TULSA, Okla. -- Sen. Jim Inhofe knew Gov. Rick Perry was running for president before Rick Perry did.
"I said to him, 'Rick, I know you'll deny it now, and you're supposed to, but you're going to end up running," Inhofe recalls from a conversation with 14 months ago. "And when you are, just call me up and give me a little advance notice and I will do whatever you think I can do to be of some help to you.'"
Inhofe, who yesterday became the first United States senator to formally endorse a candidate the 2012 GOP primary, told NBC News during an interview in his Tulsa office that Perry's gubernatorial experience, personal profile, and good looks made him a shoo-in to run even when the Texas governor seemed certain to turn down supporters begging him to jump in.
Naming his criteria for a Republican nominee -- electability and consistent conservative values -- Inhofe said the choice among the contenders was easy. "He was the one," Inhofe said.
The Oklahoma Republican, who is one of the leading skeptics of human beings contributing to climate change, is also supporting Perry because of the governor's pledge to dismantle EPA regulations that both believe stifle job creation.
"He was willing to take on the sacred cows," Inhofe said, "and that is the overregulation" by the Environmental Protection Agency. "He wasn't afraid of it. Everyone else was afraid of it."
He added that the nation is turning away from the belief that climate change is man-made and must be regulated. "I think there's been a wakeup call to the American people," he said. "I think they realize that a lot of the science has been drummed up by people who have a financial dog in the fight."
That's a belief both men share. Inhofe said in the interview that "the vast majority" of scientists dependent on government grants "go along with the whole idea" of global warming to keep money flowing to their research projects. Perry, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire earlier this month, claimed there are "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects."
Perry's skepticism about global warming would lead him to gut federal regulations geared towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which Inhofe says should be a pleasing proposition to deficit hawks.
"He'll attack [the debt] from the regulatory end as much as he will from the spending end," Inhofe said. "I haven't heard anybody else talking about that because they're afraid of the issue."
Perry would also support oil and natural-gas production in areas of the United States that are currently closed to drillers, Inhofe said.
"The fact that 83 percent of our public land is off limits is ludicrous," Inhofe said. "We can't sit around and talk about how we want to do something about our dependency on the Middle East and not go ahead and get our own stuff. That's what he wants to do."
Inhofe, who endorsed early-conservative-darling-turned-flameout Fred Thompson during the last presidential cycle, sees one key difference between Thompson and Perry.
"Fred's lazy," Inhofe said. "And this guy's not lazy; he works all the time."


Does anyone really care what Oklahoma Republicans think? Afterall the are very close to Texass. Maybe they too can go with Texass when they secede from the Union. Perry is a jerk, he has more skeletons in his closet than the average cemetery has graves. For the Republicans in any state to latch on to Rick Perry amounts to the first step to self destruction--"LET IT HAPPEN" . With the failure of the Republicans ,maybe we can get this country back on a course to recovery.
both of them do not have a clue
inofe apprciciates the reach around.
Having attended UT-Austin I now understand why Texas does not fall into the Gulf Of Mexico. Oklahoma sucks.
2001 vs. 2012
For those replicans who do not understand that once bushie2/chiny started two wars unfunded (still unfunded) tax breaks for the wealthy up to 2010 belongs tto bushie2/chiny/and the pharmaceutical give-away to drug companies(still unfunded) . All still belong to bushie2/chiny. We still are paying thru deficit spending.
One can not explain anything to a t-bagger, so I refuse to try.
The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article states that "President Obama’s agenda ... is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits", but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..."[77] Presidents do not, acting alone, have constitutional authority to levy taxes or spend money; all such proposals must originate in Congress, but the President has a veto over new laws, and his priorities influence Congressional action.