It no doubt perked the ears of those who were listening attentively to the leaked OkACTE audio, which you can find online at OklahomaStateCapital.com, as Gentner Drummond briefly referenced one of the most important issues facing the state: the now-out-of-control homelessness blight in too many of Oklahoma’s cities.
As social-justice-minded city officials continue to turn a blind eye to what they would call the “plight” of the “unhoused” population, a natural and ongoing tension has built up between Kevin Stitt’s executive branch, which has sought to act, and the city officials who are reluctant to act, or worse: passively allowing the state’s urban cores to devolve into a Mad Max, post-apocalyptic wasteland.
In the leaked audio, Drummond provided a chilling hint as to the identity of the individual who is likely to be in the room—and perhaps even making the decisions—when his executive branch sets policy on this issue.
That person?
Wendy Drummond.
Gentner said that Wendy would make homelessness part of her platform as the state’s “first lady.”
If that sends a chill or two up the spine of those who know exactly what the state is facing in this regard, it’s because Wendy Drummond has very prominently spoken about her support for Joe Biden during the 2020 campaign.
While Biden drove home the George Floyd-era social-justice mindset and planted the seeds of COVID tyranny, Wendy Drummond was sending him money in Gentner’s name—or at least that’s how the Drummonds described what happened.
That explanation, whether meritorious or not, should not put the matter to rest. Wendy Drummond’s admission may allow Gentner Drummond to dismiss further discussion of the contribution as an unfair attempt to drag his wife into the political debate. But that is precisely why the leaked OkACTE audio and its revelations matter. If Wendy Drummond is going to play a role in shaping public policy, then voters have a legitimate interest in understanding her political views and affiliations. At that point, the central question is not which of the Drummonds wrote the check, but what the donation reveals about the political perspective of someone who may wield significant influence in the next administration.
When Drummond spoke of Wendy Drummond’s role in the next administration, he did so before a group of state employees whom he likely presumed to be allies on all things related to big government. He may have assumed that they would appreciate the fact that she had made that donation to Biden, notwithstanding that it was made at a time when Biden had fully embraced the George Floyd-era social-justice movement and COVID-era authoritarian policies.
But once outside that room, the median Republican voter will likely recoil at the prospect of a Biden supporter shaping policy in an area that demands a clear understanding of human nature and incentive structures—not the kind of liberal thinking that has repeatedly failed when tested against reality.
If the executive branch goes all in on California-style homelessness policies, the damage will be long-lasting and consequential.
Keep in mind, this is the same state government that has already experimented with the “needles for junkies” program—a program currently on life support, but almost certain to make a comeback next session as state Rep. Daniel Pae, the liberal brain trust behind the proposals, has already declared that he will bring it back and will no doubt seek to leverage his endorsement of Drummond to maximum effect.
And Drummond’s judgment in suggesting that Wendy, of all people, is the one who will take the lead on the homelessness issue should rightly concern Republican voters.
And that’s why the second-most important position on the ballot on August 25 is the role of first lady.
It does matter who the governor’s spouse is—who serves as Oklahoma’s first lady—and it is nearly as important that she share our values as it is that the governor does. She will inevitably be one of the most influential people in the governor’s life, and she will most certainly shape his priorities, decisions, and actions.
And make no mistake, this was an overlooked factor in the 2024 presidential race. It wasn’t simply the difference between Trump and Harris that mattered, but also that Americans couldn’t stand the prospect of four years of a fawning corporate press promoting Doug Emhoff. The Melania Trump-versus-Doug Emhoff comparison was to the Democrats’ great detriment.
And, as a humorous aside, as popular as Mary Matalin has been with conservatives over the years, one would be hard-pressed to suggest that conservatives should elect her president for the shock-and-terror prospect of James Carville as the nation’s first lady.
And it’s not just about who the first lady is, either.
It’s about the people who surround Drummond and will be empowered.
Anyone who has been on social media in recent days will have observed first-hand the sheer emotional desperation of the establishment personalities working so hard to get Drummond across the finish line.
I would suggest that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Those forces—especially those in the Legislature, which Drummond, in the OkACTE tapes, described as being willing to “direct opposition to the president of the United States” himself—are on the precipice of overrunning the executive branch. Their frenzy was illustrated by a post from House Speaker Pro Tempore Anthony Moore attacking the conservative-minded Freedom Caucus in response to its support for Mike Mazzei and celebrating the electoral losses of Freedom Caucus-aligned conservatives throughout the nation.
Moore, a likely front-runner in the soon-upcoming battle to succeed House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, has, through his unwise public posting, so neatly summarized the arrogance and hubris of Team Drummond and the forces of the wider monied establishment as they prepare to control all levels of state government.
And thus, this article’s reminder to voters: It’s not just whose name is on the ballot on Tuesday; it’s about the army of those who will be empowered once that person takes the oath of office.
Drummond’s wording, from that same recording, when describing his many legislative endorsers is notable. As he puts it, they are with him “in direct opposition to the president of the United States” himself. There’s an intensity to that statement that will lead the observant to the following prognostication: If Drummond loses on Tuesday, look for a barely contained case of TDS to emerge, with an animosity that matches Drummond’s current case of SDS (Stitt Derangement Syndrome)—a case that even most liberals seem to have shaken off, as Stitt has no doubt delighted them with his own turn leftward over the last term. But not Drummond. He’s still got it, and badly. It will be difficult to find an instance in which Drummond exercises personal restraint and refrains from unnecessarily bashing Stitt.
Once freed of the constraints of the electorate, a lame-duck Drummond’s last few months in his self-described stepping-stone job—a stepping stone that, as it turns out, leads nowhere—will leave little to keep him or his TDS in check.
Let’s just hope that on Tuesday, the voters of the state provide the chance to test this prognostication.