Inhofe Throws All In With Crazy Trump

It’s no surprise the extremist, right-wing U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe is unequivocal in his support for GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, but it doesn’t make it any easier for rational, intelligent people to live here.

Inhofe, an ultra-conservative Republican, recently joined Trump’s National Security Advisory Council, according to media reports, and our 81-year-old Senator is giving the candidate his great advice:

Mine was an effort to try to simplify the issues, so that they're easy and he doesn't have to get into the weeds...we'll find out if it works.

Of course, keeping Trump out of the “weeds” and urging him to “simplify the issues” is ultimately ambiguous and the local corporate media here won’t challenge Inhofe on a comment like this, but I guess what Inhofe means is that Trump needs to stop saying all the crazy and stupid stuff that he says and speak in more nuanced sound bites. But, as we all know, this is crazy trying to stop crazy.

We have a global warming denier and anti-LGBTQ homophobe trying to stop a serial sexual harasser of women and a compulsive liar from going ballistic in the media. Good luck with that.

(Click "Read more" to continue reading.)


Once Again The Oklahoman Editorial Board Takes Immoral, Cowardly Position

Let the historical record show that when this country faced a real, viable fascist threat from a despicable, racist, sexist, lying wannabe dictator in waiting, The Oklahoman, our state’s largest newspaper, declined to speak up for freedom.

The newspaper’s non-endorsement of a presidential candidate in the Nov. 8 election in a Sunday editorial, and its relentless and unfounded criticism of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, taken together represent a cowardly, immoral act that should shock and rattle any rational human being living here.

Traditionally conservative newspapers across the country—The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Arizona Republic, among many others—have come out for Clinton because their ownership and their staff know the risk the country and world faces if Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump becomes president, but The Oklahoman can only ask us to pray.

Here’s the gist of the newspaper’s non-endorsement of anyone for president this year:

Our advice: By all means vote on Nov. 8, then pray for this country.

That was the last line of a sexist, hateful editorial that essentially railed against Clinton but then between the lines indicated it wasn’t openly endorsing Trump either. The editorial first noted, “One nominee, Republican Donald Trump, is the wildest of wild cards” and that . . . “he's prone to repeated crude and offensive behavior” but then it used its next seven paragraphs to beat up on Clinton on minor issues and ideology. It’s difficult not to see the extended Clinton criticism as an implicit endorsement of Trump.

(Click "Read more" to continue reading.)


That Is The Question But Here Are the Recommendations

I’m often asked about how to vote on the various state questions in Oklahoma during election seasons, and so I give my recommendations for what they’re worth.

I’ll give a brief overall recommendation on the seven questions, and then I’ll go more in depth over each measure starting with the no votes. I recommend no votes for State Questions 776, 777 and 790. I recommend yes votes for State Questions 779, 780, 781 and 792.

Keep in mind, as I go through the measures, that there are at least one or two of them upon which reasonable people on the left-end of the political spectrum can disagree. One of those, of course, is SQ 779, which would raise the state sales tax by one cent to provide for teacher raises and other funding for educational systems in the state.

Let’s start with the no votes:

No on SQ 776. This measure is a constitutional amendment that would allow any method of execution in Oklahoma just as long as it doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution. The question originated out of the legislature after botched executions with lethal drugs here. There are three obvious reasons for voting against it: (1) It undermines the judicial branch of government making the legislative branch superior in the matter of executions, (2) it will face legal challenges that the state will almost certainly lose, and (3) it’s a barbaric “lynch-mob” amendment that doubles down on the death penalty, a practice which states throughout the country are ending and which the U.S. Supreme Court may soon abolish. Opposition to it has drawn bipartisan support.

(Click "Read more" to continue reading.)