So, after convincing Oklahomans that divinity school graduate and dedicated public servant Andrew Rice was "everything Oklahoma is not," what is Sen. Jim Inhofe doing to prepare for his new term as our Senator? If Jim Inhofe is "Oklahoma," what does he think Oklahoma is?

Inhofe thinks Oklahoma ignores priorities to take revenge on those who displeased him:

“One of the things I’m interested in doing when I get back in January is, I want to change the laws so they can’t have 527s unless we know who the money is coming from,” Inhofe said.

Gosh, you'd almost think he'd want something like HR 4762, a bill "that requires political organizations known as 527 organizations to disclose their political activities":

Highlights:

-Requires 527 groups that raise over $25,000 per year to disclose donors and to report contributions of at least $200 and spending of at least $500 to the Federal Election Commission (FEC)

-Requires new 527 groups to report their establishment within 24 hours to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

-Penalizes 527 groups that do not make contributions and expenditures available to the public once the bill goes into effect

-Allows existing 527 groups 30 days after the law's enactment to disclose information

That was in June 2000. Surely Inhofe was all over that.

Senator Inhofe voted NO.

Inhofe was perfectly happy to be associated with people like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the most famous 527 organization of all time—right up until the point that out-of-state money started going against him instead of favoring him. What a change of heart!

Perhaps it's unfair to go that far back. Surely after 2006, Inhofe had already seen the evil of letting Senators benefit from anonymous lobbying contributions in exchange for earmarks, as was passed in the current Congress's S 1, Lobbying and Donation Regulations.

Senator Inhofe voted NO

Oh well. What else? Inhofe thinks Oklahoma is lying about important public policy to protect Republican electoral hopes:

Remember when Congressman Brad Sherman of California gave a speech on the House Floor claiming that "a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no" on the $700 billion bailout bill as first proposed? The revelation was shocking, and the video of the speech quickly shot around the web.

Now Jim Inhofe, a Senator from Oklahoma (and one of that body's most conservative members) in an interview on Tulsa 1170 KFAQ points to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen as the source of the threats about an economic collapse, civil unrest, and the imposition of martial law if the bailout bill was not passed quickly.

There's audio. Inhofe does not say, in his own voice, "Paulson said there would be martial law if we didn't pass this," but he confirms the host's description, which matches that of Rep. Brad Sherman.

Now, Inhofe voted against the bailout anyway—probably because he knew he had to do so to win re-election (his post-election rants about "ending the blank check" are likely just about making sure the Obama administration doesn't get access to the money, and that it all goes to Inhofe's banking contributors first), so what reason did he have to hide this threat of blackmail? To avoid embarrassing Paulson and damaging the GOP's election chances? Once the election was over, Inhofe had no trouble saying who had been behind the empty threat of "martial law," did he?

So, so far, if Jim Inhofe is Oklahoma, then Oklahoma is about lying on important issues to put your party over your country, and putting personal revenge over your country and the Constitution.

And it's only been three weeks since Oklahoma voted to send him back to the Senate for six more years.