Andrew Rice for U.S. Senate

I am now going to do something that I rarely feel qualified to. Almost ever. I'm going to tell you, my Oklahoma-based readers, who to vote for in the upcoming U.S. Senate race.

You should vote for Andrew Rice for United States Senate.

I'll provide a link to Mr. Rice's campaign website where he explains his reasons for entering the race against the incumbent, Jim Inhofe. Just to tease you, they involve his brother being killed at the World Trade Center on September 11th and his staunch opposition to war, rather than a vengeful hawking of a foreign policy. Plus, he holds a Th.M. from Harvard. Balla!

Andrew Rice needs to replace Jim Inhofe in Congress. Quote Inhofe from this interview:

The most current issue is what’s happening in the Middle East. My Web site, inhofe.senate.gov, includes a speech I made on the Senate floor on December 4, 2001. It addresses from a biblical perspective seven reasons why Israel is entitled to its land. I don’t believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn’t been dealt with in the Scriptures. So when you are talking about issues like abortion, you can go to the Scriptures. Homosexuality? Go to the Scriptures. The need for a strong defense? Go to the Scriptures.

Holy hell, people.

Look, I'm not saying that there is or isn't a biblical basis for a policy of robust national defense. I don't care, for the purposes of this argument anyways. What I do care about is the flagrant and irresponsible sectarian rhetoric consistently employed by Inhofe; this attitude that 'any policy I put forth is God's policy and necessarily right, and any opposition is necessarily wrong,' including from those who value Inhofe's Bible but question his use and/or interpretation of the text. Never mind the fact that we're talking about the same guy who was more appalled at the national repulsion to the Abu Gharib scandal than with the actual scandal itself, and voted against McCain's bill banning torture tactics against those held in U.S. custody.

I won't argue that Rice's personal and political values are or are not more in tune with Kingdom values or biblical principles or whatever. But Rice does not rely on the abusive mishandling of sacred texts to support political positions or create distinctions between uniquely 'Christian' and 'not-Christian' policy perspectives. His perspectives on international affairs, from the best I can tell, come not from some self-preserving ideology or partisan line-towing, but from a genuine desire for global peace and equity. True, he does not boast the tenure or experience of the senior Oklahoma senator, and his positions on many important domestic issues remain unannounced, but I am under the opinion that fresh faces in D.C., with progressive minds and more balanced opinions behind them, ought to be a welcome troupe to the Capital building.