The Inhofe Logic Problem

Chris Casteel, chief propagandist for U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, published an article in The Daily Oklahoman on Sunday that obviously tries to rehabilitate the senator’s image.

Inhofe, despised throughout the world for his ignorant and outrageous comments about scientific and lifestyle issues, suddenly feels concern for the country’s dilapidated infrastructure, according to the disingenuous article. The article claims Inhofe believes Imperial President George Bush, who plans to veto a bill Inhofe supports, is "dishonest."

According to the article, Inhofe said, "The president knows (a veto) is going to be overridden. But now he can do something for his disappearing conservative base. I think it's dishonest.”

The “dishonest“ and “disappearing conservative base” comments coming from such a right-wing toady is interesting for what it means for the upcoming 2008 elections. But there are larger, more important issues here.

Casteel fails to point out that a vast majority of the civilized world believes Bush has also been dishonest about several other issues, most notably the Iraq occupation, which some predict will cost at least $2 trillion. But Casteel, a useful tool for the neoconservative cause, has never been one to hold his sources accountable to logic or consistency. His coverage of Inhofe is about furthering what one Oklahoman editorial writer once called the conservative bastion in Oklahoma.

Obviously, if the president is dishonest about this issue—Inhofe says the bill he supports does not actually appropriate money—then he might well be dishonest about other issues, right? But Casteel would never ask Inhofe about this inconsistency. Inhofe has supported the bloody Iraq occupation since the invasion and so has The Daily Oklahoman. Here is the real logic: Most people in the world think Bush lied about the Iraq occupation; most people in the world do not think Bush lied about the bill Inhofe supports or they simply do not care at this point. Inhofe also has his own major credibility problems.

But an even larger fallacy here is that Inhofe is actually concerned with the nation’s public infrastructure. As the nation’s bridges and highways crumbled in Oklahoma and the nation over the last decade or so, Inhofe stood back and did nothing. All these corporate, conservative politicians like Inhofe are directly responsible for the decline of America’s infrastructure. They support spending money on endless war as our bridges begin to collapse. They cut taxes to the rich as they deny health care for children. Inhofe is an immoral politician who has placed his own political expediency above the American people. He acts only in the interests of corporations, which fund his campaigns.

And Casteel’s article is completely about political expediency. Inhofe now wants to distance himself from Bush, whose declining approval ratings do not bode well for the senator’s reelection campaign in 2008. Watch for more Casteel articles—Executive Editor Ed Kelley has tried to do the same thing recently with U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn—that try to argue Inhofe is actually concerned about regular Oklahomans after all.

But you are incredibly naïve if you believe Inhofe cares if Oklahomans have decent health care, decent roads and decent schools. His brand of right-wing extremism has turned a once prospering world power into a country that cannot rebuild its cities, such as New Orleans, take care of its bridges or provide adequate health care for its citizens. There is not another current politician in Washington that represents this failed ideology more than Inhofe. On one level, the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis symbolizes the collapse of Inhofe’s warped philosophy. How many more people are going to have to die before this country wakes up and sends politicians like Inhofe into retirement?

Casteel’s article also never mentions that Inhofe has drawn an opponent in the upcoming 2008 race. State Sen. Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma City), a Democrat, recently announced he is running against Inhofe. Rice will do more than pull political stunts when it comes to public infrastructure. The state needs to elect more progressive officials like Rice before the next bridge collapses. It could happen here.