Inhofe

This is how, for the most part, the GOP responds to global warming: Everytime it snows or gets really cold, it mocks former Vice President Al Gore.

Oklahoma’s own U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, of course, is the leading mocker, but now even his family is getting in on the fun. During the recent Washington D.C. snowstorm, Inhofe’s daughter, son-in-law and their children built a replica of an igloo and named it “Al Gore’s New Home.” It drew national and local news coverage. Funny, right?

Well, it might be if it weren’t for the fact that global warming and climate change is the likely culprit behind all the recent severe winter weather across the country. Scientists say changing weather patterns, caused by global warming, lead to more severe storms, not less. The point is that our weather patterns are changing.

The igloo also doesn’t make the fact that the earth is getting warmer go away, but I guess it’s difficult for Inhofe’s daughter, Molly Rapert, who is apparently a professor at the University of Arkansas, to understand the scientific overview. Again, weather patterns are changing because of global warming.

Think Progress had an insightful post on the spectacle, pointing out that last month was the hottest recorded January in the history of the earth. The post also pointed out that a scientist with the National Wildlife Federation says the science directly links severe storms with climate change.

Unless we can do something about global warming, future generations will look back in horror at this silly political pandering and mockery. It might make for a good laugh at the moment, but the joke is really on Inhofe and his daughter, who rely on stunts to distort an extremely important issue.

(Could the 2010 Oklahoma legislative session get ugly because of the state budget crisis? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette, the state's finest alternative weekly. Be sure to read a different view about the session, too.)

On Feb. 1, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe released this statement about President Barack Obama’s budget:

Today’s budget released by President Obama proves how disingenuous the spending freeze he touted during the State of the Union address last week really was. The new budget includes billions in new spending, higher taxes, and continued deficit spending. With twenty kids and grandkids of my own, it is their futures I am concerned for because the spending decisions included in Obama’s budget will saddle future generations with enormous debt. Instead of increased spending, we should make hard decisions, exercise fiscal restraint, and tighten Washington’s spending belt like every household across this country is doing.

Note all the sanctimonious concern about the children and the future, even though Inhofe sat on the sidelines as former President George Bush squandered a budget surplus and drove this country into debt because of tax cuts for the rich and two botched military occupations. Now, suddenly, it’s all about the kids.

Or is it? The very next day, Inhofe released this statement about defense spending in the budget:

Defending America is the number one constitutionally-mandated function of government. While there are good programs included in the President’s budget, the core defense budget will fall from 3.6 percent of GDP in FY11 to 3.2 percent of GDP by FY15. That’s not doing enough to protect this nation. When the cost of simply operating and sustaining our military outpaces inflation on average by 3 percent each year, these levels of funding do not allow us to properly take care of our men and women in uniform, fully fund operations overseas, modernize our aging military fleets, and properly sustain our old equipment.

What about the children now? This is more than a typical argument for more defense spending. This is rhetorical subterfuge. Inhofe wants it both ways. The poor children and grandchildren will suffer because of a big, bad terrible budget on one day. The very next day, it’s, hey, we need a lot more military spending in this country. In his first statement, Inhofe talks about households tightening their spending belts; in the second statement, he fails to mention anything about spending restraint or even basic oversight.

Inhofe can get away with his consistent contradictions because the corporate media in the state will not hold him accountable. Obviously, politicians contradict themselves all the time, but this example is so politically expedient, one might think it would draw some local media attention. Don’t count on it.