jlw, Canadian (10/8/2008 5:52:38 AM)

Inhofe - new poster boy for term limits.

Hijinx, (10/8/2008 6:16:44 AM)

Flat earth Jim votes over and over against our vets and gets the worst rating from veterans groups. Inhofe is nothing more than a mouth piece for big oil interests. He needs to be put to pasture.

concernedpapa, Kiefer (10/8/2008 6:23:09 AM)

I once heard a smart man say if a politician hasn't stolen enough in two terms in office he isn't smart enough to receive a third term. If he has he should have enough to retire so don't send him back he's greedy. That man was my father, and it took me a while to realize he was for term limits, in his own way. I know Inhoff is smart and he must also be greedy, as he keeps wanting to stay on the government payroll. I truly believe we should give him a taste of what his actions are going to create, unemployment on a very large scale. Send him home to spend more time with his grandaughter, as a grandfather myself I know he will enjoy his time with her, and Oklahoma will be better off for it.

k-dog, Owasso (10/8/2008 6:24:34 AM)

regarding the credit collapse: Rice said, "An era allowed this to happen. George Bush came into office eight years ago with a Republican majority and an agenda of radical deregulation."

Wow, we found the first thing in 8 years that the Dems didn't fight Bush on.

Mike W, Tulsa (10/8/2008 6:31:11 AM)

Just as there were more supporters for Andrew Rice to greet him as he arrived for the Tulsa debate than those for Jim Inholf, let's hope for the sake of all of Oklahoma that there will be more that vote for Andrew Rice in the 2008 general election for US Senate.

Andrew Rice is indeed a "committed" person; he is committed to "putting people before politics" and working towards a better life for everyone.

Jim Inholf is also a "committed" person; he is notorious worldwide as one who prefers to wage a war against science rather than even recognize the realities of global warming.

Let's all "commit" ourselves to electing Andrew Rice!

Mike W
Tulsa+
Who made a commitment long ago to see Andrew Rice elected next month

Travis, Tahlequah (10/8/2008 7:16:37 AM)

Mike W,

Sen. Inhofe has long recognized the reality of global warming so your post is a best a distortion of the truth or at its worst a lie.

The problem Sen. Inhofe has is when people call it man made global warming. There is no consensus in the scientific community as to the role man, if any, plays in global warming. There has been no net global warming in the last ten years. I wonder why that would be if our CO2 emissions are to blame for global warming.

Mike W, Tulsa (10/8/2008 8:01:15 AM)

>Travis: There is no consensus in the scientific community as to the role man, if any, plays in global warming.

This illustrates my point.

There ***IS*** a consensus in the scientific community as to the role man plays in global warming.

Those who prefer a war on science like Inholf and Travis should find themselves outnumbered at the Oklahoma polls. It is past the time that Inholf stop being the INTERNATIONAL embarrassment to Oklahoma over this and so many other issues.

Mike W
Tulsa+
Who knows there is also a consensus on this consensus ;^)

Mike W, Tulsa (10/8/2008 8:08:17 AM)

>righton: No Christian will support abortion and the killing of God's babies.

REALITY CHECK.

A clear MAJORITY of all Christians are pro-choice.

A clear majority of all voters are pro-choice.

A clear majority of our society is pro-choice.

Mike W
Tulsa+
Who knows that there are sincere Christians on both sides of this issue

Okie1948, Tulsa (10/8/2008 8:10:13 AM)

There were *not* more supporters for Andrew Rice to greet him as he arrived for the Tulsa debate than there were for Jim INHOFE. Jim had just as many as Rice if not more. I was there. After the debate was over all of the Rice supporters had disappeared and Rice exited by a rear door. Jim's supporters were still at the front entrance. Jim left by that entrance and didn't sneak out the back door like Sneaky Andrew Rice.

Mike W, Tulsa (10/8/2008 8:28:47 AM)

>Okie1948: There were *not* more supporters for Andrew Rice to greet him as he arrived for the Tulsa debate than there were for Jim INHOFE. Jim had just as many as Rice if not more. I was there. After the debate was over all of the Rice supporters had disappeared...

I was also there and made headcounts of both groups at several times and confirmed my counts with some in the media. Perhaps some missed those media reports that *ALL* noted there were indeed more Rice supports there.

The many Rice supporters enjoyed our debate watch party across the street and our after-party with Andrew Rice as well. Perhaps some saw the TV-2 and TV-8 coverage on it.

Mike W
Tulsa+
Who suspects that some Inhofe supporters may now also want a "war on math" to go with their "war on science"

fwjen, Sand Springs (10/8/2008 8:28:54 AM)

AS I posed last night, I think we saw Oklahoma's past and future during the debate last night. I'm sure Inhofe is a fine person and has done a fine job, but it's time for the future and the future for Oklahoma is Andrew Rice.

cybercitizen, Bville (10/8/2008 9:44:20 AM)

Just double-checked James Inhofe in the Senate power rankings. Yes, he is 74th, behind Sherrod Brown, a first-term Senator and Tom Coburn, a first-term senator who ranks 66th. I have read that Inhofe is a loner who does not even get along with his Republican colleagues. The debate showed Inhofe's true colors. He was doctrinaire--blaming Fannie and Freddie for the collapse, when they were a lesser sub-fraction of the problem. He has voted with Bush 90% of the time, despite trumpeting claims of being a maverick. He has not been doing a good job for Oklahoma--he, like many other Republicans, has allowed industry lobbyists to write the legislation of the last eight years. The Republicans in the Senate have been AWOL, which is why we are in the huge financial mess that we are in.

Graychin, Eucha (10/8/2008 10:33:05 AM)

Good morning, Inhofe minion. For once, no "God, guns and gays" slam on Rice? Good for you. I might reconsider that beer. Maybe.

We tend to get the kind of government that we deserve. I expect that the only God can remove Jim Inhofe from the US Senate as long as Oklahomans continue to find his dirty G3 campaigns to be appealing.

Inhofe is only in his 70's. God may wait a very long time.

EufaulaLakers, Eufaula/Longtown (10/8/2008 11:07:58 AM)

Mike W. may be correct in saying that the majority of Americans favor a woman's choice in matters concerning her own body, but this is totally irrelevant.

It is not Americans who will be voting between Rice and Inhofe, it is Oklahoman Americans, and Oklahomans do not seem to favor abortion as a proper choice.

Regarding the debate though, if you look at it impartially (OK, that's impossible), Inhofe won. As I wrote on the new okNewsEvents website, if it had been a boxing match, I would score it 94 - 86 for Inhofe.

What is remarkable about that score is that I plan to vote for Rice. Inhofe was more relaxed, warm and personable. He had a terrific grasp of facts and could recall vote counts and statistics.

Voters tend to vote for the person they'd rather sit down and have a beer with (coffee, in my case) and last night, that man was Inhofe.

Scritchner, Tulsa (10/8/2008 11:31:08 AM)

Inhofe said he was unapologetic about a lot of positions he's had and actions he's taken. Well, at least that shows he's unapologetically stubborn and out of touch.

I would sit down and have a beer with any of our politicians, Eufaula Lakers. But I draw the line when it comes to their service in our government. My criteria for their electability is a bit tougher than a beer buddy.

Paul N. Mavini, (10/8/2008 11:35:48 AM)

Learn from history... widespread over-exuberance, citizens' ignorance, and government's look-the-other-way policies have repeatedly left us with major financial crises. When things have gone too far in one direction, going overboard in the opposite direction is inevitable, due to divisive political tactics.

Support strong moderates instead of falling for extremist B.S. and we'll eventually leave the rollercoaster behind.

matt w, Tulsa (10/8/2008 4:16:20 PM)

JAD would know too! He is the expert on gays. He knows who is and who isn't apparently.

Not saying Rice is, because he is married, but that doesn't always mean anything either. It could just be a political thing with him and his wife, you never know.

On another note, LawyerDane, isn't the NRA great? You get the great newsletter, bumper stickers, and free admission to gun and knife shows. Almost makes it worth it.

I don't like either choice, but I may end up voting for Rice and that is mainly because I don't care much for Inhofe. But at the same time if people like JAD and Mike W are the type of people voting for Rice, I can't be associated with them because they do seem rather pig headed and not able to admit when they are wrong which could get us into more trouble so I may end up voting for Inhofe. See I even made it through all of this without calling you catcher too.

Travis, Tahlequah (10/8/2008 10:39:51 PM)

Mike W,

"There ***IS*** a consensus in the scientific community as to the role man plays in global warming." Wrong.

Google "global warming petition project" for a consensus of scientist who disagree with the premise of man made global warming. You can read the names and fields of all signers. You can also see the summary brief they all received before signing.

Google "the earth times" website then look for "Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears ". The very first paragraph debunks your consensus.

Google "Global Cooling In Antarctica by Kate Melville". This also raises serious doubts about man made global warming.

I could go on but to what end. There is no scientific consensus about man made global warming. There are no FACTS that back up the dire warnings of climate alarmists.

Mike W, Tulsa (10/9/2008 11:51:38 AM)

>>Mike W: There ***IS*** a consensus in the scientific community as to the role man plays in global warming.
>Travis: Wrong. ...There are no FACTS that back up the dire warnings of climate alarmists.

Inholf and Travis seem agree in their "war on science" on this issue.

There are nothing but undisputed scientific FACTS that back up the dire warnings on global warming. Try talking with an elementary school earth sciences teacher; perhaps they can explain it to those like Travis that would not pass their class with their false beliefs.

Mike W
Tulsa+
Who is a former public school teacher

Travis, Tahlequah (10/9/2008 3:11:05 PM)

Mike W,

I think I will go with over 3000 scientists, many with PhD's over your statements. I have noted that you provide no sources or references to back up your claims.

I am GLAD former is in front of public school teacher.

Mike W, Tulsa (10/10/2008 9:59:43 AM)

>Travis: I think I will go with over 3000 scientists, many with PhD's over your statements.

And I think I will stay with more than 3,000,000 scientists, MOST with PhD's, over the misguided "war on science" that a few moss-backs here insist on having.

Mike W
Tulsa+
Who knows that the denials of Inholf and Travis are found laughable in elementary school earth science classes by the students that know better

Travis, Tahlequah (10/10/2008 8:49:46 PM)

Mike W,

Where is your list of scientists? Mine is posted for all to see on the internet at the GWPP website.

Again it is noted you provide no sources for your claims. Typical of many of the eco nuts out there.

Eagle 4, Tulsa (10/10/2008 9:19:41 PM)

google climatehotmap

The above site offers overwhelming evidence of global warming via documented records.

Travis, Tahlequah (10/11/2008 8:46:01 AM)

Eagle 4,

Interesting website. Climatehotmap website states; "The basic criterion for inclusion of an event or trend on the map was its consistency with global climate model projections of a world with increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, as outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC: 1996, 2001)." Obviously very biased toward the idea that man is causing global warming.

The finalized IPCC study was not peer reviewed. From the SEPPDOT(o_r_g) website;"While ostensibly an impartial collector and reporter of climate science, the IPCC has consistently promoted global warming fears in its Summary for Policymakers (SPM). In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the IPCC report touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The draft of December 1995 was approved by national delegations. When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it "conform to the Policymakers Summary." The clandestine changes put a spin on the report's conclusions that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Lead authors of the crucial--and doctored--Chapter 8, dealing with the detection and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human influence on climate can be detected. In its third report, issued in 2001, the IPCC vigorously promoted a scientific result, termed the Hockeystick. Based on an analysis of proxy data, it was used to claim that the twentieth century was the warmest in the past 1000 years. This claim was meant to suggest that the warming of the twentieth century was due to human causes, specifically the growth in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Few noticed that such a result, even if real, had no bearing on AGW. In fact, it has since been demonstrated that the hockeystick result was based on the faulty application of statistical analysis and the consequence of an incorrect procedure. Furthermore, additional proxy data that had not been considered by the hockeystick team, or by the IPCC, suggest that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the twentieth century-- a conclusion in good accord with historic data such as settlement of Greenland."

Eagle 4, Tulsa (10/11/2008 9:19:14 AM)

Hey, just trying to help! The broken record was grating my nerves.
Possibly the greatest irony is that once the (nonexistent?) heat shuts down the Gulf Stream we will, in an estimated 10 years, be entering another Ice Age. But, of course, that's only speculation like everybody else's opinion I've read here so I'm not really sweating it(pun intended)! Shut my mouth and color me gone.