BY KAREN WEBB
Sen. Jim Inhofe’s recent appearance on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show was the usual display of not letting anyone – including the interviewer – get a word in edgewise.
He makes a number of claims that are pure Inhofe.
He claims scientists were rejected because they didn’t agree with global warming, but he has no problem with women being rejected from discussing birth control and women’s issues.
He agrees his biggest campaign contributors are connected to energy companies, but he says, “Big oil is not that big.” Has Inhofe ever voted against Big or even “not that big” oil?
He points out an article in Nature magazine [based on a since-debunked study by Matthew Nisbet] that claims global warming is a hoax. He says she probably hasn’t read it and he thinks it may be in the latest issue. It isn’t. In fact, I believe the article he is talking about ran in spring 2011.
He says the article claims that the energy industry is the poor partner in the global warming debate and says MoveOn.org, George Soros and “the Hollywood Elite” have more money to spend than the entire energy industry. Prove it Inhofe, where are the numbers?
He claims the article proves that 80% of the media is on the pro-global warming side. I just googled “global warming” and most of the links are on the anti-side.
He says that with our reserves we can run at our present level for 90 years on gas and 60 on oil and that in two months it will be 110 years on gas and 80 on oil. He admits we are exporting more under Obama, but claims it is in spite of Obama.
He says we can be self-sufficient with the help of Canada and Mexico. If we can be self-sufficient then why do we need Canada and Mexico? Or will they be coming into the union?
If we can be self-sufficient on energy, can we also get the Canadian Health care plan?
He says Harold Hamm, a friend from Enid, is working at full capacity in North Dakota and can’t find workers. Why isn’t he working in Oklahoma? Hamm is the 30th richest man in America and 76th in the world. He is worth about $11 billion.
In his book he mentions Rachel’s program of Dec. 3, 2009 and claims she is talking about him going to a Copenhagen summit. He doesn’t remember exactly what she is talking about because there are 312 pages of fine print, but he is sure he probably did watch the program. She plays a clip and it is obvious he did not watch the program.
Conservatives are saying she played the wrong segment of the program because she and Kent Jones talk about him in another part. I read the transcript of that section and she does mention him going to Copenhagen.
She and Kent do a tongue in cheek type thing with Inhofe quotes, but the program is about The Fellowship and the kill-the-gays bill in Uganda.
Inhofe claims he has never met or heard of David Bahati who had just introduced his kill-the-gays bill in Uganda. There are sources who claim Inhofe actually introduced Bahati to The Fellowship.
Inhofe says he knows more about Africa than anyone in the U.S. Senate and he was the only person on the Armed Services Committee after 9/11 who even knew where Africa was.
Right … no one on the Armed Services Committee knows where Africa is, but they keep sending troops.
He doesn’t want to talk about these hysterical things. He knows Doug Coe and, from the way Inhofe talks, Coe is being persecuted. But being buddies with the Ugandan guys who want to kill gays isn’t persecuting gays.
Inhofe’s grandkids are being brainwashed by the EPA. Poor babies, because my kid was brainwashed about gays and abortion in the Oklahoma public schools.
He claimed to have been in either Congress or the Legislature with a very liberal Democrat who is now dead. He says the guy always voted liberal, but press-released conservative. Then he asks Rachel to name even one conservative who votes conservative and press-releases liberal.
She should have said “darers go first” and asked him to name the liberal. I can’t imagine who he is talking about. I called his offices and no one seems to know who this raving liberal was, either.
It was typical Inhofe, but he did say he was against killing gays. However, he is still against allowing them to have the same rights he has to marry whatever consenting adult wants to put up with them. He also still wants to deny gays the over 1,000 benefits being married would give them and their families.
Did he repudiate the Issa committee for not allowing Susan Fluke to testify? Did he repudiate Rush?
– Karen Webb lives in Moore, OK and is a frequent contributor to The Oklahoma Observer