Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
INHOFE NOT OK.
Reading about yet another terrible stand taken by Senator James "global warming is the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state" Inhofe (leading the fight against the law of the sea), I wondered if there was much chance of getting rid of the man who might be the single worst member of the United States Senate. I knew he was up for reelection in 2008, but I haven't seen his name on any of the lists of possible democratic pickups so I figured he must be popular enough in Oklahoma to be unassailable.
Turns out, that's not true. His approve/disapprove is at 47/42, not a great place for an incumbent to be, and as recently as last year it was at 40/49. He also has drawn a challenger who has gotten pretty good press -- Andrew Rice, a first term state senator who lost a brother on 9/11 and who seems to have a good handle on how to run as a Democrat in a conservative state.
Judging by his website, the strategy is to portray Inhofe as a radical, divisive partisan, which isn't too hard because that is in fact what he is. Furthermore, I'd guess that portraying Inhofe as embarrassing Oklahoma will be a powerful tactic. This is tricky, but Inhofe is so out there and crazy that he could be portrayed as making the state look out of touch and backwards
Anyway, I'm still curious why this race hasn't gotten more attention, but hopefully as we move into next year it will become more visible. After all, at this time in 2005, essentially no one was talking about Jon Tester in Montana.
More coverage at Blue Oklahoma.
--Sam Boyd
COMMENTS (7)
I believe you'll find there's no "h" in Jon Tester's name.
Posted by: the Navigator | October 26, 2007 9:46 AM
My question, given the apparent improvement in his approval/disapproval over the past year, is whether that's in fact a RESULT of his global-warming/immigration/church-state rhetoric (i.e., is his general craziness actually helping to pull him away from the electoral abyss?)
Posted by: tony | October 26, 2007 11:03 AM
According to the latest general election matchups at SUSA, John Edwards is ahead of the top 3 GOP candidates in Oklahoma!
With Edwards at the top of the ticket, Rice might actually have a decent shot at taking down Inhofe.
Posted by: Petey | October 26, 2007 11:06 AM
And FWIW, the most compelling argument for Edwards and electability isn't about the Presidential race - it's about Congress.
Edwards runs significantly stronger than Clinton in red states and red congressional districts. And since Dems are close to maxing out their growth in blue states and blue CD's, if we're going to get up to 60 Senate seats, we could use help at the top of the ticket.
Inhofe in Oklahoma and Stevens in Alaska are both examples of seats that we could win in '08 with Edwards at the top of the ticket, but would likely be out of reach with Clinton at the top of the ticket.
Posted by: Petey | October 26, 2007 11:12 AM
Oklahoma's congressional delegation is the stupidest - no question. Opponent needs to make montages of Inhofe's stupidest moments and beat the living shit out of him with them.
Posted by: blogenfreude | October 26, 2007 8:53 PM
I think it's unlikely at this point in time that Inhofe will lose here. Regardless of whom is at the top of the Dem ticket. Of course that could change but we're a fairly conservative state.
Posted by: rgaye | October 26, 2007 10:08 PM
I was policy director on Brad Carson's campaign against Tom Coburn. We lead in all the early polls. It is impossible, in my opinion, to win in Oklahoma by claiming ANYONE will be "embarrassing" or will make "the state look out of touch and backwards." Fact is, a large majority of OK voters agree with a majority of Inhofe's views.
Posted by: Blaine | October 30, 2007 10:41 PM