Sen. Jim Inhofe is a straight-arrow politician. When he opposes Big Government Spending, he really means it—unless it's for Oklahoma.
When it comes to funding Sooner state pork, Inhofe is at the head of the handout line.
Just yesterday, for instance, Inhofe voted against a $410 billion spending bill, one that he conveniently stuffed with more than $50 million for Oklahoma.
Sen. Tom Coburn, to his credit, was consistent, arguing against the bill but not requesting any earmarks for the state.
How does Sen. Inhofe explain his two-faced policy? He blames the system: "As long as the current process remains, you can bet I will be working to get every dollar I can for Oklahoma," Inhofe told the Tulsa World's Jim Myers.
Is he Jim "Straight Arrow" Inhofe? Not exactly. More like Jim "Two-sides-of-your-mouth" Inhofe.
2 comments:
All he's doing is playing politics. That's what many of those on the right fail to recognize. They are only rowled up because of campaign strategy. Nixon's southern strategy to be exact. But its all rhetoric. Abortion, taxes, the size of government, deficits, spending... Republicans are guilty of all of this and 9 times out of 10 more but, due to a lack of involvment, free thought, and research, they get by with it because when it comes to how they TALK, just appeal to the basest instincts of people and you WILL have an audience.
For a long time it was a large enough group to win and maintain power. With the advent of more technology the population has evolved rapidly though and have more information available to them. The strategy failed.
The republicans are split now. Reasonable ones who want to move forward productively with ACTUALLY pricipled opposition or those like Mr Inhofe and who will continue to appeal directly to "the base"(ironic thats the translation of al-Qaida)even if he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Problem is, many don't pay enough attention to catch it and Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Laura Ingram, and Michael Savage are too busy playing with the Civil War crowd for ratings to address anything real. So it continues...
And our answer is?
I fail to see what the problem is. It is a very legitimate two-pronged approach. There are two possible outcomes - either the bill will pass or it won't. Inhoffe is hoping that it won't. But if it does pass, Inhoffe is making the best of it by making sure Oklahoma gets covered. Isn't that what politicians are supposed to do? Fight for reform AND make sure our backs are covered?
It would be different if he had a separate bill for Oklahoma that he was pushing. But in fact, as you describe it, he is voting against the bill that includes the Oklahoma pork, which makes your title incorrect. A more correct title would be "Inhoffe always opposes federal pork, even when it is Oklahoma federal pork".
Post a Comment