Senate GOP embrace Inhofe’s boycott of Clean Energy Jobs Act.
Senate GOP embrace Inhofe’s boycott of Clean Energy Jobs Act.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Senate Republicans have endorsed Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) plan to boycott the legislative markup of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), scheduled to begin tomorrow. Inhofe’s GOP compatriots on the environment committee hope to block action by refusing to participate in the markup on the pretext that the Enviromental Protection Agency’s economic analysis of the bill is not “complete.” In a letter sent to committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA), ranking member Inhofe and his counterparts on five other committees said any attempt to begin the markup before acceding to his demands “would severely damage” its chances for passage:
We understand that there may be an attempt to report S. 1733 from the Committee not only without a satisfactory analysis, but also without sufficient opportunity to address the bipartisan concerns raised over the course of legislative hearings on the measure. As we are sure you will understand, from our viewpoint, such an approach would severely damage, rather than help, the chances of enacting changes to our nation’s climate and energy policies.
The signatories are the top Republicans on the six Senate committees that will consider this legislation — environment, energy, agriculture, commerce, foreign relations, and finance. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX, ), like Inhofe, flatly deny the reality of climate change. However, several of the signatories have claimed concern about the threat of global warming — Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Dick Lugar (R-IN), who in 2006 warned of the “significant long-term risks to the economy and the environment of the United States from the temperature increases and climatic disruptions that are projected to result from increased greenhouse gas concentrations.” Evidently their commitment to partisan obstruction is greater than their concern for the future of the nation.
Download the letter here.
We're going to be very patient. We're going to wait for them to come. We're going to sit there every day and ask them to please come back to the table. We're not going to rush this through because we don't think that would be the right thing to do.
- Comments
- 66
Inhofe: ‘Natural warming cycle’ ended ‘about nine years ago.’
Inhofe: ‘Natural warming cycle’ ended ‘about nine years ago.’
At the outset of Senate hearings on clean energy and climate legislation today, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Commitee, mockingly praised chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) for mentioning “global warming” in a YouTube video about the bill. Inhofe claimed that people “have been running from that term” once “that natural warming cycle” ended “nine years ago”:
I do want to congratulate you on your Youtube, the fact you’re using the term global warming again, I appreciate that. People have been running from that term ever since we went out of that natural warming cycle about nine years ago.
Watch it:
Inhofe’s dangerous nonsense has been debunked repeatedly by scientists, from the UK Met Office and NOAA to independent statisticians. 2005 is the hottest year on record, and the last ten years have been the hottest decade on record. Furthermore, it is clear that fossil fuel emissions are responsible.
Inhofe’s climate change-denying Copenhagen ‘truth squad’ expands to a ‘truth squad of three.’
Inhofe’s climate change-denying Copenhagen ‘truth squad’ expands to a ‘truth squad of three.’
Last month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) announced that he would travel to Copenhagen in December to act as a climate skeptic “truth squad” during international climate change treaty negotiations. “I think somebody has to be there — a one-man truth squad,” Inhofe said on CSPAN. Today, on Bill Bennett’s radio show, Inhofe revealed that his delegation has expanded to “a truth squad of three”:
BENNETT: And John Barrasso’s going with you, right? John Barrasso?
INHOFE: Yeah, Barrasso and there’s another secret person going with me. We’re going to have a team of three, a truth squad of three.
Listen here:
When Inhofe first announced his plans for a “truth squad,” TPM’s Eric Kleefeld remarked, “It’s nice to see how seriously foreign policy is taken these days — when a member of the political minority will send his own delegation to an international conference, in order to undermine the government and tell other countries that they can’t work with the United States.” Now it’s at least two members of the political minority.
FLASHBACK: In Bush era, Inhofe decried ‘chilling effect’ of probing White House ‘regardless of administration.’
FLASHBACK: In Bush era, Inhofe decried ‘chilling effect’ of probing White House ‘regardless of administration.’
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who attacked investigations into the political interference on global warming regulation by the Bush White House, is now calling for probes into Obama’s “Presidential czars” who are taking action to crack down on greenhouse pollution. Yesterday, Inhofe sent a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson demanding “all correspondence and records” from “all meetings, discussions and conversations between EPA and Carol Browner,” the White House Coordinator of Climate and Energy Policy whom Inhofe calls a “czar.” This new champion of transparency, however, attacked investigations into the White House’s interference with the EPA last year, saying that “regardless of Administration, the President acting through the entire executive branch is fully entitled to express his policy judgments to the EPA Administrator”:
It is my view that regardless of Administration, the President acting through the entire executive branch is fully entitled to express his policy judgments to the EPA Administrator, and to expect his subordinate to carry out the judgment of what the law requires and permits. . . . I cannot support any investigations that could have a chilling effect within the deliberative process of the Administration, and cause future career and political employees from refraining from an open and honest dialogue.
By some strange miracle, Inhofe has had a complete change of heart on the inviolability of the “unitary executive” during the Obama presidency. In June, Inhofe even supported a criminal investigation into whether the EPA was “suppressing science” when its officials did not support the report of an EPA economist who had plagiarized blog posts from global warming deniers.
Inhofe Falsely Claims Reconciliation Never Used For ‘A Major Tax Bill’
Inhofe Falsely Claims Reconciliation Never Used For ‘A Major Tax Bill’
During an appearance on conservative talker Steve Malzberg’s radio show yesterday, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist continued his effort to walk back his claim that if he were still in the Senate, he “would end up voting” for President Obama’s health care reform.
Malzberg asked Frist whether Democrats would “ram this through using reconciliation.” After reiterating his belief that it would be “legal” for the legislation to be passed that way, Frist argued against using the process because it would further the divide in Congress. Frist acknowledged, however, that he had used it during the Bush years:
FRIST: Six years ago, six years ago — so what is this reconciliation? Well, you’ve used it, Frist, before…I’ve used reconciliation. … It’s budgetary stuff. And so I did use it for tax cuts and all. For substantive policy issues, it is never used. It is never used because it means basically we’re going to exclude half the American people.
Despite Frist’s acknowledgment that he used reconciliation for the Bush tax cuts, Malzberg sat silently an hour later on his show as Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) told him that if Democrats passed clean energy legislation similar to the Waxman-Markey bill through reconciliation, it “would be the first time on a major tax bill that that’s been done in our nation’s history”:
MALZBERG: Could they do reconciliation on this like they’re going to do with health care?
INHOFE: Well, they’re, I think they’re going to have a hard time doing reconciliation because that would be the first time on a major tax bill that that’s been done in our nation’s history. And I don’t think that Harry Reid really wants to do that. Yes he, they talk about it. I think that’s a threat.
MALZBERG: You mean for health care or for this bill?
INHOFE: I’m talking about this bill.
Listen here:
As ThinkProgress has previously noted, Republicans claiming that the use of reconciliation for health care reform would be unprecedented “seem to be experiencing a particular form of political amnesia.” Indeed, as congressional scholars Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann have pointed out, historically “many of the reconciliation bills made major changes in policy. Health insurance portability (COBRA), nursing home standards, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increases in the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, major tax cuts and student aid reform were all enacted under reconciliation procedures.”
Inhofe on why global warming isn’t real: ‘God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles.’
Inhofe on why global warming isn’t real: ‘God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles.’
On C-Span’s Washington Journal this week, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the godfather of global warming deniers, said that he will travel to the climate change summit in Copenhagen this fall to present “another view.” “I think somebody has to be there — a one-man truth squad,” he said. Throughout the program, Inhofe went through his tattered global warming denier claims: that climate change is a “hoax,” that CO2 is not a pollutant, and — latching on to the latest false right-wing talking point — that clean energy legislation will cost American families $1,700 a year. At the end of the interview, Inhofe explained what guides his views:
CALLER: Yes, I agree with the Senator on what he says about the climate change. I believe that the world is just changing like it usually does. [...]
INHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles. … I really believe that a lot of people are in denial who want to hang their hat on the fact, that they believe is a fact, that man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, are causing global warming. The science really isn’t there.
Watch it:
Inhofe: Sotomayor Is a ‘Racist,’ But Strom Thurmond Is A ‘Great American’
Inhofe: Sotomayor Is a ‘Racist,’ But Strom Thurmond Is A ‘Great American’
Echoing statements by nativist former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “racist” last night on the Senate floor. Watch it:
Interestingly, while Inhofe is convinced that the first Latina nominee to the Supreme Court is consumed by racial animus, he had very different things to say about a fellow Southern white conservative. After former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) claimed that America would have avoided “all these problems” if it had put a segregationist in the White House, Inhofe quickly came to Lott’s defense:
“In an effort to honor the life and service of Strom Thurmond, Senator Lott made some comments that he probably wishes he had phrased differently,” Inhofe said. “I do not believe Senator Lott meant to be malicious or racist with the comments he made. I believe he was merely honoring a great American on his 100th birthday, but I believe he is right to apologize for the words he used. Racism of any type must not be tolerated.
“Many have been quick to criticize Lott, but few have been quick to accept his apology. I do not believe he harbors racist sentiments in his heart. He has apologized and appropriately clarified the meaning of his statements. I believe we should accept his apology and move forward.”
In Jim Inhofe’s America, Sonia Sotomayor is a dangerous bigot who must be stopped, but Strom Thurmond is a “great American.”
"Statements that seek to pit one race against another or elevate one race at the expense of another, regardless of who utters them, have no place in the American conversation," Inhofe said. "I am not characterizing anyone as a racist, but I will categorize and condemn such racially fueled statements for what they are."
Inhofe: Oil And Gas Usage Doesn’t Create Any Pollution
Inhofe: Oil And Gas Usage Doesn’t Create Any Pollution
This afternoon, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor and basically made a pitch for the oil and gas industry. He said that to ensure “energy security,” the United States should increasingly “extract our own resources.” According to Inhofe, this solution would not only achieve energy independence, but it would also be pollution-free:
People complain that we are buying — importing from the Middle East — oil and gas. And then they find out that we have it all right here. We don’t have to do that. If their argument there is “Well, we don’t want to use oil and gas because we think it pollutes” — which it doesn’t — but if that’s their argument, then why are we willing to import it from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East?
Watch it:
Inhofe is an anti-science senator who thinks that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” Not only does oil and gas drilling release greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, but they also release other dangerous pollutants that endanger American health. As the Natural Resources Defense Council wrote in a 2008 report:
Oil and gas drilling operations can release a number of hazardous pollutants, including hydrogen sulfide, benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, and diesel exhaust. Exposure is known to lead to short-term illnesses, cancer, or even death. For example, benzene and formaldehyde are both known to cause cancer, and diesel exhaust contains a number of compounds known to cause cancer. Emissions can come from oil and gas itself, chemical additives used in drilling, or fuel combustion.
Additionally, a 2003 University of California at Irvine study found that “oil and natural gas wells and refineries create regional air pollution levels in excess of some of the nation’s smoggiest urban areas.” In states like Wyoming and New Mexico, “oil and gas drilling operations are the second largest source of statewide carbon dioxide and methane emissions,” two key greenhouse gases.
Of course there are also oil spills; big oil spills put approximately 37 million gallons of oil into the world’s oceans each year. Several hundred million more gallons wind up in the waterways through other means, such as air pollution.
More drilling is Inhofe’s solution to all the nation’s economic problems. He even thought it would help low-income families pay their heating bills. Of course, actual solutions to achieving energy independence and creating jobs are ones that Inhofe is unwilling to even consider because they won’t benefit his friends in the gas and oil industry.
Inhofe: The birthers ‘have a point,’ ‘I don’t discourage it.’
Inhofe: The birthers ‘have a point,’ ‘I don’t discourage it.’
Recently, the birther movement has gained greater notoriety, with CNN’s Lou Dobbs promoting the discredited myth and right-wing activists confronting members of Congress. Though the conspiracy theory has been thoroughly-debunked, some Republicans continue to feed “the wacko wing” of the party. For instance, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) recently told Politico that he thinks the birthers “have a point”:
But as if to illustrate the touchiness of the subject, Hoekstra quickly added: “Not that this isn’t important.”
Sen. Jim Inhofe has also tried to find the elusive middle ground.
“They have a point,” he said of the birthers. “I don’t discourage it. … But I’m going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think are very destructive to America.”
It’s unclear why Politico characterizes Inhofe’s decided support for the “birthers” as an “elusive middle ground” stance.
The point that they make is the Constitutional mandate that the U.S. President be a natural born citizen, and the White House has not done a very good job of dispelling the concerns of these citizens. My focus is on issues where I can make a difference to stop the liberal agenda being pushed by President Obama.
Rahm Emanuel Hits Back At Inhofe: ‘They’re Seeing It In Political Terms’ And Are Defending The ‘Status Quo’
Rahm Emanuel Hits Back At Inhofe: ‘They’re Seeing It In Political Terms’ And Are Defending The ‘Status Quo’
Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) had told right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that if the GOP can “block” or “stall” President Obama’s health care reform, it would mean “huge gains” for Republicans in the 2010 elections. Inhofe also told radio host Janet Parshall that blocking President Bill Clinton’s health care plan led to “the 1994 Republican takeover of the House and the Senate,” which he hopes to repeat with Obama.
ABC News’ Jake Tapper reported last night that the White House planned to “assail” Inhofe’s remarks, though it was unclear whether Obama himself would comment on them:
Whether or not President Obama will personally mention Inhofe’s remarks is as of now unclear, but other White House officials surely will, sources say.
In an interview with NPR, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel took a shot at Inhofe’s desire to play politics with health care reform:
EMANUEL: I’m OK with politics, as you well know. You know, today Senator Inhofe, I don’t have the exact quote, but basically the thrust of the quote was the political importance of defeating this because of what it would do to President Obama. They’re seeing it in political terms, and they’ve decided that if they can beat the president on health care reform, they’ve scored a big political victory. But what they’ve also guaranteed in policy terms is that you have the status quo. I actually appreciate what Senator DeMint said and Senator Inhofe. I’m different than everybody, I’m not going to criticize them. I compliment them. They’re honest. Now –
INSKEEP: Are you telling Democrats there’s actually some truth to that – if you guys don’t stick with us on this it could be a disaster for the Democratic Party –
EMANUEL: No, no. They’re being honest about what they see the stakes. And what I find interesting, I haven’t heard a lot of people in their party criticize them.
Listen here:
The White House previously came out swinging against Sen. Jim DeMint’s claim that the defeat of health insurance reform would be Obama’s “Waterloo” because it would “break him.” “This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics,” said Obama. “It is about a health care system that is breaking American families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy.”
Inhofe: If GOP Can ‘Stall’ Or ‘Block’ Health Care Reform, It Will Be ‘A Huge Gain’ For The 2010 Elections
Inhofe: If GOP Can ‘Stall’ Or ‘Block’ Health Care Reform, It Will Be ‘A Huge Gain’ For The 2010 Elections
Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) set off a political storm when he said that if Republicans can defeat health care reform it would be President Obama’s “Waterloo” because it would “break him.” Since then, some Republicans have sought to distance themselves from DeMint’s view that defeating health care would yield political advantages for the GOP.
But Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) isn’t shying away from revealing his honest feelings. Appearing on Janet Parshall’s radio show yesterday, Inhofe argued that the defeat of President Clinton’s health care reform “started the demise of Bill Clinton that led to the 1994 Republican takeover of the House and the Senate.” He then added that he is now “tracking the demise” of Obama’s health care plans and it is making him “optimistic”:
INHOFE: They ought to know, they ought to know from history. This is a losing proposition for them. And for those out there who believe, that would like to have something optimistic to look at, we are plotting the demise on a week by week basis of where Bill Clinton was in 1993 and where Obama is today and his demise ratio is greater than Clinton’s was in 1993. So, he’s trying to do the same things, except more extreme.
Listen here:
Inhofe also appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday, where he was asked if Republicans had the votes “to block health care, the radical stuff in the Senate.” Inhofe said he thought they did:
INHOFE: Oh, I think so. I really do. In fact, there’ll be a lot of Democrats. You know, I liken it to the cap and trade thing. Now that’s the one that I’ve been kind of in charge of for ten years, and we know where we are on that now. We know that if, as long as people keep talking the way they are right now, we’re going to defeat it. They only have 34 votes. They need 60 votes. I’d say health care right now is somewhere in the neighborhood of, they have maybe 45 votes. But every day, they lose votes, because people find out what it is, what it’s going to do, and what it’s not going to do. When you tell people that the mortality rate in Canada is 25% higher for breast cancer, 18% higher for prostate cancer, you know, they say why in the world would we emulate a system like that? This is life threatening. And so we have all the issues on our side on this thing, and I think, you know, I just hope the President keeps talking about it, keeps trying to rush it through. We can stall it. And that’s going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election.
Listen here:
Later in his interview with Hewitt, Inhofe also revealed why the GOP strategy to “slow down” health care is really an effort to “kill it.” “If he is unsuccessful — which I anticipate and will predict he is — on getting a vote prior to the August recess, then I would say there’s no way in the world they’re going to get this done this year,” said Inhofe. “And next year would not be any easier.”
Slowly but surely the Republicans are revealing their true strategy on health care: partisans gamesmanship comes before getting something done. If Republicans believe doing nothing will ingratiate themselves with the American people, they have not learned a single lesson from the last two elections. Their do nothing approach is why health care costs have skyrocketed, and it’s why Republicans are in such a bad place today. This strategy is bad politics, but it is also a deeply troubling way to govern.
Inhofe defends calling Franken a ‘clown’: ‘He kind of looked like a clown when I was talking to him.’
Inhofe defends calling Franken a ‘clown’: ‘He kind of looked like a clown when I was talking to him.’
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) extended a nasty welcome to his newest Senate colleague, Al Franken, last week, telling the Tulsa World, “I’ll tell you what a lot of people are thinking, and that is it looks like things are going to be over and we are going to get the clown from Minnesota. … I don’t know the guy, but…for a living he is a clown.” Inhofe is now rushing to defend himself, pointing out that he and Franken “physically embraced” when they ran into each other on Tuesday. However, he still insists that Franken is a “clown”:
On Tuesday, Inhofe again insisted his comments last week were not meant to be derogatory.
He said the “clown comment” did come up during the chance meeting.
“But believe me, he knew. He kind of looked like a clown when I was talking to him,” Inhofe said.
Asked by Bill Press to respond to Inhofe last week, Franken simply replied, “I don’t know how Sen. Inhofe regards clowns, but it might be an incredible compliment.”
Inhofe: No disrespect, but Franken’s a ‘clown.’
Inhofe: No disrespect, but Franken’s a ‘clown.’
On the same day the Minnesota Supreme Court declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of the state’s U.S. Senate election, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) welcomed his newest colleague to the Senate by referring to him as a “clown.” In the course of predicting that the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill would be “dead in the water” upon its arrival in the Senate, Inhofe extended an unprofessional greeting to Franken. The Tulsa World reports:
“I’ll tell you what a lot of people are thinking, and that is it looks like things are going to be over and we are going to get the clown from Minnesota,’’ he said.
“They are not going to get more than 35 votes.”
Asked if he was referring to Al Franken as the clown from Minnesota, Inhofe confirmed he was.
“I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. I don’t know the guy, but … for a living he is a clown,’’ the senator said.
“That’s what he does for a living.’’
Franken was a professional comedian — not a “clown” — while working on the cast Saturday Night Live. But now he’s a U.S. senator…just like Inhofe. And unlike Inhofe, he’s been a political commentator, the author of best-selling political books, and host of a nationally-syndicated radio show on Air America.
Inhofe: I Made Up My Mind To Vote Against Sotomayor’s Supreme Court Nomination 11 Years Ago
Inhofe: I Made Up My Mind To Vote Against Sotomayor’s Supreme Court Nomination 11 Years Ago
In a surprisingly candid statement, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) admitted that his vote to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a “foregone conclusion” eleven years before she was even nominated:
“That was a foregone conclusion,” the Oklahoma Republican said, citing his 1998 opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination to her current post.
“If you voted against anyone on the circuit (court), I have never been able to see how you turn around when the bar is actually higher and support it at a higher level.” … [T]he senator was offered a meeting with the judge but turned it down since he already had made his decision to oppose her nomination and did not wish to take up her time.
Inhofe’s refusal to even consider Sotomayor’s record as a circuit judge is unfortunate, but it is hardly surprising. During the Clinton Administration, Inhofe would frequently throw tantrums such as placing a hold on every single one of President Clinton’s judicial nominees in retaliation for Clinton’s decision to make a recess appointment, or bottling up every one of President Clinton’s civilian nominees in protest of Clinton’s decision to nominate a gay man to an ambassadorship.
This spring, Inhofe announced that he would filibuster President Obama’s nomination of Judge David Hamilton to a federal appeals court because Hamilton allegedly once forbade the Indiana legislature from opening its sessions with Christian prayer, but endorsed the use of Islamic prayer. In reality, Hamilton held that any non-sectarian prayer would be acceptable, and that such a prayer could be offered in a foreign language such as Arabic.
Ultimately, however, Inhofe predicts his own opposition to Sotomayor will be futile:
“She will be definitely confirmed,” he said, adding that other Republicans will be too afraid to vote against Sotomayor because she is a woman and a Hispanic.
“I’m predicting half the Republicans at least will end up supporting her who might not otherwise because of these things I just mentioned.”
Inhofe Rips Obama As ‘Un-American,’ Suggests He’s On The Side Of Terrorists
Inhofe Rips Obama As ‘Un-American,’ Suggests He’s On The Side Of Terrorists
Reacting to President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) decried the president’s speech as “un-American” and even suggested Obama might be on the side of terrorists:
Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.
Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.”
“I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president.
Unsurprisingly, actual Iraqis and Iranians — a couple of the key audiences for Obama’s speech — viewed it far more favorably than Inhofe. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the speech reflected greater understanding of Mideast culture and “reduces the chance of growth of extremist ideas that are trying to tarnish the image of Islam in the world.” “Obama’s speech was extraordinary. I loved it,” said 24-year old Iranian Morteza Sinaie. “I wish every Iranian would hear it. I think it would dramatically change their opinion about Obama and the United Sates.”
Reporting from Iraq, NPR correspondent JJ Sutherland noted one family said they wished Obama’s words “to be real. We wish what he’s saying to be real.” Reporting from Iran, Christian Science Monitor’s Scott Peterson wrote, “Mr. Obama’s pledge that America was ‘ready to move forward’ with ‘courage, rectitude, and resolve’ will be welcome in Tehran.”
One of the important goals of Obama’s speech was to stop creating an “us versus them” mentality with the Muslim world, the very approach that Inhofe is still espousing. In his speech, Obama tried to end language that suggests the Muslim world and the U.S. are on competing sides:
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
The Wall Street Journal reports, “Muslims in the Middle East and beyond praised U.S. President Barack Obama for the tone of his speech Thursday.” Al-Jazeera, the Arab world’s leading satellite channel, celebrated the speech as “an attempt at forging a new relationship between Washington and the Muslim world.” If the Muslim world is on America’s side, whose side is Inhofe on?
Inhofe’s Strategy To Block EPA Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases: ‘We Can Stall That Until We Get A New President’
Inhofe’s Strategy To Block EPA Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases: ‘We Can Stall That Until We Get A New President’
In April, the Environmental Protection Agency “formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.” Though President Obama has said that he would “prefer that Congress address global warming rather than have the EPA tackle it through administrative action,” the EPA’s finding allows the agency to move forward with regulations to limit greenhouse gas pollution to build a clean-energy economy.
Republicans and some centrist Democrats have attacked the EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. But the Senate’s top global warming denier does not not appear worried.
In a speech for the Heartland Institute yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that the Senate could just “stall” any EPA regulation:
INHOFE: Don’t be distressed when you see the House passes some kind of cap-and-trade bill. And you know it could be worse and she could still pass it, so it’ll pass there. The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act. That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem.
Watch it:
Make no mistake, Inhofe is an avowed opponent of EPA regulation. On the day that the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced the endangerment finding, Inhofe released a statement arguing that “Congress should pass a simple, narrowly-targeted bill that stops EPA in its tracks.”
Unsurprisingly, Inhofe is also against a cap-and-trade program, which he calls “another bad option.” In his Heartland Speech, Inhofe confidently predicted that he will be able to block any cap-and-trade legislation that passes the House, saying that “in the Senate it will not pass” thanks to obstructionists like him.
Transcript: More »
Gingrich Calls On Sotomayor To Withdraw Because She’s A ‘Latina Woman Racist’
Gingrich Calls On Sotomayor To Withdraw Because She’s A ‘Latina Woman Racist’
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich posted on his Twitter feed today a call for Judge Sonia Sotomayor to withdraw her nomination because she is a “Latina woman racist.” As evidence of her supposed racism, Gingrich posted an out-of-context quote from a lecture that Sotomayor gave in 2001 on diversity. Gingrich wrote, “new racism is no better than old racism” and added:
As Greg Sargent notes, Gingrich’s demand that Sotomayor withdraw was later retweeted — which is “generally taken as a sign of agreement” — by the RNC’s new media director, Todd Herman. When asked about Gingrich’s comment during today’s White House press conference, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded by noting that “the blog of a former lawmaker” is hardly the best source of objective information on Sotomayor:
GIBBS: I think it is probably important for any involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of the impending confirmation. I think we’re satisfied that when the people of America and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker that they’ll come to the same conclusion that the President did.
Watch it:
Noting Gingrich’s offensive Twitter post, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked, “Will [the] ousted Speaker impact [his] former colleagues on Hill?” So far, it looks like Gingrich may not have to. Indeed, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said yesterday that he is worried that Sotomayor might allow “undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences” affect her rulings, while Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said similarly that he believes that Sotomayor has shown “personal bias based on ethnicity and gender.”
Inhofe worries that Sotomayor may allow ‘undue influence from her own personal race, gender.’
Inhofe worries that Sotomayor may allow ‘undue influence from her own personal race, gender.’
Republican members of Congress have been trying to subtly raise questions about Sonia Sotomayor’s objectivity — simply because of her non-traditional race, gender, and upbringing. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said today that he is concerned Sotomayor has shown “personal bias based on ethnicity and gender.” Similarly, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said in a statement today that Sotomayor may be subject to the “undue influence” of her race and gender:
Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.
Responding to Inhofe, The American Prospect’s Dana Goldstein writes, “Yes. Because the worldviews of John Roberts, Sam Alito, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia are not impacted at all by their white male identities. White men are raceless and genderless, haven’t you heard?”
Inhofe Will Filibuster Judicial Nominee For Ruling Against Sectarian Prayers In Indiana Legislature
Inhofe Will Filibuster Judicial Nominee For Ruling Against Sectarian Prayers In Indiana Legislature
Yesterday on the Senate floor, Sen. James Inhofe announced that he intended to filibuster Obama’s nomination of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Inhofe’s announcement comes nearly three weeks after the Republican membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee boycotted Hamilton’s hearing claiming that “they had not been given sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.” Inhofe’s filibuster is surprising given the fact that Hamilton is generally viewed as representing “some of [Indiana's] traditionally moderate strain.”
Inhofe does not appear to have explained his decision to filibuster in front of his colleagues on the floor of the Senate. But in statements that he entered into the Congressional Record, Inhofe cited a 2005 ruling in Hinrichs v. Bosman in which Hamilton found that the Indiana House of Representatives may open proceedings with “non-sectarian prayers” only. Inhofe called it “insane” that the ruling would allow payers to invoke the name of “Allah” but not “Jesus”:
INHOFE: Further, ruling on a postjudgment motion, Hamilton stated that invoking the name of “Allah” would not advance a particular religion or disparage another. So, praying to Allah would be perfectly acceptable. [...]
I find this line of reasoning to be insane. Who in this body would not identify the name of “Allah” with the religion of Islam any less than they would identify the name of Jesus with Christianity?
But as Overruled notes, Hamilton’s ruling was not particularly novel. Rather, Hamilton was upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marsh v. Chambers, which “held that legislatures can open their session with a non-sectarian prayer, and that such a prayer could invoke ‘God,’” as long as the prayer was not meant to “proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.”
Hamilton found that “sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers took the prayers outside the safe harbor the Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers.” As Hamilton explained in a post-judgment ruling, “‘Allah’ is used for ‘God’ in Arabic” and as such should be permitted:
The Arabic word “Allah” is used for “God” in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language’s terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others.
If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.
Additionally, Inhofe’s vow to filibuster is surprising given his previous insistence that filibustering judicial nominees is “not only an illegitimate use of a senator’s power, but is also literally unconstitutional.” As Steve Benen notes, in 2003, “Inhofe went so far as to say any senator who would dare filibuster a judicial nominee would necessarily be violating their oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution.’”
Inhofe: The ‘Middle Eastern mentality’ is ‘worse’ than Nazism.
Inhofe: The ‘Middle Eastern mentality’ is ‘worse’ than Nazism.
Since President Obama took office, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has emerged as one of the leading congressional voices opposing the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Yesterday, Inhofe discussed the issue on the G. Gordon Liddy Show, saying the U.S. needs to “keep the Gitmo open.” Inhofe said the “Middle Eastern mentality” of the detainees is more dangerous than that of Nazis:
LIDDY: Well, you know, that’s as if we had a hundred or fifty hardcore Nazi rotten…SS prisoners and instead of, you know, sending them back to Germany at the end of the war, we just turned them loose in the American communities. I mean, it doesn’t make any sense.
INHOFE: Well, this is a little worse than that, I think, because you’re dealing with the Middle Eastern mentality. And terrorists, you know, they don’t care about dying.
Listen here:
“There are still innocent people there [Guantanamo],” former Colin Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson said yesterday. “Some have been there six or seven years.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll