As often is the case, Oklahoma has more than one conservative candidate. Such is the case with this year’s June 27th primary and the two leading Republic candidates Mary Fallin, currently a U.S. Congresswoman and previously an Oklahoma Lt. Governor, and Randy Brogdon, currently a state senator.
Seldom do we see Sarah Palin endorsing the GOP establishment pick, but in this case Palin has endorsed Fallin as one of her Mama Grizzlies. Brogdon is cast as the conservative outsider. Both Fallin and Brogdon are very conservative, and both have been tireless workers for Oklahoma. If all things were equal, there is this…
The leading Democrat opponent is State Attorney General Drew Edmondson. I’m an Oklahoma native and I don’t want to see another Edmondson leading this state. There was Ed and J. Howard, now Ed’s sons Drew and Jim Edmondson, an Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice. Fallin has a impressive lead over Drew Edmondson in the polls, and is the obvious best choice to keep Edmondson out of office.
On July 7th, Oklahoma pollster Scott Rassmussen has Fallin ahead of Edmondson 48% to 39%. Edmondson leads every Republican on the ballot by double digits, including Randy Brogdon, with the exception of Mary Fallin.
Mr. Brogdon polls behind Drew Edmondson 48% to 36% [12 pts]. The July 7th poll has a margin of error of +/-4.5%. The Tulsa World poll above shows Brogdon as Fallin’s closest competitor and he trails her by 38 points.
While visiting OkiePundit today, a great site for Oklahoma and election news (I borrowed the Tulsa World graphic above from them) I found a link to this tidbit: The Competitive Enterprise Institute has named Drew Edmondson the the Nation’s third worst State Attorneys General behind California’s Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown and Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, who recently “misspoke” about his military service. No, I do not want Edmondson in the Governor’s Mansion.
The campaign has been an unpleasant one between Fallin and Brogdon – or maybe Brogdon against Fallin is the unpleasant part. The two main charges against Fallin is that she took money from bailout recipients and she voted for TARP.
I’m not holding anyone too responsible for the $700 million 2008 TARP, except Democrats. Yes, yes, I know, it was on Bush’s watch, but it was the Democrat Congress who fell asleep at the wheel, kept the CRA program rolling all the while knowing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were explosive – and the Bush administration made 17 attempts to get the Democrat Congress to crack-down on the risky lending – all to no avail. Then there was no Congressional oversight of the SEC, as mandated – so RINO/Democrat Henry Paulsen was left to draw up the plan and present it to a shocked nation. Many voted for TARP who wish they had not done so today. We were in new territory and the knee jerk reaction was our economy would collapse. Today we know better, Then we didn’t.
Brogdon said Fallin took donations from bailout recipients, but according to NewsOn6.com she received $5,000 from the CEO of an Oklahoma bank that did receive bailout funds. A spokesperson said the CEO was a long-time supporter of Fallin.
Brogdon also hit on her “earmarks,” which Newson6 confirmed was not a traditional earmark, but was $8.5 million in stimulus money for Oklahoma National Guard projects in Oklahoma City and Braggs, although Fallin voted against the Stimulus.
This reminds me of a comment made by Oklahoma U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe. I have to paraphrase, but I think I’ll get the spirit of it right: if the government is handing out money, take it for your State, because if you do not, the Democrats will get it. In other words, when you turn down funds of this type, don’t be so naive as to think it goes back to an account and collects interest for the good of the country. According to Inhofe, it becomes a slush fund for the President.
I’m voting for Fallin in the primary. I believe she will do Oklahoma proud.
Tags: elections, Oklahoma Governor, primaries, republicans
I have been watching the polling numbers on most of the Governor races and its astounding.
This nation could very likely end up with 38-41 GOP Governors come November.
Given the state of the economy. The fact that 55 percent now say Obama is a SOCIALIST and the failure by Pelosi to drain the “SWAMP”
I remain skeptical of the GOP taking over the House and am confident they will not take over the Senate but 2010 will be a mandate on the Progressive Agenda.
The problem is that Progressives DO NOT CARE about mandates…..their policies are so unpopular they have resorted to Legislation and Regulation and lawsuits to force their agenda on America. They gave up debating their agenda decades ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The quote at the end is tempting, I have held that myself in the past, and I even still do agree with it on the individual level, for example I will receive payments in cash whenever I can to avoid paying taxes. But that’s different than the state government trying to get money back from the federal government. In the first case I have an ethical and moral right to that money because it is mine, but OKC doesn’t have any right to my money for a historical site or museum any more than Washington D.C. does.
When a person goes after D.C. money all they do is implicate themselves, and get blood on their own hands so to speak.
As far as the bailouts, Its not the “risky” lending that is the problem, of course it is to some degree, the same as coughing is a problem with pneumonia, but its deeper and more pervasive, and far more threatening.
You see its okay for investors to take risks, which is what lending is, a banker will “invest” in your lawn mowing venture and give you a loan to buy a lawn mower.
The problems begin to arise when that money being lent does not belong to the one issuing the loan. Enter Fractional Reserve Banking and the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve pumps more and more money into the banks for them to lend out, this drives down the interest rates, and makes bankers hand out loans that they otherwise wouldn’t at an interest rate far lower than they otherwise would. This in turn gives incentive to borrowers to take out riskier loans that they otherwise would not have.
All of this is aided and worsened by the fact that banks are only required to keep 10% of their account holder’s money on hand. The rest they can lend out as they please.
but this is wrong from the outset.
It would be one thing if it were all CD’s where I lend the bank a certain amount for 6 months and the bank in turn lends it out to a small business.
Instead what also happens is that you have your money in a checking account, from which you use a debit card, or write checks on. So you still retain ownership of that money, you haven’t lent it to the bank, they are just holding onto it, and you are actually still using it.
But then the bank lends out 90% of what you have in your checking account. so now that money is spent not once, but 1.9 times. adding further to the increase in the money supply and subsequently the rise in prices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] column here, an interesting take on the OK governer’s race at the Lonely Conservative here, the Senate race in Del at The Other McCain here and if you like Doctor. Who check out my reviews [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems the entire premis of this article is off-base. Poll numbers from today don’t reflect what the races will look like in November. If that were the case, Brogdon wouldn’t be getting any more than 5% of the vote today, as per polls from several months ago.
I voted for Brogdon, because I always vote for the better candidate, chances of winning aside. If we all vote for principle, as John Quincy Adams suggested, we would be in much better shape as a country.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” – John Quincy Adams
It has served me well. I have never felt as if my vote was lost. If I voted for Fallin because she supposedly has a better chance of beating Edmondson I would feel the opposite way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ethan, The premise of the article is certainly not off-base. I have said that both of these candidates are extremely conservative. I believe both would do a good job for Oklahoma.
Something I did not say in the article was that, all things being equal, I did not like the way the Brogdon campaign presented their arguments against Fallin. I don’t think I need to go into that right now.
I, like John Q. Adams, would alway vote on principle. Both candidates were worthy. I pick Mary Fallin, and I believe she can assure that an Edmondson is not back running the State – along with being a very good and principled conservative Governor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
US Senator is wrong regarding earmark spending. I understand the thinking behind the idea that if we don’t take it the democrats will, but Brogdon was not campaigning against the earmarks simply because Fallin excepted stimulus earmark spending. He campaign against it because everytime gov’t offers money from earmarks there are major strings attacted.
For example, because we accepted earmark stimulus money (thanks to Fallin) for education to fill budget holes, the federal gov’t has control of OK’s spending levels for education until 2012. It is blantenly unconstitutional for DC to gain control over our state budget.
Another example is the bailout. It wasn’t only the $700 billion Brogdon was against in that bill. It was giving Congress and the President the ability to control financial institutions and control over private industry! Again, UNCONTITUTIONAL!!! So YES, you should blame Bush and the Republicans! They were in the majority and pushed that unconstitutional bill forward.
That is what Brogdon was fighting against, but REPUBLICAN politicians continue to ignore these limits enforced by the Constitution. Big Government Republicans are a danger to the REAL conservative movement.
Brogdon is the real deal. Fallin is the imposter!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0