has been widely dismissed by the nation’s leading climate scientists as misleading and distorting. (Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 1/28/05)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is expected to introduce her own national version of the California bill when the Senate returns from recess. With the likes of James Inhofe at the helm of the Environment committee, don’t expect too much more progress on the issue. As California has shown, it is up to states to take matters into their own hands.

James Inhofe Ignores the Needs of Oklahomans…

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:03:00 +0000

Yesterday the US Census Bureau report revealed a grim picture for Oklahomans – a jump in the poverty rate, and one of the highest percentages of uninsured people in the nation. According to the Tulsa World, roughly 50,000 people in Oklahoma have fallen into poverty just in the last two years and one fifth of the population has no health insurance. Despite this bleak outlook, Jim Inhofe, the senior senator from Oklahoma, continues to work for his corporate donors rather than his constituents, passing tax cuts for the wealthy while refusing to fund economic and health programs that benefit the average worker.

Even as 457,000 Oklahomans live in poverty, Inhofe repeatedly refuses to raise the minimum wage, further exacerbating the problem. (Senate Roll Call Vote 179, 6/21/06; Senate Roll Call Vote 257, 10/19/05; Senate Roll Call Vote 26, 3/7/05) In the past year alone, Inhofe has consistently voted against increasing or maintaining funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program, including one vote that would have eliminated certain tax breaks for top earners in America. (Senate Roll Call Vote 43, 3/15/06; Senate Roll Call Vote 348, 11/18/05; Senate Roll Call Vote 246, 9/30/05) This federal program provides money to states for community development programs such as expanding economic opportunities for low income earners and providing decent housing. (US Department of Housing and Urban Development)

Jim Inhofe seems unaffected by the fact that the Oklahoma poverty rate has now surpassed the national rate, or that as the national median income rose, the Oklahoma median fell. No, he’s more interested in helping out his rich friends that keep him in office. Inhofe voted to permanently repeal the estate tax, which only benefits a small number of the nation’s top earners. (Senate Roll Call Vote 164, 6/8/06) He also supported an extension of the dividends and capital gains tax cuts for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. (Senate Roll Call Vote 17, 2/14/06)

The Census report also showed that Oklahoma has the 4^th highest number of residents without health insurance, behind only Florida, Texas, and New Mexico. In Oklahoma, one in five are uninsured. Yet Jim Inhofe has done nothing to ease this situation, on the contrary, he has made it worse. Inhofe voted to extend the dividends and capital gains tax cuts for the rich over funding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Senate Roll Call Vote 337, 11/17/05) He also voted against increased funding for the military health care program, TRICARE, spending that would have been offset by eliminating certain tax breaks for the wealthy. (Senate Roll Call Vote 67, 3/17/06)

Perhaps worst of all, - Inhofe was one of only two senators to oppose the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, which among other things, provides funding for certain Medicaid and Medicare programs, and for Social Security. (Senate Roll Call Vote 281, 10/27/05)

This isn’t what Oklahomans deserve, a Senator who’s too busy calling environmental activists Nazis, holding up important security bills, and grossly mischaracterizing the situation in Iraq to respond to the needs of those he is most responsible for. Inhofe’s record speaks for itself. If you can cough up the money, he’ll do whatever you ask. If not, you’re on your own…

Jim Inhofe’s Back to School Lesson: Don’t Listen to Jim Inhofe

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:37:00 +0000

As students were returning to school today around the country, Sen. James Inhofe did a little teaching of his own. On Friday, Inhofe conducted class during a breakfast meeting with Enid, OK community leaders. We should all be glad we weren’t in that classroom…

As usual, Sen. Exxon began his tirade by railing on all things pro-environment. According to the Enid News, he said that signing the Kyoto Protocol “would shut down agriculture, military, and oil production in Oklahoma.” The Protocol is an international agreement that sets mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Actually, catastrophic global warming is expected to have extremely adverse effects on the United States agriculture industry. According to a report done by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, agriculture regions, particularly those in the south, will face significantly lower grain yields and livestock production. The report notes that if the proper precautions are taken, the industry may be able to overcome the effects. This would obviously require an acknowledgement of the existence of global warming, which it seems Inhofe is miraculously unable to do.

Inhofe also somehow came to the conclusion that the US should withdraw from the United Nations. “I’ve been a critic of the United Nations since 1998. I have a resolution that says we will withhold our dues. We will withdraw from the United Nations.” Wow, Senator, way to fight the good fight. So much for the global war on terror, not to mention the crisis in the Middle East or the millions of Americans without healthcare. No, the UN is definitely the nation’s biggest problem.

Never mind that this “lesson” came from a man who doesn’t exactly have the best educational record. Inhofe actually lied about when he graduated from college, by about 14 years. Senator Senile confirmed in 1994 that he received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Tulsa a full 14 years after he had originally claimed, in 1973, when he had already been elected to public office. Inhofe’s defense? He didn’t know anything about it until it was uncovered by the media. (Daily Oklahoman, 11/17/94)

Inhofe’s stop in Enid was part of a 30-county swing through his state. It’ll be interesting to see if he actually touches on the needs of his constituents, like the 20% of Oklahoma residents that are uninsured, or the environmental crisis that the state is facing, or if Inhofe will keep hammering on the issues most important to his corporate donors. After all, who has Inhofe ever really worked for? Oklahoma or oil?

The Cheese Stands Alone: Jim Inhofe's Donors Turn on Him; Oil Execs Agree to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:00 +0000

It’s a good day for believers of catastrophic global warming, or those with any logic whatsoever, and a bad day for Sen. Jim Inhofe…

After years of fighting off any and all efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, energy companies are finally starting to come around, according to today’s San Francisco Chronicle. As the article notes, “with growing public anxiety about climate change, major corporations are increasingly preparing for – and, in some cases, lobbying for – Congress to regulate emissions of heat-trapping gases.”

"The scientific evidence is real," said Betsy Moler, vice president for government and environmental affairs at Exelon Corp. of Chicago, an energy firm that supports a mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emissions. "When you have the likes of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, a conservative Republican, and he says he has seen the changes in his lifetime in the Arctic, there is just no doubt that something has to happen."

This is a huge turn-around from an industry that traditionally supported the Bush administration and other allies (Jim Inhofe) in their staunch opposition to limits on carbon dioxide. You know it’s serious when the nation’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases join the effort to reduce their presence in the atmosphere.

The Boston Globe also noted this morning that “the movement to tackle climate change is finally growing large in this country, and at least part of it is beginning to get a little more outspoken.” And just a few days ago, as mentioned in the previous post, a new Zogby poll showed that nearly three out of four Americans are more convinced that global warming is in fact a reality than they were two years ago.

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that Americans want at least some progress on this issue, it has had no effect whatsoever on our favorite environment-hater Sen. James Inhofe. Yesterday, in a speech to Norman, OK businesses and government leaders, Inhofe hated on, well, everyone, but saved his best, as always, for global warming. Inhofe began with an assault on the Kyoto Treaty, a UN agreement that mandates cutbacks in emissions of greenhouse gases, arguing that it would lead to worldwide governance. He also added this gem: “Since 1999, science has refuted the concept” that greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

Really Senator? That’s probably why the leading industries that actually benefit from releasing these gases are agreeing to cap them, in an effort to reduce the effects of global warming. In fact, one of Inhofe’s top campaign contributors, BP, has been the industry leader in this effort, cutting its carbon emissions by 10 percent, according to the Chronicle article.

Will Inhofe call them Nazi propagandists too or is their money more important to him than that?

More Irresponsible Rhetoric on Global Warming from Jim Inhofe

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:36:00 +0000

Today’s San Antonio Current outlines the lessons that should be learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The article follows the current scientific logic that the weather disaster was symptomatic of the larger problem of catastrophic global warming, and argues that the federal government needs to do something to deal with this problem.

“Katrina was a billboard for global warming. For years, emissions from fossil fuels used by industry and automobiles sent carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that allowed in sunlight but kept heat from escaping, creating what’s come to be called a “greenhouse effect.” As a scientific consensus emerged, Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, made the ozone layer a political issue.

“Because New Orleans unwittingly became the vanguard in this 21st-century battle, our government’s response to its crisis is crucial, laying not only the groundwork for the city’s survival, but a template for addressing the effects of global warming nationwide.” (San Antonio Current, 8/23/06)

Yet, Sen. Jim Inhofe, head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, tasked with addressing this issue, remains unconvinced and continues to wage a personal war against the belief in global warming. As the article notes, “Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma calls global warming ‘greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people’…With no hint of irony Inhofe calls global warming ‘the big lie,’ comparing the science behind it to Nazi propaganda leading up to World War II.”

Inhofe’s position is not only incorrect, it is completely unrepresentative of the American people. According to a Zogby poll released yesterday, an overwhelming majority of Americans believes that global warming does exist and that it is connected to recent disastrous weather events, such as Katrina and heat waves.

What is even more alarming is that this is not the first time Inhofe has used a Nazi reference in his musings on global warming:

In 2004, Inhofe said the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement that provided for mandatory reductions of harmful greenhouse gases, “would deal a powerful blow on the whole [of] humanity similar to the one humanity experienced when Nazism and Communism flourished.” (Washington Post, 6/22/05)

Inhofe has also compared the Environmental Protection Agency to a “Gestapo bureaucracy.” (Austin American-Statesman, 7/27/97)

If people like Sen. Inhofe are kept in power, American will never be able to be adequately prepared for future natural disasters.

Inhofe: Situation in Iraq "Nothing Short of a Miracle"

noreply@blogger.com (soonerdude) — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:14:00 +0000

He’s at it again. Today’s Tulsa World is reporting that the situation in Iraq, according to Oklahoma’s own Senator James Inhofe, is “nothing short of a miracle.” (LINK) Inhofe claimed in a Tulsa speech yesterday that contrary to most reports, Iraqis were pleased about the US intervention and that the country was on its way to handling its own security.

Trust us Senator, its far short of a miracle. Lets review:

As many as 45,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed because of this war. (LINK)

GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, on FOX News, said, “We, in fact, are in probably a low grade, maybe a very defined, civil war. You’ve got corruption everywhere, as bad as it’s ever been. You’ve got uncontrollables that we can’t control, we can’t deal with. Iran probably has more influence in Iraq than we do at this point.” (see transcript)

Even President Bush did not know when the Iraqi’s could handle their own security. In a speech yesterday, Bush said, “I can't tell you exactly when it's (US military presence) going to be done.” (LINK)

The Senator didn’t stop there. Inhofe then went on to actually defend the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” Most Americans remember the bridge as the boondoggle of all pork barrel projects. The bridge, sponsored by Alaska GOP Senator Ted Stevens, would have cost taxpayers $320 million to connect the town of Ketchikan, population 8,900, with the Island of Gravina, population 50. (LINK) Inhofe claimed the bridge was an example of “one of the few things in Washington that works.”

No Inhofe speech would be complete without a rant against the science supporting man-made global warming. The Senator reiterated his belief that global warming was largely a front for “international economic movements.” Since we in our collective wisdom are unsure what international economic movements actually are, we put it to our readers to call the senator to seek an explanation.

Not only do Oklahomans deserve better, they need to start demanding it.

Senator Inhofe at Odds With Oklahoma Sportsmen

noreply@blogger.com (soonerdude) — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:33:00 +0000

Global warming, the great hoax on the American public? So says Oklahoma’s most obtuse of public servants, Senator James Inhofe. However, according to folks who actually spend time outdoors, global warming is real and they can feel it. According to a recent poll that surveyed active sportsmen, 76 percent said they have observed climate change where they lived, 73 percent said they have seen global warming affect their own hunting and fishing and over half said believed climate change was related to global warming. Not surprising, an overwhelming majority (78 percent) said developing fuel efficient vehicles and expanding the use of renewable sources are the best way to address America's energy needs, rather than drilling for more oil and gas within the United States. (LINK)

Interestingly, almost two-thirds of these same sportsmen identified themselves as politically conservative, while half said they were evangelical Christians. (Lewiston Morning tribune, 8/16/06)

So the next time the Senator purports to stand up for Oklahoma’s hunters and fishermen, the hoax is on them.

Mr. Pollution Strikes Again: Inhofe Pushes for Unqualified EPA Nominee

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:24:00 +0000

Senator James Inhofe, ever the protector of the power industry (a.k.a major air polluters) recently attacked Democrats for holding up the confirmation of William Wehrum, Bush’s nominee to head the EPA Office of Air and Radiation. In a release issued by his Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe called Senate Democrat’s “obstructionist tactics of Mr. Wehrum’s nomination” “simply despicable.” “It is outrageous that Democrats used a little used procedural move to further delay a highly qualified EPA nominee in Bill Wehrum.” (Release, 8/4/06)

Democrats have opposed Wehrum’s nomination for a number of reasons, the least of which is he played a major role in relaxing air emission standards, namely easing pollution rules for electric power plants. (Austin American-Statesman, 4/27/06)

In April of this year, a number of representatives of environmental organizations wrote a letter to a number of senators expressing their opposition to the nomination. The letter highlighted the many policies Wehrum crafted that have weakened public health and environmental protections. Especially noteworthy are key changes to the Clean Air Act’s new source review (NSR) protections, which were subsequently struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

William Wehrum previously worked as a lobbyist for Latham & Watkins, where he specialized in clean air matters and represented some of the biggest polluters in the country, according to a report done by Public Citizen. The man he has been nominated to replace, Jeffrey Holmstead, is also a Latham & Watkins alum.

Wehrum came under fire by lawmakers in 2004 for authoring a new EPA that took language, sometimes verbatim, from position papers supplied by his former employer, then representing the utility industry. “A side-by-side comparison of one of the three proposed rules and the memorandums prepared by Latham & Watkins -- one of Washington's premier corporate environmental law firms -- shows that at least a dozen paragraphs were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from the industry suggestions.” (Washington Post, 1/31/04)

This revelation prompted Democratic Congressmen Thomas Allen and Henry Waxman to send EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt a letter requesting further investigation into this matter. (States News Service, 2/12/04)

Despite all this evidence suggesting Wehrum is not exactly a “clean air” candidate, Inhofe still claims “his qualifications are unchallenged and he has a proven record of accomplishment on clean air.” (Environment and Public Works Release, 4/26/06) Spoken like a true industry warrior…

Inhofe Fights Against Quality Air

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:00 +0000

Looks like James Inhofe is back on his crusade against clean air. Recently it was reported that EPA investigators took a tour of oil and gas facilities near Denver, CO, armed with infrared cameras in order to detect pollution leaking from the sites.

Well Mr. Environment was none too happy with that. Better methods of collecting data on harmful air emissions? Not under his watch! Inhofe promptly sent a letter to the EPA administrator in Denver, saying the agency’s actions “give rise to concern” and threaten the “trust” between regulators and industry. Right, wouldn’t want to upset the industry. As Grist put it, “Yes, if the regulators go, you know, investigating and regulating and whatnot, how will the industry ever trust them again?”

Essentially, James Inhofe doesn’t want the EPA to do its job, which includes detecting these dangerous emissions and figuring out ways to limit their presence in the atmosphere. But, of course, that wouldn’t make his oil and gas donors very happy, now would it? After all, since 2001, Inhofe has received $311,208 from oil and gas companies.

None of this should come as a surprise, however. This is far from the first time Inhofe has bad-mouthed the EPA. In 2000, he called the agency’s bid to enact new pollution rules a “vulgar abuse of power and blatant disregard for the legislative branch of government.” (Tulsa World, 7/15/00) Then, in 2003, he it an agency of “bureaucrats inflicting terror” on small business-owners and he saw the agency as nothing more as “environmental extremists.” (USA Today, 2/17/03)

Fortunately for the planet, the EPA is pushing back on Inhofe’s craziness this time around. According to the Rocky Mountain News, Denver officials are standing by their decision to use the cameras and that they were needed to determine the extent and source of the emissions. Not to mention that Denver is in danger of violating air quality standards.

But none of this matters to James Inhofe. After all, its just emissions, right?

Crazy James Inhofe Holds Security Bill Hostage

noreply@blogger.com (soonerchick) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:07:00 +0000

Since 2003, lawmakers in the House and Senate have been trying to enhance the security around America’s chemical facilities. And for those three years, the American people have been waiting for the GOP majority to do something about the approximately 700 sites around the country containing stockpiles of toxic chemicals that terrorist could turn into weapons.

Finally, in June, the Senate Homeland Security Committee approved a bill that would allow the Homeland Security Department to regulate security standards at these chemical sites. However, just days later, Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee placed a hold on the bill, “for the twin purposes of helping corporate friends and skewering environmental foes.” (Star Tribune, 7/24/06)

Inhofe initially blocked the bill because he was afraid it would allow DHS to mandate safer technology – commonly referred to as inherently safer technology, or IST. (Environment and Energy Daily, 7/24/06) That’s right, Inhofe is afraid of mandating safer technology. Turns out, no IST requirements are actually contained in the bill. An IST proposal was actually rejected in the Homeland Security Committee. (Grist, 7/13/06)

Now, left with no IST argument, the ever environment-loving Inhofe has turned his attention to the water provisions in the bill. Inhofe is now attempting block the bill because it would allow DHS to regulate drinking water and wastewater facilities that use chemicals. (GovExec, 8/1/06) One more time: Inhofe does not want to regulate your drinking water. Better stock up on those Britas!

This is just the latest in a string of incidents involving James Inhofe’s assault on environmental regulations. Inhofe is one of the staunchest opponents of global warming science. In fact, he thinks it is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” (Environment and Energy Daily, 4/4/06) When his committee held hearings on the existence of global warming, Inhofe invited as star witness science fiction writer Michael Crichton, whose credibility is apparently proven by his book on the nonexistence of global warming, State of Fear. The book has actually been accused of distorting research and bending scientific facts by a majority of top climate scientists. (Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 1/28/05)

As a tribute to James Inhofe’s ever-amusing senility, we’ve compiled a top five list of the craziest things Inhofe has ever said or done:

Crazy Inhofe Top Five

Inhofe outraged federal employees on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building by stating on CNN that there probably weren't very many casualties because federal employees were probably “playing hooky”. FYI, he’s the senior senator from Oklahoma (Hotline, 10/5/95)
Inhofe has referred to the Environmental Protection Agency as a “Gestapo Bureaucracy.” (US Newswire, 11/13/02)
During the Vieques bombing debate, Inhofe called Puerto Rican protesters “ungrateful, myopic, and misinformed,” and later characterized the protesters as “Hollywood publicity-seekers or frustrated New York City activists.” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 7/3/01)
Inhofe once compared a gay business executive who had been nominated to an ambassadorship by President Bill Clinton to David Duke, a onetime Ku Klux Klan leader. (New York Times, 4/23/03)
Inhofe also lied about the year he graduated from the University of Tulsa. For 35 years in political biographies, announcements, and the like, Inhofe claimed he had graduated in 1959. However, in 1994, a University Registrar revealed that he had actually attained his degree 14 years later, in 1973. (Daily Oklahoman, 11/17/94)