INHOFE'S PARANOID DELUSIONS DIE IN COMMITTEE-- HOPEFULLY HIS LUDICROUS SENATE CAREER WILL FOLLOW
>
A few days ago I mentioned that the Senate's craziest kook, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, along with the Black Helicopter crowd, was trying to derail the Law of the Sea Treaty. Instead, Senator Loony Tunes got derailed. He only managed to dig up 4 other paranoid nutjobs-- Jim DeMint (R-SC), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and David Diapers Vitter (R-LA)-- to support his "the UN is the bogeyman" position. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with backing from Bush and the U.S. Navy, scratched its collective head and overwhelmingly told Inhofe to go crawl back into his hole. It passed 17-4.
According to yesterday's CongressDaily the treaty "has been signed or ratified by 155 nations, including the nation's closest allies and trading partners." Inhofe, who seems to have found a new passion besides denying human activity influencing global climate change, doesn't care who signed it, who ratified it, or who supports it. He's vowed to stop it.
The pact was voted out of committee 19-0 in 2004, when now Foreign Relations ranking member Richard Lugar, R-Ind., was chairman. It has been supported enthusiastically by the Navy and Coast Guard leaders, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all previous secretaries of State and Defense, who argue that it would protect the nation's freedom of movement on the seas. It also has been supported by all elements of the maritime industries, and oil and gas producers because it would assure U.S. rights to the 200-mile "exclusive economic zone" off the coastline. And, because it extends those rights to the edge of the continental shelf, it would establish U.S. claim to waters up to 600 miles off Alaska's Arctic coast, an area of potentially huge petroleum deposits. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, declared her support for the treaty because of the benefits to her state.
Critics, led by former Reagan defense official Frank Gaffney, insist that the treaty would put the U.S. military and maritime industries at the mercy of dispute resolution panels dominated by anti-American countries. Lugar and Biden rejected those claims. Vitter tried to delay the vote, asking Biden to hold another hearing to give more opponents an opportunity to testify. But Biden said he had no intention of scheduling another hearing, noting that the treaty has been debated extensively, including in the two hearings he held this year. Vitter withdrew his motion when Coleman and Isakson said that despite their concerns over some provisions, they believed the Senate should debate the treaty. Whether a vote on ratification will take place is questionable, given the ability of a few opponents to block action under the Senate's rules. In addition to the four Republican foes on the committee, the treaty has been opposed vigorously by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. The Senate never voted on ratification in 2004 in spite of the committee's unanimous support, because then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., did not want to offend the opponents.
Meanwhile Oklahomans are starting to get embarrassed about their senator's wild and unproductive antics. Across all issues his voting record is one of the half dozen most extremist and bizarre in the entire Senate. And now, with a credible and energetic opponent in populist Democrat Andrew Rice, his staffers are already starting to panic-- and when they panic they make mistakes. Markos caught a good one at Daily Kos yesterday and what makes it so funny-- aside from Markos' acerbic wit-- is that the same guy who put up an "anonymous" smear site against Rice and his "scandalous connections to bloggers" just happens to be the host of Inhofe's own campaign site. What a coincidence! At the very least this clumsy and laughable attempt shows Inhofe's people are getting scared.
Rice raised over $300,000 in two months last quarter. Every time I try to contact him he has to get back to me because he's invariably in some rural part of the state with no cell phone service talking with voters. The energy this guy is showing this far out is dizzying.
The Oklahoma Republican Party attack site they launched yesterday is supposed to prove that Rice is in cahoots with a "web of left-wing political connections" and it is positively ludicrous, even childish. They chastise him for posting on DailyKos; they even take a trip to the 1950s and try to call him a Commie (literally).
Interestingly enough, this site, though paid for by the Oklahoma Republican Party, is registered to a Duluth, MN company called Set Sail Media. This company's portfolio also boasts a site called warmingtothetruth.com-- which is paid for by Friends of Jim Inhofe. Sounds like they're getting nervous, no?
A few weeks ago we had Andrew as a guest over at Firedoglake. I can't emphasize how impressive he was and I urge you to check out the archived discussion at that link. If you like what you see... well, there isn't a special interest not in bed with Inhofe in the whole country. Andrew is going to need help from people who care about good government. Give him a hand.
Labels: Andrew Rice, Inhofe, Oklahoma
2 Comments:
Inhofe reminds me of the Senator played by Melvin Douglas in the movie the Seduction of Joe Tynan...He plays a Louisiana Senator that you think is Ok until he start babbling in Cajun...
He really is nuts...Inhofe not Melvin Douglas
Ok, I've been an RSS reader of your blog for months now. I have never posted a comment. First off, let me start by saying I love your blog. But ... this one kind of caught me off guard. I read the Sea Treaty back in .. I think it was 2005, for shits and giggles. My conclusion, it was a massive power grab by the UN that infringed on US Sovernty.
The Law of the Sea treaty does not simply set rules for commercial activity beneath the high seas. It establishes a new international tribunal and new international bureaucracies to interpret and apply a wide range of rules for activities on the seas—and to proceed with such rules even against U.S. objections. It threatens to introduce international legal complications into national security missions of the U.S. Navy. It threatens to complicate not only deep-sea mining—if it ever becomes a realistic commercial prospect—but also fishing and other commercial activities at sea and perhaps even on adjacent lands. Above all, it sets a very bad precedent.
In the past, the United States has jealously guarded its national sovereignty. It has never agreed to treaties under which new standards can be imposed, without express U.S. consent, by the decision of international
bureaucrats or by coalitions of hostile—and potentially hostile—nations. What the United States does do in
many areas it should do in regards to this treaty—assert its rights under customary international law. The
Law of the Sea treaty is not necessary to secure claims which the U.S. already makes on this basis (regarding
economic rights in U.S. coastal waters and rights of passage elsewhere). It is a dangerous concession to international fashion to accept the idea that U.S. rights are dependent on the approval of shifting majorities of other nations.
Post a Comment
<< Home