Crazy and Stupid

Crazy and stupid. Welcome. To The Texas Take, because of you, the number one politics podcast in the great state for going on a decade now. And by the way, today marks Jeremy Wallace's eighth anniversary back at the Houston Chronicle. How about that?

Yeah, look at that. Time flies when you're pounding the pavement at the Texas legislature, right? That's true. I'm Scott Braddock. He's Jeremy. And his work, of course, is at HoustonChronicle.com. And you can find the inside story on Texas politics at QuorumReports.com.

I had a few people this week, Jeremy, trying to tell me, and you can imagine my reaction to this, how we should approach the show this week. People trying to tell me what we should talk about and how we should talk about it. I actually printed out. some of their suggestions here. And as we were about to start the show, Evan, I was scribbling down some notes about things that people had said.

People had all kinds of ideas. How we should talk about the THC deal. Is Abbott going to veto that? We'll get to that. Believe me. The big fight on bail reform has come to a conclusion, it seems. And people want to know about that. There were a whole lot of suggestions. So I'm writing them down, scribbling them down. But here's what I'm going to do with those suggestions. Right in the trash. Tell me how to do this show.

That's not about to work. I told Jeremy earlier today that for the first time in a long time, I was having a really difficult morning in trying to get motivated to do a show. Did you know that... After doing some form of broadcasting for about the last 30 years, Jeremy, there are still days where I can't go to sleep at night because I'm excited about doing a show the next day.

That still happens. And I think you can, in working with me, you can tell that, that I love doing this. And it's not about me. It's not really about Jeremy, although I love working with him. It's not about Evan, although I love working with him. It's about the audience. It's the connection to the audience. It's the consistent connection to the audience. When I see people out and about in Austin or anywhere in Texas, in Houston, DFW, in many of our small towns like Brenham or San Angelo.

down onto the valley, wherever it is. I love that people want to talk about the show. And they don't just say, I like the show. They want to talk about what we talked about, which means they really listened. And a lot of times they don't, a lot of times they don't even agree with what we said. That doesn't matter.

I want the discussion. I love it. So when I say we don't really take requests about what we're going to talk about here, you know I'm just kind of messing with y'all, right? I can see the smile on your face. You know what I'm doing with that. You know who hates that?

You know, and you know who used to love it is the little governor, Dan Patrick. He used to love, and I thought about this this week. He and I, of course, as I have mentioned, we were radio competitors in Houston years ago. This is 20 years ago. Dan Patrick, as a talk show host, was such a talented listener. He was a very good talker, but also a very good listener. But that is over with. And I want to give him some props before we start in on this, because Jeremy, he called you stupid.

That's the title of the show this week. He called you stupid and crazy. He's definitely not the first one. Well, when he said all that, I thought, well, look, calling Jeremy crazy, that's my job. But I would never call you stupid. So I was sitting here thinking about... his mindset and what it must be. This is a man who, and I'm bringing this up not to tear the guy down. In some ways, it's to build him up a little bit. And I would like him to know that he doesn't need to act like that.

Because he's winning on so many fronts. Did you know, Jeremy, that he put out a list earlier this year? I know you saw it. He put out a list of 40 things he wants the legislature to do this year, his top priorities. And I've got a running spreadsheet here about it. with the list. And as of today, here on May 31st, with just a few days left in the legislative session, and really this is the last day they can basically do anything here on Saturday.

37 of the 40 things are set to be law right now. There's no lieutenant governor in the history of Texas who probably had that. record of victories. So why is he melting down? Look, this is a guy who, and he and I have similar backstories. I grew up on a farm, hardscrabble. He grew up in Baltimore, a different kind of hardscrabble, right? We both came up through the ranks of broadcasting, doing radio. We both love radio. He did more TV than I did.

You know, I have the face for this. He has a face for kind of a face for both. I'm saying kind of a face for both. But we both love broadcasting. But I think one thing that I reminded him about this past week is that, and this is true for me too. There are people in my career now, you know, folks who I deal with all the time, who don't know that I ever did radio for a living.

You know, we do the podcast now and, you know, here in 2025, it's basically the same thing. There was a time when those were kind of different, but now there are radio shows that are podcasts and vice versa, right? It's all kind of the same thing now. But there are people who I deal with now who didn't really know.

who wouldn't know that I ever worked at radio stations. That's why I've recently, and some folks have noticed this recently, I've started to talk about it more because it's fundamental to who I am as a, as a figure. in Texas politics. Same thing for Patrick. He came up through the ranks of radio and he loved listening to people and having great debates with people.

He loved it. Dan Patrick on his radio show back in the day, kind of unheard of, and he was sort of Howard Stern-like in this way. Because Patrick owned the radio station, if he just didn't want to take commercial breaks, he wouldn't. He would talk for an hour on the radio. If he got really worked up about something, debating something with somebody. I was listening to an old air check of his, an old piece of audio that's about an hour of him debating Ted Cruz about the U.S. Senate race.

when Dewhurst and Cruz were facing off. It's incredible. I'll send it to you. We'll play some of it here on the show at some point. Not today. It's a fun flashback. I'll think of some reason to flashback to that. But it is over with. This is a guy who, as I said, hardscrabble. He spent some time in a mental institution in Houston in the 1980s.

He, and I'm not saying that to run the guy down, he spent some of his time running businesses that went bankrupt, at least three bankruptcies. And I'm saying it to say this, he has come back from all of that to be one of the most powerful people in Texas. And now that he's got that power, he's different. He's changed. He doesn't like dialogue. He doesn't like debate. So before I get to him calling you stupid, I want to speak to his mindset this week. So you may have seen on the Senate floor.

and we covered this at quorumreport.com, we have the video there, you may have seen that he's really cracking down on debate in the Texas Senate. He doesn't want the Democrats and Republicans to be debating each other, which it's the Senate. You know, it's a deliberative body. They're supposed to do that. They're supposed to ask questions and have some of the greatest debates is what they're supposed to do in a Senate.

whether it's the Texas Senate or the U.S. Senate or any of the state senates around the country or any Senate around the world. Really, that's what they're supposed to do, debate these things. Senator Nathan Johnson, earlier this year, was trying to ask some questions of a Republican about property taxes.

And Patrick told him basically the debate is not allowed in the Senate anymore. Members, this is not a debatable motion. It's the question. Okay. It's questions. You're turning this into a debate. I thought that's what we'd do on the Senate floor. I just said to you, you're turning into a debate. If you want to ask questions, feel free. Continue. Okay, I thought we'd debate on the Senate floor. My question is... We do not debate on a motion to suspend.

Is there a later point when I should debate? You can debate whenever you want. I just told you this is not a debatable motion. I've let you go on for about 20 minutes. It's fine if you want to ask questions. you debate on amendments, and you can speak on the bill. This is not a debatable motion.

You see, he's talking about having to rein in a debate that only lasted about 20 minutes, something like that. That was earlier in session, Jeremy. And then this week, this was around midnight the other night. I think this was Wednesday or Thursday. All the days are running together. on me now, but it was around midnight when he told the same Senator, Nathan Johnson, the Democrat from Dallas, that, and get this.

How often have you seen in the House and Senate, Jeremy, where there will be an exchange between two people on the microphones, they're talking, and then there will be what is called just a motion to put those words in the journal. They want to put it in writing, what they said. And it's an important thing because...

you want to be able to, the courts will look at this stuff. Folks who are debating what happens with these laws in the future if they pass into law, they want to know what was the mindset of the lawmakers at the time and what they intended at the time when they were debating these things. before they pass the laws that we all have to live under. It's important. And all the sort of parliamentary and procedural words you're hearing, don't worry about that, dear listener.

I'll sort all that out for you at quorumreport.com. You can see the full explanations there. But listen carefully. The point is this. He doesn't want them debating. So when Johnson said, on the floor this week that he wanted to have um you know some of the uh debate that that actually did get allowed despite what patrick had said earlier there there was some debate between senator molly cook from houston who's a democrat and senator mays middleton a republican

who's about to run for attorney general. Johnson said, you know, that debate, the exchange they just had was pretty good, so we ought to put that in the journal. The Senate staff should put all that in writing so that historians later can look at it. Because this stuff is important. And listen, Patrick said, and I don't remember ever seeing this. Patrick said that maybe they shouldn't do that.

And I think maybe it had to do with the fact that the Democrat was kind of embarrassing the Republican because Middleton didn't have a lot of great answers for her questions. But listen to the exchange here and listen closely. You'll hear another voice come into the mix. It's Senator Royce West.

has been in the Senate for 30 years, about actually 32 years. And Senator West says, I can't ever remember it being controversial that our words should not be memorialized. Listen. We allowed that to go on a long time. repetition after repetition. I just wanna set the, I don't wanna set a precedent here, but if we're gonna do that, we can do that, but in the future.

I'm going to call it tighter when people stray from a question which is very clear as opposed to a debate. I know the hour is very, very late. And the only thing I'm saying, Mr. President, in the 32 years that I've been here, I've never known the situation where we've put to a vote whether or not to put something in the journal.

You are correct. And there's a first time for everything if it's being abused. What does he mean if it's being abused, Jeremy? He means if they're talking too much. He means if they're actually having an exchange of ideas, which is what they're supposed to do in a Senate, as I said. And by the way, this is a body that a legislative body. that goes late into the night. How many times have you sat in the Senate for hours past midnight while they debate something?

he shouldn't really care that this took 20 minutes or that took 20 minutes or this debate that they had was an hour or more. It's that he's against dissenting voices. Remember, he let Brandon Creighton... the Republican education chairman, he let him talk for about an hour when the school voucher bill was being passed in the Senate, right? So it's not that he doesn't want there to be some discussion of things on the floor.

It's that he's not interested in any kind of dissent. And I think this speaks to his mindset before he told you that you were stupid. Well, yeah, and I think it's really important for people to understand that most of what you see on the floor of the Senate, the actual votes is already prescripted. They know exactly how the votes are going to go down under Dan Patrick's rule. They make sure there is no surprise on the vote.

It's like they always know what's coming. And so a lot of times the only thing that the opposition party, in this case the Democrats, have is to be able to raise questions at some point during the discussion. There are two different sections where you can –

raise questions, you know, during, you know, part of the debate, then there's the part where you can actually do the debate. And it shifts as to when, like, in the questions, you'll hear something like, wouldn't you agree that this bill is terrible? You know, it's like, you'll have like a question like that.

to make sure it conforms, but it goes on all the time. And so, and I heard it, you know, this week, you know, we'll get into more of the THC and the medical marijuana programs and all that stuff. But, you know, you could see them trying to figure out, like, where can I ask this question?

well, let Dan Patrick allow me to get this question out so I can get it on the record. They just want to get it on the record that they have concern about something, even if it's going to pass, so it's at least somewhere out there. And typically... to Dan Patrick's credit, he's given them a lot of leash to do that at times during these last eight years I've been here at least.

But that time has been – like you're dead right. It's like it's been getting smaller and smaller. His tolerance for people – asking questions that people have been doing all night long. All of a sudden, when Nathan Johnson says it, it's like, wait a minute, this debate had been going on for a while. There had been other questions before that that really pushed the bounds further, I thought.

Johnson hit a nerve with him. You know, Roland Gutierrez hits the nerve with him. And he's willing to go after those guys quicker. And... quite honestly, harsher to me than he will some other members. Senator Molly Cook from Houston seems to really get under his skin, as I mentioned. He just didn't like what she had to say at all to Senator Middleton. And there was, I think it was a point during the school voucher debate.

where patrick and this is not what normally happens he doesn't want them to debate each other but he was almost debating her from up on the dais where he stands there with the gavel And Senator Cook had said that people in her district don't agree with the school voucher program. And Patrick told her, well, you know what? Actually, I've looked at the polling in your district and people do like it. He's he's he's he's clamping down on dissent.

And that is the behavior of an authoritarian. There's a reason I'm using that word. Listen to this THC discussion. So I walked over to this news conference, which has now gone viral. Jeremy went viral for being called crazy and stupid. Patrick went viral for looking so angry and throwing things at people. Let's walk people through it. I walked over to the news conference, and Jeremy, when I got there, and it was being held in that small Senate press conference room.

And to the credit of our press corps, it was packed. There were lots of TV cameras and newspaper reporters and folks were in there just jammed in. So I walked over and I was standing right there in the doorway looking in as it was starting. And what do I see? What did Patrick say?

that he was going to have at this press conference. He had told the media, the liberal media, who he says isn't doing a good job with this THC story, he had said that there would be snacks. So he kind of made it sound, I know what he's doing, he kind of made it sound like...

It's an end-of-session party almost. The session's going to be over, and there's going to be refreshments. That's the way his press conference notification came out for everybody. So I walk over there, and what does he do? He's got a table.

with a blue sheet on top of the table, and he lifted away the sheet to show everybody that he had all these THC snacks, Evan. He had chips and gummies and lollipops that someone told me that those lollipops... are bomb so i told you we have snacks today um well if the snacks something special for all of you so this is everything you can buy in a smoke shop and a bank shop that waived their cause, potentially paranoia, schizophrenia, tremendous health issues for you. Something like this.

that has 16,000 milligrams of THC in it. Why have I called you here today? Because I don't think the media has taken this issue seriously. So when he lifted the sheet... off of the snacks and showed everybody what he had there, Evan. As I said, I was standing in the doorway and I just left. This is stupid. I already was thinking this is stupid.

What are we doing? And he's telling the members of the media that we haven't taken this seriously enough. I think this has gotten some significant coverage, Jeremy. It's been in every newspaper. It's been all over television. The dangers to children that he has tried. a highlight that's been out there in every story that I've seen about it.

We literally tracked the number of THC retailers next to schools because of him in the Houston Chronicle. You can find where every THC retailer is next to a school because of him and because of our – Yes. So then he challenged reporters to eat some of those snacks. Does anyone want to try any of this? Would you buy anything off the shelf that you didn't know what was in it?

that could change your whole mental state for the rest of your life? Would you want that? Anybody want this bag? Okay, you want it? Terry just threw it at somebody. I don't think you want it. You wouldn't dare buy it. Patrick said... that you have no idea what's in those products right jeremy he kept saying that you you wouldn't eat this uh not knowing what's in it well i would i would i would say people buy things

from the grocery store every day and they don't know what's in it. But hometown hero CEO, Lucas Gilkey, he's running one of these cannabis companies here in Austin. And he makes some of the specific products that were on the table that Patrick was showing y'all. And you heard from him last week.

week here on the show. And here he is again, fact checking Patrick. He said all of that was BS. So he just held up one of our products, this exact product and said it had 6,000 milligrams, which it does not. Lieutenant governor also said that all the products that he had on that table are a variety.

of deltas and he said delta 10 delta 6 a whole bunch of stuff it is very clearly stated what this is 20 milligrams delta 9 thg and 20 milligrams cbd per piece he said the ingredients we don't know what's in it all of the ingredients every single ingredient are right there all the nutrition panels there's a coa per state law in texas because this is a regulated product by the state of texas per hb 1325 which senator perry passed again

This is a guy that has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. So as you were standing there in the news conference, Jeremy, and asking questions of Patrick, you knew that. You knew that those packages have those instructions. any adult could read and figure out what to do with it. I was having a discussion with somebody who's, I'll say they were adjacent, they are adjacent to the industry. And you know how on the THC drinks,

It says, there's instructions on the can. What it says is something like this. And it's not hard to understand at all. Patrick's making it sound like that people wouldn't know what to do with it. That's the way he's portraying. the behavior of adults and children and basically treating adults as children in the situation. When I was talking to this person who is adjacent to the industry, they pointed out that on the THC drinks, what they say is way more specific.

than what you see with alcohol. On the THC drink, it says on the can, you should drink the can and wait 20 minutes and then see how you feel. and see if you want to do another one. Test your tolerance by doing that. What does it say on it? What does alcohol say? It just says, drink responsibly, right? Whatever that means, just drink responsibly. I mean, there's no specificity.

whatsoever. So knowing all of that, having the info about Patrick's mindset and knowing what's actually on the packaging and all of that, it's completely reasonable. for Jeremy S. Wallace to ask this. I understand wanting to protect children, but you have grown adults who are using these products too. Is there a way to do this where grown adults could still have access to these products? We don't want adults having this either.

You crazy? You want to go home and eat a bag of this tonight? See if you're here tomorrow? This is what we focus on, kids, because that's where they built the shops. But adults are buying this stuff too. Make no mistake.

We want to protect the 20 and the 30 and the 40 and the 50 year olds too. We don't want anybody buying anything off the shelf that could kill them or ruin their mental state for the rest of their lives. The young man who was 22 who stepped in front of a train after he ate some of this junk.

He wasn't a kid. He was an adult. That's crazy talk. That's the kind of talk, the reason why we're here. Media that would say something as stupid as that. Jeremy, you were invoked there. You were called crazy. You were called stupid. You have the floor to respond. I've been thinking about this all week. All right, I'm ready. I'm ready for a soliloquy. And so here we go. No, I'm not. You are.

That's the whole thing? No, okay. There's more to it. What is it, the Pee Wee Herman? I know you are, but what am I? Yeah, yeah, and I got more to this. Look, okay, so here's the thing. As a journalist, let's peel back the curtain a little bit on what I do. It's like I often am in situations where I will ask questions on behalf –

of people, whether I believe in their causes or not, whether I'm in that class of people or not. I will ask people about food stamps when I'm not on food stamps. I will ask people about issues about losing children when I'm haven't lost children, but I'm going to try to get

the questions out there that people can understand. So in this case, so I see myself as in a position to ask a question that 30 million Texans who are out there who will never ever get a chance to be near a governor or a lieutenant governor to get their questions. I try to be a conduit to get the question to them. So at least maybe in some offhand way, somebody's question from somewhere out there in the sticks gets asked.

in a press conference, right? So it's not about me in this. I actually take no offense to be calling stupid by the lieutenant governor. I have been called stupid by so many politicians, I can't even list them all out. Republicans, Democrats, I've... I've gotten under everybody's skin at some point. Oh, so I see. So your argument is you've been called stupid by better people. I wouldn't say that. Okay, but see, here's the thing.

This issue – so I went to that press conference not even thinking I was going to ask a question. I was just there just because, like you mentioned earlier, it was – It's close to the end of session, and I just want to be a fly in the wall, just kind of see how Dan Patrick's reacting to getting everything passed. And I didn't know what the topic was even really going to be about. I just was going to hang in there. But I had been getting questions.

I want to say at least a couple of weeks from people from all over the place. We have about 50,000 subscribers to the Texas Tech newsletter right now. Those people are great. And many of you listening to this right now are some of those people who have been sending me questions. And I can't thank you enough for kind of making sure I was paying attention to this issue a little bit even before I got into that meeting.

I'm trying to be a conduit for those voices. And let me give you an example of some – like I have a couple of the emails from people who have been – Trying to communicate with me. I'm going to protect their identities. You know, I don't want to like get them into trouble or anything. Most people are sharing stuff with me through the Texas Tech newsletter that they don't necessarily want publicized. But OK, so let me tell you a couple of people who talked to me about this issue.

and why I asked that question. I have this guy from Kyle who tells me he's an asshole. absolute supporter of Donald Trump, but THC gummies have been my only savior from chronic, I mean chronic insomnia. I just take one every night. That's all I do. I'm not trying to abuse it. I have this veteran from outside Elgin who has a history of dependency. The guy is like – he opened up to me just a train wreck of things that he got stuck into when he was abusing alcohol and drugs. He goes, I've been –

High and dry completely from alcohol. THC has been a godsend for me. I haven't touched alcohol in five years. I have a guy from Katy who told me, it's like, I just use one to sleep at night. This guy's a contractor. He works with his hands all the time. They're always fucking sore. It's the only thing. Even if I could get into the medical marijuana program, they're not going to let me in when I just tell them my hands hurt.

all the time. It's like, I'm not going to be able to qualify for it. And then somewhat related, I had this guy from down in the valley. I'll call him Bill. Like he used to be in the sugar cane industry that is completely dried up out there. It's like literally dried up because the water just isn't there to do that production anymore. A lot of those farmers who used to do sugar cane. I have now shifted over to hemp.

And so you can see they're going to be affected by this too. So I have all those people in my head when this press conference is going on. And what I was doing was just trying to ask him about these grown ass adults. who are honestly just asking me, like, what's going on? Is there a way for them to do this without preventing me from getting this? Because I don't have any other access to... maybe doctors, to health insurance, to other ways to get relief. There aren't many...

options out there for people who live on the edges. And what makes me so frustrated by this, it's like, I'm not, again, I'm not mad at Dan Patrick for the way he approached me. That's not what the issue is. I'm more disappointed in what I hear from him. And it goes to something you mentioned earlier. I wish Dan, Dan Patrick. Now he can afford to buy a million dollar house on Lake Conroe. Right. But there was a time he couldn't. He, I wish he could remember tap into the working class blue.

blood type stuff that he grew up around. He grew up, like you mentioned, he grew up in Maryland. He grew up in Baltimore. I mean, if you've ever seen the movie Rocky. Those rows of houses in Baltimore, that's the kind of neighborhood he grew up in. Well, so his family is from South Oldham Street in Baltimore. It's like right across the street is a transportation shed for the bus depot, right? It's like the apartment is small. It's like his dad worked as a driver for the steel industry.

His grandfather was a bartender and a custodian. It's like these are working class people. They're the kinds of working class people who work with their hands and work a hard job out there every day who are just looking – like I'm not saying his parents would have done this or his grandparents, but the people that – are talking to me are just they're again they're older people we're not talking about like some like crackheads in some like

whatever world Dan Patrick's thinking about. We're talking about just working stiff people who are just looking for some relief, right? And so sometimes I just wish... Dan Patrick, he's done so much good with a political career, right? Like I give him all the kudos for being able to develop what he has. But he has a chance to still be the guy, the voice of people who grew up in places like South Oldham Street.

But he doesn't do that. Instead, when I ask that question, his response isn't to me. It's to all those people out there who are just looking to use THC to get through. Like the same people he grew up with. It's like, why can't he treat them with the same respect that he would probably have wanted his father and his grandfather be treated with when they were working stiff people, right? But he doesn't do that now.

He does this role of – maybe has he just been in politics so long that that part is completely iced over and he can't think of – you know what real people are doing i want him to come out with me out to elgin out to kyle out to katie and meet with these people

Like talk to these real human beings who aren't trying to argue with them. I wasn't trying to argue with them. Nothing I said was a gotcha journalism question. I was literally just conveying a question that people have been asking me and wanting. him to answer for them. And for him to like fly off the handle, he's flying off the handle at them as much as he is me. Absolutely. And what you're saying goes right to the next point I was going to make here, which is that somebody might say, oh.

That's a guy in the liberal media. I don't know that I trust that. The folks you're talking about who reached out to you, some of these people who supported Trump and are MAGA all the way, I guarantee you some of the people who sent those emails to you have those red hats. Yes. I know for a fact one of them does. They're probably so proud of it, they probably sent you a picture of it. So you know who Dana Loesch is? She's a former spokesperson for the NRA. She has a big conservative talk show.

is carried nationally and she lives in dallas fort worth i think she lives in in south lake which is kind of a hotbed for grassroots republicans right and on her show she said that patrick is being Ridiculous. Dan Patrick, you are a redacted moron. You are an absolute, you are an absolute dick. Completely. That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Take that R after your name.

Take it off. She was directly responding to seeing the video of what Patrick said to you, that you were stupid for even asking that question. And remember the word I used before, authoritarian. Listen to what she said about how he is acting right now. I hate this issue because it makes me sound like Cheech and Chong. I don't consume it. I just hate authoritarians with the burning...

passion of a thousand sons. Well, you voted for the wrong people then, lady. This is a Donald Trump supporter all the way. This is a Dan Patrick supporter all the way. As I said, she lives in DFW. Do you think she didn't vote for Dan Patrick? Of course she did. And now she said that all eyes are on Governor Abbott as far as what he's going to do. Is he going to veto this thing or sign it into law? We're watching you, Greg Abbott.

is they want to ban something that they legalized and then they decided they don't want to keep it legal anymore. And it's the THC stuff. And this is where Kane's going to have to weigh in on some of it. We're not talking about smoking the joints. Okay? That's not what this says. The bill has nothing to do with that.

It is not about smoking the joints. It's not about that. It is not a bill that says thou canst take thy joints in the public and smoke thy joints. That's not what this is. It doesn't do any of that. It doesn't allow that. It doesn't legalize that. It doesn't. This has to do, what do they call it? Like the consumables came. Like the, I don't even know what all, I only heard it talked about. Yeah, edibles.

I don't even know what all is edible. Well, clearly she didn't watch his news conference. He was showing off the edibles. Whose voice is she doing, by the way, saying that you can't have the marijuana? I don't even know what it was. Anyway, but here's the point, Jeremy, about why she and others. On the right, why all these folks are very angry. We have a family member.

I don't want to out anybody because now they could go to jail for a year if Greg Abbott signs this. Can you imagine that? You have a gummy bear that has like the THC in it. You literally will go to jail for a year. Not even exaggerating. That's literally, we wanted property tax relief. But the loser Republicans in Austin, who I'm not voting for anymore, I'm not voting for another Texas Republican. I'm done. Yeah, I don't believe her. She's not about to vote for a Democrat.

in a general election, Jeremy. That's not about to happen. And this is where, look, I don't know what's going to happen with Patrick. I have floated this out there before that I do think there are some signs that he might be considering. retiring from politics. But I do want to measure that by saying this. As I said at the beginning of the show, this guy, he's batting almost a thousand for this legislative session. You saw the way, and we talked about this at length on the last show.

if folks want to understand the full dynamics of how this passed through the legislature go back and listen to the last episode it was incredible in fact it was the best show we've ever done that week Go on. Thank you. Thank you for that. So here's the thing about it. He is now at the Capitol, the apex predator.

He's getting everything that he wants, right? He got the House to do this on THC, even though Republicans were getting blowback from their constituents, from Republican voters who said, we don't agree with this. A lot of those people in the MAGA hats. Patrick was able to pressure them and get them to do this. But 37 of 40 of his priorities passed through the legislature, probably going to be the law. We don't know what's going to happen with this with Greg Abbott. But I think on the question of.

And she mentioned this, whether Abbott would veto it. It's one of the few times, and I told one of the TV stations in Austin this earlier this week. I don't know what Abbott's going to do. Over the course of the last decade of him being in office as governor, he's become pretty predictable as far as what's going to happen. I would say this is jump ball. Is he going to veto this or not? I don't know. It could be a 50-50 thing. Let me explain. I can make a case either way. Ready?

On the one hand, if he was going to sign it into law, it would be just to side with Patrick. It's a tough on crime message, and we're going to talk about his big push for bail reform in just a little bit. It speaks to this tough on crime thing. And that's where Abbott has been as a politician is tough on crime. He loves that message. So I could see him going in that direction. In the other way, though, if he was going to veto this, number one, if –

Abbott has any interest in running for national office, which I have to think that, you know, as a Texas governor, he's always going to keep that as an option. You know that his consultant, Dave Carney, that... carney understands that you don't go against veterans when you're running in early states or the republican nomination for president right and just this week just yesterday the national

VFW came out and said they stand with veterans in Texas who want Abbott to veto this. There was a picture that was tweeted out from one of the local veterans groups. Jeremy, they met with one of the key guys in Abbott's office, his legislative director. That's a guy named Robert Howden. And they told Howden – this is what they tweeted. The veterans said they told Howden that they want a meeting with Abbott.

And they want to urge him to veto this immediately. The National VFW put out a statement saying they stand with those veterans who don't want. this to happen, that you're going to have a complete ban on THC at the same time that you would have a new version of a medical THC program.

That it's going to be so expensive for veterans that they won't be able to get their medicine, that they're really angry about this. And here's the other thing about it. This is one of Patrick's few political missteps. He doesn't make many of them. As I said, he's pretty good at this. The apex predator at the Capitol. He's against the Republican base on this. They don't like it. I'm now aware of at least two polls showing that specific to the last six weeks.

Polls that either came out or that I saw, those are different, showing that the Republican base doesn't like this. The MAGA crowd doesn't like this. Donald Trump doesn't like this. Usually, Patrick would be citing Donald Trump for everything. What did Patrick say about this when it comes to Donald Trump? Nothing. Because what has Trump said about it? That we shouldn't be criminalizing people for small amounts of THC and marijuana. And so you have.

All of this working in the direction, I think, of an Abbott veto potentially, as I said, I think he could go the other way on this, but here's the other thing. He could do Patrick the biggest favor politically. If he vetoed it because a year from now, no one would even remember this. Right. If it goes into effect, then everyone will stay pissed about it. The people who are mad now, in fact, even more people might get pissed because.

It's already broken through with a lot of folks, right, that, you know, that this is happening. And then when people can't actually get the stuff, then they will really be angry. Yeah. And if you go back to that, you know, his. answer to me he and i want you know dana loach kind of hits on this like there's a basic misunderstanding of what he thinks he's holding right you know it's like he's acting like he's holding a bag of cocaine

So he's like, if you take this cocaine, you will die. It's like, but that's not what this is. If he would listen to these veterans, if he would listen to these conservative talk radio guy, if he would listen to these Trump supporters who live in trailers out in places that he probably never goes, he might actually understand.

what he's talking about is not nearly what he's been convinced this stuff is, right? And the other part of this thing is like, and I wonder if how much of the motivation is because... They made the initial mistake on this. If you listen to the way this is talked about, in 2019, when they passed a farm bill for Texas, it...

Opened up the hemp market in a way that, you know, Charles Perry, the senator from Lubbock and Dan Patrick says THC retailers abused. They found a loophole and they abused it. But regardless of what. You know how they view that. It was their legislation. It was Dan Patrick who ultimately allowed this bill to go into law that was able to be abused if it was abused. So it really is on his shoulders. It's like these.

you know, mothers who have gone to him to tell them the stories of the dangers that presented for their families, like that's on him. He let this start to begin with. And it's a much different story when you let something get out there and that we've now had this out there for basically three or four years. People have gotten used to it. Now you're trying to pull it away. It's one thing if they never had it.

It's harder to pull rights back once you give it to them. It's like that's what they understood in the civil rights movement, right? You know, if you go back in that time period, every time you got something, it's harder to take it away. So you get incremental changes along the way, and they're not going to reverse on you, right? But here Patrick is wanting to completely shut it down completely with no reasonable alternative. So you can see where Abbott –

like you said, can go one of two ways here. He could say, look, like there's got to be a medium ground or we got to figure out how to make this transition a little bit smoother for people who we have now shifted away from other. outlets, maybe illegal, to THC. We've got to find another way than just to tell them, tough, you can't get THC, you can't get medical marijuana, and you can't get illegal drugs. How do you do that?

They could land in a decent spot on this if they were to make some, and they still have time. And I'm telling you, I know how the legislative process works. It needs to happen today if it's going to happen. They could come up with some broader expansion. of medical use for THC that would put them in that decent place. Ken King's bill, one of the things that it did when he unveiled his version, Jeremy, was to, well, on the THC thing, on the, you know, on the...

on the regulation of it, like alcohol, that seems to be out the window. But on the compassionate use bill that King pushed forward, Part of it said that a veteran could be in the program just because they're a veteran, right? So they were going to expand that greatly. They have a lot to work with here, but they don't have much time.

And I do not expect that the governor is going to – I mean I had some questions about this today. I do not expect that he's going to call a special session about this. I don't think that that's going to happen. 40 minutes on marijuana is enough, Jeremy. I'm ready to do the next thing here. Well, let me just add a quick line to that because that THC trying to go – the shift that Ken King is trying to make, the Senate attacked on an amendment.

his bill that would make people you know if you're chronic pain you might qualify for medical marijuana but only if you've been on opioids for 90 days which is fucking ridiculous yeah which is why ken king you know on friday he said no i'm not

not accepting that. And they're now in negotiation. So stay tuned. I've been putting all this stuff in social media. I will have an update as that bill moves through. So I'll definitely keep up on this. Talking so much about drugs. Have you ever seen the show? Breaking Bad. Of course. Of course. I mean, at this point, it's kind of classic, right? Let me turn on the TV here, Evan.

It's one of those shows that I watched the first season and then stopped. I just got bored of it. I got bored of it, but it was very popular. I know I'm in the minority on this. Why am I bringing it up? Because in Houston... I think it's every night. If it's not every night, it's almost every night. On Fox 26 there in H-Town, they have a segment on the news that they call Breaking Bond. Have you seen this?

Oh, yeah. And I have asked if it was sort of themed after the show, Breaking Bad, and I didn't get any real response on that. I'm just going to say that I think that it's kind of similar. So every night in Houston, people are treated to this. They are treated to... News reports on Fox 26 that make it sound like the whole town is under siege and that all this crime is being committed by people who are out.

on bail that they're out on bond so they call it breaking bond and they say that over and over and over On tonight's Breaking Bond, two convicted felons free from jail on Bond Now are accused of burglarizing businesses dealing with Barrel's aftermath. Jeremy, they do this every single...

Night. Well, police say a man free on three felony bonds stabbed and killed his 23 year old brother. Now he's on the run. Randy Wallace has the latest in his ongoing breaking bond series. Did I mention that this is on the air every single night? Well, tonight, another story in our ongoing series, Breaking Bond. We are just about five days, five days to be exact into the new year, and two men who are out of jail, who are free from jail on multiple felony bonds, are now charged with murder.

Now, of course, it is an issue that you have crime being committed by people who are out on bond. But what should the response be on this? Well, you know that the governor has made it. I think it's. It's fair to say it's not just that he's made it a priority. It's almost been his white whale as governor, right? He's been trying to go after this for a long time.

to crack down on this. And do you think that I'm being fair to say that this is mainly a Houston issue? It's a Harris County issue. That's all you ever hear about when it comes to this, right, Jeremy? Oh, it is so pronounced in Houston. You are dead right on that.

They're always talking about it, right? And when Abbott talks about it, he's mainly talking about things going on in Houston. Here he was in his State of the State address earlier this year. To make our community safer, we need to do things like eliminate parole. for criminals convicted of child trafficking. We must deny bail to criminals charged with capital murder and other heinous violent crimes.

And when he says heinous, I mean, he means it, Jeremy. One of the stories that he has highlighted over the course of the last six months or so was the story of this woman, Sophia Strother, who Abbott said on his Twitter feed, he said. said that she was, quote, raped and tortured by an illegal immigrant convicted of money laundering. Passing bail reform. It's not about logic. It's not about.

politics. It's about it's the right thing to do for humanity. It's about dignity. It's about giving us a lifeline. survivors won't continue to come forward if they feel that there is absolutely no protection for them in the process. Survivors won't come forward if they feel like they're going to be re-traumatized all over again. Being tortured and raped was difficult. But enduring the justice journey...

was life-altering. So these are serious concerns. And the politics of this are pretty straightforward. There's a difference between simple and straightforward, right? I mean, for Republicans, it's very straightforward. They just say we should be tough on crime. And we should lock all these people up and throw away the key, even if we're talking about people who have only been accused of something, right? Now, this is where it gets tricky. I had a scholar of the Texas Constitution.

Somebody who's really studied it, lay it out for me this week. They, you know, they, but Jeremy, this person printed it out. They printed out a certain part of it, the part that deals with bail. And. They were underlining things and highlighting things and giving me a whole lesson on it because I sort of understand it, but I kind of needed to go to school.

And there were several proposals to deal with this in the legislative process. Governor Abbott has tried to do this multiple times. And there was one proposal. That had broad bipartisan support. I think it got what something I know it was more than 100 votes, maybe close to 120 votes, maybe a little more than that. Democrats voted for it. Republicans voted for it. They got it over the finish line in the Texas House. It takes.

100 votes of the membership out of the 150 members. And I think I've mentioned this before, because it's a constitutional amendment, they're changing the state's foundational document, right? I mean, in the U.S. Constitution. The Texas Constitution, you have a right to bail, period. And this person who was giving me a lesson on this, Jeremy, you know that this has been changed.

You know, previously there have been multiple, there have been multiple changes. I would say, I think there were at least two or three that were significant in the, in the constitution. And it is pretty, it is. It's a bedrock thing. If you are accused of murder, accused of rape, accused of whatever, and we can talk about, we can go through the list of heinous crimes.

that the governor has highlighted. But if you're only accused of those things and you haven't been on trial yet, the jury hasn't found you guilty, the judge hasn't sentenced you, if you're only accused and you're going to court, you... are entitled to be released on bail. You are bailable.

is what it says in the Constitution. Now, you remember in the 90s, they changed this up some, right? This was the Clinton era stuff in 1992, 1993, the three strikes and you're out thing. So if you commit two things, you know, the third one, you can't get bail.

That's in the Texas Constitution. That was a change in 93. In the lesson that I was given, we went through all of this. There were some other changes that were made. But previously, any time the changes would be made, there was still an attempt. To require that the person who might be denied bail would still have to be shown by prosecutors to basically have almost iron in ironclad fashion that they did it. In fact.

If you read the Constitution, it makes it seem, Jeremy, to me as a layman, I'm not an attorney, I don't even pretend to be one here on the show. Just reading the words there, it seems to me that you would almost have to have... A full trial for the person so that the prosecutors could show that it is pretty damn sure this person did this in order for the judge to say no bail. Right now, they could even they could they could give you a high bail.

They could say a million dollars, $20 million, make up some numbers. And you'll see these stories that get people outraged about, oh, there was somebody accused of murder and they let them go on a $500 bond or some very small number that gets people all worked up. So we've seen this. So there are these attempts to change it. So in this bipartisan effort that was made, there were some things that are being changed. And of course, the people of Texas will still have to vote on this.

But there's some things that are being changed to basically move the judges in the direction of denying bond more frequently for different things, right? For this list of crimes that Abbott was highlighting. And this was debated on the floor of the Texas House. Mitch Little. is a freshman Republican from North Texas. He was also one of the defense attorneys for Ken Paxton during his impeachment trial. He's a very talented attorney and a talented speaker.

This guy, I would never want to go up against him in court. And like I said, I'm not a lawyer. So if I was going up against him, I would be maybe being sued over something because that's what he does. He's a trial lawyer. Mitch Little said, and by the way. He's also a listener of the show. Little said that even though there's been so much focus on Houston,

that this issue is bigger than that. This is not a Harris County bill. It's not a Travis County bill. This is a bill for the state of Texas. But of course, the first example he gives. is about Houston. There was a Harris County Sheriff's deputy. His name was Fernando Esqueda. He was ambushed by two gentlemen in the city of Houston. There were 41 spent shell casings at the scene.

There were two assailants. One was held without bond. The other was released on $500,000 bond on a capital murder case. He made bond. He walks the street free. There are 900 people charged with murder who are out on bail in the city of Houston.

So he said it wasn't about Houston, but then his first example was about Houston, and what you just heard him say at the end there was about Houston. But it's not about Houston, Jeremy. It's not about that. It almost sounds like it could be a Willie Nelson song. I'm not really that into you. Yeah, you are. Was that Larry Gatlin?

Houston. Oh, no, that's a, yeah. Oh, no, I'm getting it wrong. Who is it? Dean Martin has that song. Dean Martin did it. I don't know who wrote the original version. You don't know what you're talking about. Hang on a second. I'm going to set you straight on that. But anyway. It is serious stuff. And the members of the House, almost all of them, Republicans and Democrats, agreed with what Little said right here. This is our opportunity to repair something that is broken.

And if we have the ability to repair something that is broken, we must. It's really a talent to be able to say those words and you hear how his voice is just on the verge of breaking. It's not breaking, but it's... Almost there. It's right there to the line. He's very convincing. And almost all of the house thought that he was right. So they passed that, right? So here's where it gets a little more interesting to me, Jeremy. When it became clear.

that most members of the House were going to agree to this and send it to the people of Texas to try to rein in all this crime and get tough on crime, this bail reform. uh deal that pat that uh patrick and abbott and the speaker and everybody have been really railing about but especially abbott once it became clear that that was going to pass the house i think the governor got a little greedy on this

And his office started to push some other proposals. Did you know that the bail reform measure that failed a couple times in the House this week to get 100 votes? That the bill on that was not even filed until two weeks ago. So here you have the governor getting what he had said he wanted, and then he wanted to go a little bit further. And here's what they were going to try to do.

And again, I don't think people who voted against this are soft on crime. It's that there is a balance here, right? That people have a right to bail if they're just accused of something and they haven't had a trial yet. I don't know why I should have to repeat that over and over again. I have a friend who is a conservative Republican who is losing his mind at the governor about this because it is a constitutional right. And the way this person said it was.

constitutional to your point about taking people's rights away a constitutional right should not be a casualty of a campaign but it has happened before right so then what the governor wanted to do was have a proposal past the House that would have, and this one was not successful, there was this attempt to put this into the law.

into the Texas Constitution, that if you have a prior offense, let's say you got into a fight in college, as if that ever happened. You know, if people were on THC and not alcohol, it would happen less. Yes. I'll say that. So if, so let's say you got into a fight in college and that was 25 years ago, or for young men like you and I, that was, you know, like 10 years ago. So if you were, so if you were in a fight and you got, you know.

They had you spend the night in the county jail, and you got slapped with an assault charge, whatever it was. And then let's say 30 years later, you get accused of something. You would be, under this proposal, you would be automatically denied bond. Okay, that's what they were trying to pass this week, and that did not make it. The first time that it was voted on in the House, I think it got 93 votes.

Short of, you know, seven short of 100. And then you had... a real effort by the governor's office to get some democrats on board with this and shaming them and threatening them and trying to i've been telling democrats that uh the governor's going to veto their bills if they don't vote for this you know i mean I heard about the governor's office threatening help for poor people in Dallas-Fort Worth. It was one of the bills he's going to veto over this. And also –

telling, you know, telling members of the house that the thing that you are trying to get done in the budget, let's say, I'll just give you another similar example. It was some extra money for poor people in Houston. that the finance chair, Joan Huffman, who's also pushing for this bail reform stuff, she's a former judge in Harris County, that these Democrats were told that Chair Huffman is watching your vote on this bail deal, and if you vote yes...

Your budget request is going right in this afternoon. It's going to happen. But... We're talking about a constitutional right and about going way too far. Erin Gomez is a Democrat from Brownsville, and I thought that she gave one of the best speeches of the session. It was really unbelievable. She argued that...

an additional change in bail, you know, in the bail system. This thing that Abbott wanted, even after he already got the other thing, she argued... that is just going too far who here believes in the fundamental presumption of innocence i know everyone in this body would raise their hand without doubt without hesitation and if in your heart you believe in that fundamental principle, the presumption of innocence. That's what this vote is about.

Every time someone gets up here at the back mic and says, what we are about to pass is the strongest in the nation. It's the best in the world. It's the farthest we've ever gone. Every time someone gets up here and says that, the hair on the back of your neck should stand up. Because there is a reason we've never gone that far. There is a reason there is no law that strong. Because every time we do that, it means I'm willing to stray away.

from the fundamental principles that are in our constitution, the constitution that men and women have fought and died for. She said there's nothing about this argument that is soft on crime. There is a special place in hell. for the individuals who are responsible for the crimes that we're speaking about here today in the body. I am fearful of the special place that we're going to find ourselves in.

if we continue to stray away from the Constitution. As I mentioned, she's from the valley, from along the border. And she also said in that speech, Jeremy, that the standard... for denying people bail that the governor was pushing for with that extra proposal. You know where it comes from? That standard is the one they use in Mexico.

Oh, boy. Which Trump and Abbott have been at war with those folks all the time. And Gomez said she couldn't believe that the governor of Texas would basically copy-paste the Constitution of Mexico and make it policy in Texas to say that, hey. if you had some crime you were accused of...

10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, if that happened and in the meantime, you know, you've been a productive member of society for the rest of your life and then you get accused of something else, you immediately are thrown in jail and in a place like Harris County. Jeremy, which we know, as Mitch Little said, this isn't about Houston. But in a place like Harris County, if they deny you bail, do you know how long you would sit in jail?

before you would have a trial? I mean, I think probably conservatively you could say two years. And one other thing I would add to this, just for some perspective, and it's not to say, as Gomez said, it's not to say that anybody wants to be soft on crime in these situations. But just for perspective, Mitch Little, respectfully to him, he said there are 900 people on the streets of Houston right now who are out on bail, you know, right, and accused of these crimes.

As a percentage of the population of Houston, this is where things get really skewed because most of the people, his audience for that, there are a lot of people who are listening to that where 900 is the entire population of the town where they live. Yeah, right.

In Houston, 900 people is about 0.018%. of the population so that's not to excuse any of it that's not to say that it's not a real issue and in some ways i think you can you can point to a bipartisan victory on on what was done on part of this but when the governor tried to go too far with this other change. I think that's one of the reasons that I'm thankful that we do have a system when it comes to changing our constitution, our fundamental rights, that the governor has to do better than that.

That he has to, number one, not take Democrats for – take them for granted all the time, be bad-mouthing them all the time, saying it doesn't work with – want to work with them all the time, the same as Dan Patrick does. If you want to do these big things and change these fundamental things about how we live, you have to be able to do it in cooperation with folks who are in the minority. And we still do have these protections in place.

Right. I mean, it's a lot of times people will say it's not enough. And believe me, I know in a lot of ways it isn't enough. And you see people rising up about the THC issue that we were talking about because that's the thing that only takes a simple majority. But when it comes to taking away people's fundamental rights like this,

You got to get that 100 votes. You got to get that two thirds of the House and Senate. And you'd have to get every Texan who's going to vote in the election. You'd have to get you'd have to capture their hearts and minds as well. about it and convince them that you're right. And so there's a reason that you have all these steps that have to be and all these hurdles that have to be cleared to be able to do something like this, one of these big fundamental things.

Yeah, and put an exclamation point on what you said earlier. Remember, there are going to be people who are charged with a murder who are going to later be acquitted. And that person who ultimately is acquitted might be sitting in jail for two years.

years waiting for that trial it's like that's where you have to ask the question is that okay you know when you put it in that perspective like okay you better be damn right if you're going to like take away somebody's ability to work and to live in society for a crime that they ultimately might be declared innocent of you know not everybody who's arrested

is guilty of that crime. We know people will be acquitted. So that's that balance line that Texas has always had. That's why that's in the Constitution in the first place. You don't want somebody sitting two years in jail. unable to work, unable to support their family, unable to see their children, like all of that taken away and then you're actually acquitted. Whoa, you better be right.

It's just a dangerous line when you start taking away people's rights for something that maybe – look, cops sometimes get things wrong. Maybe the case like went the wrong way. You watch those, you know, you know, law and order shows and stuff like that, or even the 48 hours, whatever you see that there are a lot of cases where it's like, Oh, the evidence, you know, it was.

It was wrong. They got the wrong guy. And we've reported – there's been some great reporting at the Houston Chronicle about people who just sat in jail for years waiting for a trial and never convicted of anything. And you're like, oh my gosh. It's like that. Is that really –

we don't want that to i don't think abbott's wanting that system necessarily i i can understand the the push to like let's get more aggressive on the people who are a true danger decide who keep doing i get his argument but man you just got to make sure could you collect one person and take one person's life away for two years you know waiting for a trial when they're actually innocent oh that would be hard to absorb

Well, for Abbott, it's just it's raw politics. I mean, in his reelection effort next year in 2026, he wants to be able to argue that he's tough on crime. Yeah, I was talking to one of the and that, you know, and that's it.

We saw that even when Republicans were facing backlash in the beginning of the Trump era and they had a really rough midterm in that first Trump term, coming through some of those controversies, one of the – arguments that resonated with people the most that came from the Republicans was tough on crime and arguing that Democrats are weak on crime.

Right. That they want to defund the police and all that sort of stuff. I was talking to one of the key players at the Capitol who has been really somebody who has really been rolling up their sleeves and working on this issue on the Republican side. And I was asking them about. whether the way this played out would cause Abbott to call a special session about this issue because he has been so motivated about it. And this person said, no, they didn't think so. They thought that the.

The proposal that did pass, that is good to go for the ballot, that that's enough, that that's what Abbott wanted. And in a lot of ways, he gets to make – he gets the best of both worlds politically.

Because he gets to say he's tough on crime. But then the Democrats didn't go along with some of these other... proposals including one that would have um required this is extra stupid but i get the politics of it it was a proposal that would have held people without bail if they're being held on an ice detainer yeah which

The reason it's stupid is because they're already being held and they're not going to get out. That's the point. If they've got an ICE detainer, they're not letting them go. And all the sheriffs across Texas, I think with one exception. had always honored those ice detainers became, but you know, before it became a big issue at the Texas Capitol. So, and I, did I mention I, I did get the news. We posted it at quorum report.com in Houston.

Even though this is not a Houston thing. In Houston, at Crimestoppers, they're going to have the big bill signing, I think, on Tuesday. So I think the governor is ready to do his victory lap about this issue. and go on down the road let's do up and down of the week By the way, it is Larry Gatlin. Houston. You don't know the song? We were talking about a different Houston song. I'm thinking about the DMR one. Oh my God, I couldn't be more wrong about this.

Houston. I can almost do it to the up and down theme. Houston means that I'm one day closer to you. You don't know that song. We're going to end the show. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Your singing is a little less than there. No, my singing is perfect. Houston. I'd sing the Dean Martin one, but let's just spare the listeners right now.

Dean Martin or Frank Sinatra? Dean Martin all the time. Yeah, I think you go Dino. All right. Up and down of the week. Up and down of the week is the weekly edition of The Daily Thing. that Jeremy does in his newsletter where he gives you sort of the stock market report on who's up, who's down in politics. And on this show, we break it down for the week. Who's up, Jeremy?

Yeah, I had no question about this, but I'm giving it to Don McLaughlin. He is the former Uvalde mayor who's now a state rep. And, you know, how appropriate. His first bill to pass the Texas House and get sent to the governor is one to reform. how police handle future mass shootings, the training they have to get to make sure they're better prepared so we don't have a repeat of what we saw from law enforcement after the Robb Elementary shooting.

We talked about this before on the show. He highlighted how bad it was. This is a step to correct. And I just love the fact that this was his first bill. Absolutely. Who's down this week? Yeah, I'm going to go with Houston and not because anything to do with the bail and not because of how much we just talked about them. But look, there was a bill that would have taken toll money away from.

Harris County and sent it to the city of Houston to patch their budget, essentially. And this was hotly debated. This was a huge problem for Harris County Commissioner's Court. They had people coming up here all the time fighting to keep that from going. Well, they ended up winning. The bill ended up dying. Houston will not get up to $80 million out of the Harris County toll money. So they are just on their own with this stuff. So that did not work.

So I'm giving Houston the down for actually striking out on this one. Now, the reason that Houston would be up is that, and I've always thought this forever, is that Houston is mentioned in so many songs. Yeah. but it doesn't rhyme with anything. What rhymes with Houston? Literally nothing. Nothing rhymes with Houston, and yet it's in so many songs, and that's because people love.

h-town all right check out jeremy's newsletter it's where you find that up and down of the day and that link of course is on his x page it's the pinned post there at jeremy s wallace you can follow me at scott braddock and you should be a subscriber at quorum report.com Houstonchronicle.com. We'll see you next time. Houston. Houston means that I'm one day closer to you. Oh, honey, Houston. Houston means the last day of the touring we're through Well honey, you and God