my view, America (10/22/2008 3:20:26 AM)

Well, I say that this is pretty strong endorsement. You can say what you want about Senator Inhofe but he does his job well. Course there will be those that will say if the TW endorses them then I'm voting for the second string.

McCain/Palin/Inhofe/Sullivan in 08

2curious, Tulsa, OK 74104 (10/22/2008 6:17:51 AM)

You left out, "bigoted, ill-informed, embarrassing to his constituents, delusional and just plain mean."

But...he's in a great state of voters who will likely overlook those shortcomings.

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/22/2008 6:33:25 AM)

So this is the endorsement of a "liberal rag." LOL!!!!!!!!! There will be a number of confused right wingers today. I can't wait to hear how they spin this endorsement into a complaint that the conservative TW is a leftist publication.

I am proud of Andrew Rice. He is a bright young man and could help Oklahoma during an era in which the Democratic Party will dominate. Instead, we will continue to suffer the embarrassment of being represented by a man who calls global warming a hoax and thought it appropriate to joke about the deaths of 168 Oklahomans in the Murrah Federal Building when a fellow right winger chose to explode a truck in order to signal his protest against the federal government. Inhofe thought it appropriate to comment that the casualties could have been worse if federal employees weren't playing hooky from work that dreadful day.

God help Oklahoma!

Travis, Tahlequah (10/22/2008 6:55:07 AM)

Democrat,

Get it right when you accuse Inhofe of something, he questions the science behind "MAN MADE" global warming. As a teacher you should know better than to let your ideology get in the way of the facts.

BTW, is it not interesting that the earth has been cooling over the last seven years and that this year the glaciers in Alaska grew? I wonder how that will fit in with the "man made" global warming alarmists since CO2 emissions are still on the rise worldwide.

HardHeartedHanna, (10/22/2008 8:03:18 AM)

If you want change, Inhofe is not it. Unfortunately, Oklahoma will get what they deserve. So sad that we are afraid to vote democratic, even for one term. I will not be able to get the 'bush' taste out of my mouth until all of his cronies are sitting on the sidelines with him.

I hope that people will give one moment of thought as to who they would vote for in this election if Obama were to be elected as president. What a contrast of synergies we will have depending opon this race. Unfortunately i won't be able to blame Obama for cutting off the state of Oklahoma because he can't deal with Inhofe. I will only be able to blame the Oklahomans and their hillbilly ways.

FF, Tulsa (10/22/2008 8:12:32 AM)

Well...what do you say to an endorsement like this? The TW had an opportunity to help our state change course a bit instead chose 'more of the same' and endorsed Jim Inhofe...what a disappointment. Inhofe is an embarrassment to our state and ranks only slightly better than Tom Coburn. I've tried to figure out how the TW will endorse John McCain given the current state of our national affairs. Remember, the World hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since around HST. Given this pitiful diatribe about the esteemed senator Inhofe it appears the TW has telegraphed their punch and may endorse Mr. McCain for president. Surely the TW is embarrassed about their endorsement of George Bush...I know I am. Could the TW actually do the right thing and endorse a Democrat for President? Time will tell but I seriously doubt it.

peelumba, (10/22/2008 8:24:06 AM)

Only in Okieville, This would be really funny if it weren't true, even the TW wears blinders when it comes to this neanderthal!

Bigbadbri, Broken Arrow (10/22/2008 8:27:27 AM)

Sadly FF, the TW is poised to do just that and endorse McSame. They wouldn't want to offend their neo-con constituency. They figure there are more of them locally than progressives. Inhofe is a disaster, and Oklahoma will not get near what it would with Andrew Rice, who would be in a Senate with an overwhelming Democratic majority. Perhaps with an Obama presidency and a Democratic majority in Congress, Oklahoma might fair ok despite Inhofe, not because of him.

Stick61, Tulsa (10/22/2008 8:32:35 AM)

Inhofe is an embarrassment to Oklahoma nationally. He has been obstructionist when it comes to achieving any kind of reasonable climate-change legislation. He led the charge in opposition to the Lieberman-Warner bill, which endorsed approaches with which both major-party presidential candidates agree. He has run a sleazy campaign against Andrew Rice. I anticipate Inhofe will be re-elected. It's very difficult to unseat an incumbent senator, but there's no way I want it on my conscience that I voted for him. He's one of the people I'm talking about when I tell my friends from other parts of the nation and the world that Oklahoma has its share of right-wing loonies.

Graychin, Eucha (10/22/2008 8:36:29 AM)

If there is a silver lining to this horrible endorsement, it is that the people who whine about the "liberal" Tulsa World will have to eat some crow.

What? Oh, right. Those folks don't pay attention to facts anyway.

All that CO2 that humans are putting into the atmosphere doesn't contribute to warming the planet? That's going to surprise a lot of scientists who have known about the effect of "greenhouse" gases such as CO2 and methane for over a century.

Stick61, Tulsa (10/22/2008 8:38:51 AM)

If we don't act quickly enough to rein in the effects of global warming, names like Inhofe are going to be curse words to future generations. "Inhofe" is already a swear word to me.

my view, America (10/22/2008 8:48:04 AM)

Democrat,

That was one of nuts on the right the very far right. I'm sure you remember or read about the Weather Underground the nuts on the left the very far left. We all have our loons thankfully they are in the minority.

fwjen, Sand Springs (10/22/2008 8:56:19 AM)

I'm so disappointed in the Tulsa World. Prior to this editorial, I believed the editors here looked at facts and made informed decisions. Although we've only be in Oklahoma for less than a year, my husband and I can see clearly Andrew Rice is the best choice for us. He is intelligent, cares about Oklahomans and does (trite as it may sound) work with people in the other party.

Based on the most recent surveys and polls, democrats will lead the congress. If this occurs Inhofe's ability to help Oklahoma will be lessened - we will need a democratic voice to help support Oklahoma and Oklahomans.

Finally, look at Andrew Rice's position on healthcare, the economy, energy and you'll see he is Oklahoma's future in the US Senate. He is ready to help ALL Oklahomans, which is the true test for a representative.

Vote Andrew Rice!

Stick61, Tulsa (10/22/2008 8:57:36 AM)

Hmm ... but Inhofe is evidence that sometimes the extremists end up in charge of the asylum.

Eagle 4, Tulsa (10/22/2008 9:01:36 AM)

"...a fierce and effective fighter..."

What a laugher!! And he personally whizzed on himself at the Battle of the Bailout - after the battle was decided, no less! LOL

B.Aware, Tulsa (10/22/2008 9:52:33 AM)

What a relief!

For a while there, I was afraid the World might endorse a Democrat. That would have been awful. Without True Conservatives like Jim Inhofe and John Sullivan, Congress never would have passed the "Enron loophole" that Phil Gramm slipped through in the dead of night. Remember? As a rider attached to an 11,000-page appropriations bill, it never got debated. It just got passed.

That bill removed the controls on futures trading. It helped executives get really, really rich at Enron, and World Com, and SemGroup while emloyees got the shaft. It enabled the Saints of Wall Street to do -- well, all of us know what they did.

Without that loophole bill, the Wall Street banks wouldn't have collapsed. That collapse gave the Tulsa World opportunity to praise Inhofe and Sullivan for allowing all of us taxpayers (except the Saints) to borrow another $800 billion to bail out Wall Street.

The Enron loophole also let speculators push the price of oil up to $140 a barrel. And that, in turn, enabled the good Conservative Oklahoma legislature to reduce our state income taxes. That's because we get extra tax revenue when the price of oil goes up.

Of course, now that the price of oil has dropped. we'll have to cut funding for some programs. Just things like Medicare, and schools, and prisons, and bridges.

But those were mostly socialist programs anyway. And if we need more money for anything important, such as development of the river, Sullivan and Inhofe can get us some more pork barrel funding from the Federal budget deficit.

Another thing. Inhofe and Sullivan can help John McCain push through those extra tax cuts for the Saints of Wall Street as they collect their bonuses of $20 to $40 million for driving Lehman Brothers and the other big banks out of existence. Right now, the Saints have to pay 15 percent on their capital gains. Why, that's more than half as much as I pay on my retirement income! And that's just WRONG! But Inhofe and Sullivan and McCain will look out for the Saints. We can count on it, because they're Conservatives.

Oh, and they'll also keep taxes low on Tom Kivisto's $42.5 million reward for driving SemGroup into bankruptcy.

I know everyone can understand why I'm so happy the World has endorsed Inhofe and Sullivan. And I didn't even mention the war in Iraq.

lizzy, Tulsa (10/22/2008 10:09:11 AM)

Well, this, along with the recent John Sullivan endorsement, and the two past George W. Bush endorsements, OUGHT to put an end to those "liberal Tulsa World" comments. Sadly, I'm sure it won't, facts not being particularly important to many of those making the comments.

Graychin, Eucha (10/22/2008 10:34:09 AM)

B. Aware:

Awesome post! Keep up the good work.

TonyQ, Tulsa (10/22/2008 10:37:40 AM)

Experience doesn't matter as much as judgment, that's the theme of this election. I don't care how senior he is; he is only so because Oklahomans vote Republican like it's their religion. But the man doesn't believe in science and is a national embarrassment. Vote Rice!

Generic, Tulsa (10/22/2008 10:44:20 AM)

I can't believe what I am reading. First TW endorses Sullivan and now Inhofe. The only logical explanation is that they are playing some kind of weird reverse psychology game thinking that since most of the time their endorsments end up losing in this backward thinking state, maybe they get lucky by endorsing the wrong candidate. How else could anyone justify endorsing Inhofe? Since they are on this bandwagon TW should make it a tripple and endorse McCain also...

jett rink, (10/22/2008 10:59:30 AM)

The TW endosements reflect the interests of its owner who has flourished under Republican policies. It's a safe bet Maverick McSame will get the World's endorsement soon.

roberto, (10/22/2008 12:01:24 PM)

If you are concerned about your immediate future rather than your grandchildren's future, then vote for him. However, it may be an endorsement for the End of Days. Jim Inhofe is the poster child for those who do not believe in Global Warming. He receives the most oil lobby money of anyone in Washington. Seems that he is accelerating Armageddon, then the debates about abortion, economy, etc. are moot. If you read Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman, you will be very concerned for the planet. It's too bad Mr. Rice doesn't define himself on this issue.

rocket, (10/22/2008 12:37:53 PM)

The World editorial page is like the Four Tops: they can't help themselves. They spent six years of Inhofe's latest term needling him on issues, then when the election comes around they endorse him. They appear to like Andrew Rice a bit, but they can't bring themselves to leave the GOP fold. They can't do so even though it would mean only dissing Inhofe, whom they've never liked. Alas, the publisher has to see his peers at the clubhouse. The editorial board can say what it wants the rest of the time, but when election day approaches there will be no fooling around tolerated: Inhofe, Sullivan and coming soon to an editorial page near you, McCain.

Jim the Democrat, Tulsa (10/22/2008 1:12:21 PM)

Inhofe may be a little too much linked to the Republican Business ideals for my taste, but on everything else that matters to this old Democrat, he's right on. If the Dems would give us a moderate like Dan Boren I'd go with him. Instead we get Leftist Liberals of the National Democratic party.

Those of you complaining about End of Days and Global Warming need to pay attention to the latest science. Don't be pawns of enviro-radicals and their media allies. Just for an example -- did you hear the big news in Arctic ice this year? What was it -- that huge iceshelf breaking off of Greenland -- proof of global warming, right? Well, the real news was that the Arctic icepack was much larger at the end of the summer than it was last year. 350,000 square miles larger! The iceshelf was only 19 sq miles. The icepack story was buried by the media because it contradicts the preferred theory. Check story by Lorne Gunter (Thirty Years of Warmer Temperatures Go Poof) detailing new studies which posit increased sunspot activity for the warming and decreasing sunspots for recent cooling. Also provides this statistic: worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.

I don't pretend to know exactly what the truth is but I do recognize politicized science when I see it. I think that is what Sen Inhofe objects to. Bad science. Also the worse solutions (for the US) proposed by Kyoto and the radicals.

Stick61, Tulsa (10/22/2008 2:06:27 PM)

Jim - You claim to cite "the latest science." What's your source? I can also cite you a very credible story to the effect that the spring and summer melting of sea ice in the arctic in 2008 brought levels of arctic sea ice during that seasonal period to a record low. Would you consider that "radical"? Also, I think what has motivated Inhofe through the years is his involvement in the defend-business-interests-at-all-costs mentality of the Republican establishment. He's received heaps of cash from oil and gas interests. Jim Inhofe is no science expert and his charges regarding "bad science" come across as a bunch of bunk. The only "good science" to him is whatever he thinks reinforces his political views.

Stick61, Tulsa (10/22/2008 2:21:37 PM)

Fourteen years doth not "vast experience" make. Andrew Rice could provide the same sort of spirited defense of Oklahoma's interests as Jim Inhofe, and Rice may be more effective than Inhofe in the future because of a Democratic majority in the Senate and the high probability of a new Democratic president in the White House. In such an environment, Inhofe will be marginalized. If that happens, I will be happy to remind the TW that it missed an opportunity to advocate for progressive change.

Stick61, Tulsa (10/22/2008 2:28:26 PM)

I'd vote for a tri-sexual giraffe before I'd vote for Jim Inhofe. LOL.

Jim the Democrat, Tulsa (10/22/2008 3:10:45 PM)

To Stick61: I listed the author and title. TW doesn't allow links. Your story about 2008 sea ice is just plain wrong. The facts are that 2007 was the record low. 2008 is the second lowest BUT it is still 350,000 sq miles more than 2008. So the question is: what caused it? All around the world 2008 was cooler than expected in both hemispheres. The reference to "latest science" has to do with the analysis of the 2008 data. Radical true believers will scoff but a scientist must keep his mind open.

Royce, Tulsa (10/22/2008 4:22:56 PM)

This editorial points up the fact that the TW believes the principle role of a legislator is to bring home the pork which, contrary to the Democrat's thinking, shows the World's decidedly left wing stance.

While the World finds itself at cross points with Inhofe on many, if not most issues, he evidently does an adequte job of getting the pork.

B.Aware, Tulsa (10/22/2008 4:42:59 PM)

Graychin, obviously you are a man of great perception, Tom Swift said jokingly. Seriously, I do appreciate your compliment.

Stick61, Tulsa (10/22/2008 4:47:19 PM)

OK, JIM, I saw Lorne Gunter's name in your first post but I chose to ignore it in replying to you because I've heard of him before and researched him before and I know he's not a scientist. He's an ideologue who makes a cottage industry out of trying to spin the climate change issue. It's not that the mainstream media "bury" what he has to say; it's that Lorne Gunter isn't credible. I do not consider him a "source" for "the latest science" or any other science. Give me someone credible. In fact, by citing Lorne Gunter, you damage your credibility.

I did, however, in the spirit of being as open-minded about this as possible, read the specific Lorne Gunter column you cited. It contained nothing about sea ice levels (by which I mean to refer to total volume, not just to ice extent), so I don't know where you got your data on sea ice. What I found in the column is that Gunter cited the work of a handful of scientists, saying that their conclusions help to undermine current theories about global warming. The problem with the column is that it presents such a small and selectively culled slice of data and opinion as to mean practically nothing. It's not a review of prevailing opinion of all sorts and how one might view all of it. It's a favorites list for a noted spin doctor. I don't even know at this point if he correctly reported the views of the people he named.

As for your argument about the sea ice situation, what the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) had to say, if you read far enough into its Oct. 2, 2008 press release, is that, "NSIDC research scientist Walt Meier said, 'Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of arctic sea ice ON RECORD, partly because LESS MULTI-YEAR ICE is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.' "

Remember, I commented in my last post about "levels" of sea ice -- not about ICE EXTENT, which is the only measure on which you seem to have relied -- not a picture of the whole situation.

If you read the whole release and read through all the graphics, what you learn is that ICE EXTENT (AS OPPOSED TO TOTAL VOLUME/MASS OF ARCTIC SEA ICE) was somewhat greater in 2008 than in 2007. However, as opposed to the spin you're trying to feed me, what Walt Meier says is that LESS MULTIYEAR ICE is surviving.

Additionally, NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos said for the Oct. 2 release, "The trend of decline in the Arctic continues ..."

The NSIDC is a respected, scientific organization. I'm going to take the word of the NSIDC over that of Lorne Gunter or any other spin doctor, anyday, anywhere.

I'm not a "radical" true believer. I don't have any such history. However, I do resent being spun by ideologues.

So, Jim, my story is "just plain wrong," is it? I don't think so, upon closer examination of the sources and the language. You've tried to sell the ICE EXTENT numbers as ICE VOLUME numbers and to construe a minor fluctuation in extent as some kind of arctic ice recovery, or some kind of rejection of the prevailing trend. Well, according to the NSIDC, the arctic remains plenty vulnerable and I think both you and Jim Inhofe are asleep at the switch.

Jim Inhofe is a far-right extremist on climate change. He is a bad influence on national policy in this very important area. I will not be voting for him.

Find someone else to be your patsy, Jim. I ain't fooled.

Skyhawk, Downtown (10/22/2008 4:53:49 PM)

Wow,
I have to admit that he has done a great job in getting funding for NE Oklahoma. I just wish he wasn't so quick to ire...

Jim the Democrat, Tulsa (10/22/2008 5:51:24 PM)

Stick61: My data were from HSIDC too, although earlier than yours. Yes, the article was about extent, but also about predictions from the previous year which thought thinner ice would also contribute to less extent. I don't know Lorne Gunter's rep but the point is there are some awkward 2008 happenings weatherwise that don't fit the paradigm. In addition to his examples, Antarctica has been cooling for the last 35 years and supposedly Mars' ice cap is also shrinking.
I'm not trying to sell anything re: the science; I was just trying to point out how Inhofe has enough evidence on his side to justify his contrarian position and remove him from the "wacko" list. He is also old enough to remember all the grim scientific predictions of the last generation that another ice age was on the way.
It makes sense to me that our actions can affect global warming to some extent. I'm just not ready to jump on Al Gore's boat, sign the Kyoto treaty that harms our businesses and jobs while allowing China to continue unabated -- not as long as the facts and causes are under debate.

Woman for Rice, (10/22/2008 6:51:53 PM)

Endose Inhofe, Really!! What are you thinking. When I lived in OKC sometimes I would walk from the front door with the Daily Disappointment and take it directly to the trash. Right now, I feel like I need to do that with the Tulsa World. You certainly are being much more gracious to Inhofe then he would ever be to anyone that he disagreed with. He is a mean, vindictive old man who will be 79 years old at the end of this term if elected. Yes, he does hold high positions in the Senate. Positions which he uses to benefit himself and his cronnies. He has lost touch with Oklahoma. I don't understand.

OneActivist, Tulsa (10/22/2008 7:02:42 PM)

Inhofe Voting Record
AGAINST CONSTITUTION
Military Commissions Act 2006
Voted to prohibit enemy combatants from invoking Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus
S. Bill 2248 Voted to approve warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens
S. Bill 1670 Voted against legislation investigating no-bid defense contracts
S. Bill 3930 Voted against amendment to preserve Habeas Corpus
HR 2082 Voted against the Intelligence Authorization bill because it banned torture
S. Bill 2351 Voted for indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
VOTES AGAINST SUPPORTING THE TROOPS
S. Bill 2909 Voted against a bill requiring mandatory rest periods for troops between
deployments
HR 2863 Voted against increased funding for Veteran's Healthcare
S. Bill Voted against additional funding for Veterans Mental Health Services such as
PTSD

Spuds, Tulsa (10/22/2008 11:23:35 PM)

Dissapointing, to see the World endorsing the Senator labeled the dumbest man in Congress. No small feet, considering the numbers of both houses. In the future, I'll examine and scrutinize other Wold's endorsements. Experience or not, sixteen years is long enough, it''s time to retire. Let Rice, get some experience under his belt. He'd be hard pressed to become a lager embarassment than our "senior" legislator.

MTS, (10/22/2008 11:58:44 PM)

God Help Us. No really, I'm serious.

Worse than just being lousy, this newspaper is actually a harm to its readers and the State.

You're suggesting that Oklahomans reelect the guy who, far from demonstrating any interest in tackling the most serious global problem of our time, shamelessly volunteers himself as the Chief Naysayer on Global Warming. The last member of the flat earth society -- an Oklahoman, naturally. The guy who voted in lockstep with a president who the nation currently deems a failure...when it's feeling charitable. Yeah sure, that guy's definitely a keeper.

You cite Inhofe's vote in favor of $146M pork roll for Oklahoma as a demonstration of his independence from George W. Bush. Yep, that's a real dilemma: Vote against money for your state or vote in opposition to your President -- Why don't you all nominate him for a Profile in Courage Award for that one. Forget about the fact that earmarks like this are the scourge du jour of balanced budget hawks.

You ignore the obvious reality that the Senate is moving sharply leftward and that Barack Obama is nearly assured the White House. How do you reckon a hard-right leaning Republican is gonna deliver for his deep red state in the dawn of a quickly rising and powerful Democratic regime? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for a Democratic president and legislature to shower a Senator Rice with all the pork he wants in order to retain a seat for their party in a solid Red state?!

And finally, you ignore or underestimate how powerfully Senator Inhofe tarnishes the image of Oklahoma nationally and globally. He's willfully obtuse, needlessly and harmfully brash, crude, intellectually shallow, unnecessarily combative, smug and plain crotchety. He bolsters the impression of Oklahoma that many Americans have as a an anti-progress intellectual backwater. You can disagree with that take, but you can't deny that it's real or that it limits possibilities for this state.

I can hardly imagine a time when it was ever appropriate to endorse Inhofe, but if ever there were a time to toss the incumbent, this is it. This paper and its editors (Julie Delcour excepted) are just pathetic. I'm truly ashamed and disgusted that this is the last voice in print for Tulsa. We deserve better.

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/23/2008 5:24:26 AM)

Royce:

Thank you. I was wondering if any of the right-wingnuts would try to spin the TW's endorsement of Inhofe into a "liberal" action. You didn't disappoint me. LOL!!!!!!!!

Bville, (10/23/2008 2:39:58 PM)

I am having a hard time believing you Democrats are genuinely surprised at the TW's endorsements of Sullivan and Inhofe. You should notice how there is not one mention of any policy, issue, what have you with which the paper agrees with either men. Is it really surprising that the paper would pick a long-term senator with a pile of money over a political novice with who has served only 2-years in the state senate?

And puh-leeze, you folks who don't consider the TW editorialists as liberal, show the rest of us some examples (outside of meaningless political endorsements) to support your belief.

Tina08, (10/26/2008 12:02:53 PM)

I hesitatingly paid for three more months of this paper...my subscription will not be renewed as I need something that will be more objective and not so narrowminded. The cost is not worth the agony of reading this so-called piece of 'journalism'.
One lost customer here.

Sport, Edmond (10/26/2008 5:05:01 PM)

And to think I had been saying good things about the World to my friends. I guess I'll have to be more reserved in the future.

Inhofe is and always has been about Inhofe. We need something more.

elyocp, (10/27/2008 6:16:49 PM)

I PREDICT OBAMA WILL WIN IN OKLAHOMA. BUT IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE OBAMA WILL GET THE 270 VOTES HE NEEDS BEFORE OKLAHOMA EVER STARTS COUNTING ITS VOTES. BUT I WILL VOTE ANYWAY.

James, Weatherford, Weatherford (10/27/2008 11:17:45 PM)

The editorial board of the Tulsa World has completely lost all credibility with this endorsement. It is not our Senator's job only to "get all he can" for Oklahoma. There must be some sense of doing what is right for the future and for the constitution. Inhofe has repeatedly refused to consider the constitution OR the future. He is a wonderful corporate whore, however, and apparently joins the editors of the TW with that distinction.

Msdash00, Oklahoma (10/28/2008 12:00:05 AM)

BWARE:
Exactly the point and the newspapers will not touch this information if it bit them! Inhofe voted for the CFMA! Stated past, US Senator Phil Gramm was his "mentor." Literally tells voters "I will not change" in a time when "stubborn" is bad policy.
Inhofe is a driver in the vehicle "Wall Street" that crashed, and Oklahomans will help pay for. He will not change!
OUCH!

Lining his pockets...Inhofe's financial reports looks more like whose who on Wall Street.
LOOK!

2000 Comodity Futures Modernization Act was just announced this past Sunday on the 60/Minutes program as the major reason the economy has crashed.
Inhofe voted for this and Oklahomans will pay.
OOPS!

Being a Senior Citizen is honorable, but making America pay while lining your pockets so CEO buddies can retire with million dollar parachutes is wrong. Seniors in Oklahoma deserve better health care, to be ensured they will recieve all their hard earned retirement benifits. Seniors are asking for affordable insurance, a healthy environment, and ensurance that their grandchildren will not have to pay for the mistakes of our lleaders in the Senate, like Inhofe.
READ!

It is not rocket science, and speaking of science, do people realize that many of the scientists reported in Inhofe's research data to support his claim regarding global warming did not give him their permission for him to use their names...much of the data is factually incorrect and misleading.
IGNORANCE!

Okay, staying in the blissful state of ignorance is safe for many people. But a quarter of a century in Washington is too long!
Inhofe has been in Washington as a long distance representative for 22 years. Why is he so intent on staying longer? Good question! I believe Inhofe has lost touch with Oklahomans.
SCAREY!

Inhofe strides across the plains like Michael Myers from the horror movie, "Halloween" ready to rape and pilliage the lobbiest for 4 more years and he tells us "I will not change" how I represent Oklahoma-at Oklahoma's expense.
VOTE DIFFERENT!

Consider the next US Senator as a strong force for Oklahoma, a person of respect, (not embarassment), someone to improve Oklahoma's representation and who will work for "Oklahomans" again.
SMART!

Andrew Rice is the other choice. Rice has the qualifications, dependability, the respect, and the energy to serve Oklahoma representing our State and our needs.
I know this professional hard working man and can recommend him with highest regard.

argon, (10/29/2008 1:32:35 AM)

TW has done its readers a great disservice. The country is ready for change and sadly Oklahoma will not be part of it.

Rocketman, Tulsa (10/30/2008 12:25:29 AM)

Global Warmimg - WHERE!