How about it's not all right, all right, all right. Welcome to The Texas Take, the number one politics podcast in the great state. I'm Scott Braddock, and he's Jeremy Wallace. His work, of course, is at HoustonChronicle.com. You can find the inside story on Texas politics at Quorum Report. Jeremy, there's a lot going on. I still feel pretty good, but I have the expectation that by about a week from now, I'll be completely fried and completely worn out, that I will barely be able to function.
And it will be time for us to do another one of these shows. By next Friday, the Texas House will have already debated the budget. It was Chairman Todd Hunter, who's the calendar's chairman, who let everybody know. that they're going to do the marathon budget on the Texas, you know, the budget debate coming up next Thursday. That would be April 10th. So everybody note that on your calendar.
April 10th. So that is something that will go on for at least 12 hours, Jeremy. I've been in the Texas house during times when it took all the way until four o'clock the next day. So 4 o'clock Friday is when you could anticipate the end of the debate. But they have made some moves to shorten that debate up. They don't really want to be there all night. So I bet you, you know, I don't make predictions, but I know people are going to, you know, reach out to me when I'm wrong about this.
I bet you that it takes more like until 1030 or 11 o'clock on Thursday night. Something like that. Let's just watch for that. So there's a lot to get to here. You've got Elon Musk really getting the attention of Greg Abbott. Abbott giving Musk more attention than his own wife. That was the reporting, right? You were there for that, right, Jeremy? Yep. We'll get to that. I have this question. If school vouchers are so popular...
Why isn't the biggest, most consequential meeting about it so far as transparent as possible? It was a little weird today. We'll get into that. That happened this afternoon as we record here on Thursday. It's a special edition because... Jeremy's going to take a three-day weekend because you're going to listen to a lot of music, right? You are ready to go with some Texas music this weekend.
Yeah, if anybody's catching Sturgill Simpson or Ryan Bingham this weekend, I'll be with you. So I need to calm down. So we've got all this stuff coming up, and I need to chill a little bit. In fact, let me – I could just light up here. And, you know, Jeremy, if it was the 70s, I wouldn't be lighting a cigar in Austin, would I? No, I'd be getting in the worst car possible.
to some Aerosmith and just chilling. And what would I be prioritizing? The biggest thing I would need to do is drive to Houston and buy Aerosmith tickets, right? In fact, that is the plot of a huge movie that came out back in 1993. I had mentioned the movie Dazed and Confused on the show previously, and some of our younger listeners didn't know what I was talking about.
But it is the movie that made Matthew McConaughey famous, right? I mean, as he is today, there would be no Matthew McConaughey without that movie, right? Richard Linklater made the movie here in Austin and in Georgetown. And in that movie... It's just a stoner flick, right? It was kids in Austin getting high and riding around in their cars and just having a good time. I mean, that's what the movie is about. It doesn't even have a real story.
And this is one of the iconic roles that has been had by almost any actor, really. But for McConaughey, it was really his breakout moment when he played Wooderson. And you remember what he asked the kid who was in the back of the car while... they were riding around in Austin. Say, man, you got a joint? No, not on me, man. It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
Alright, alright, alright. So they still got plenty of pot in the movie, even though that kid didn't have any. Now, in the meantime, you know that Lieutenant Governor Patrick is on this mission to ban all THC products in Texas. He was railing about it again on the Mark Davis show in Dallas just yesterday. They're selling these products. There's no age on them because they went around the hemp law and created this synthetic cannabis, which is far stronger.
than anything you'd buy from a drug dealer. So you can go into these stores, you know, 1,000 feet from a school, kids can, and buy gummies. I saw a pack that was 750 milligrams. You can get candy bars for 100 milligrams. This is dangerous. So his proposal to ban all THC products is moving forward in the Senate, and we'll come back to that. But why am I bringing up these two things, Jeremy?
Because Patrick, who's on this anti-marijuana, anti-pot, anti-THC crusade, has now teamed up with the guy who was made famous by the Stoner movie. Matthew McConaughey. And of course it was just almost surreal to watch. state senators at the Capitol in Austin, fawn over Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson. And I would love to hear a conversation between Dan Patrick and Woody Harrelson about THC.
That would be a fun thing. I'm all for that. Yeah, I'd love to be the fly on the wall for that. But why are Woody and McConaughey, why are they at the Capitol? It's this film incentive thing that Dan Patrick has made one of his priorities. A half billion dollars every two years in government handouts for the film industry. This is a priority of a conservative leader in Texas. That seems kind of flipped upside down.
I did listen to all of this testimony the other day, and Matthew McConaughey was there talking to senators in the Senate Finance Committee. When you want to know how powerful a committee is, Jeremy? All you have to do is take a look at how elaborate the lunch is that's provided by lobbyists. You walk into the offices for Senate Finance, they've got some days a full spread, all the fajitas and whatever else from some great place.
And they're the ones who write the budget. If you want $500 million, that's who you ask. Right. And so there you had Woody and McConaughey. taken a day off from shooting a new show here in Texas. And McConaughey said they're actually making a sacrifice by doing it here in their home state. Today, Monday. It's our day off of working on a little series called Brothers. It's a family comedy that myself and Mr. Harrelson here are shooting out in Dripping Springs right now.
It's a series that we both gave back 15%. of our personal salaries to shoot here in Texas to keep us from having to go to Georgia. Now, if you had to guess what Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson's combined net worth is, Jeremy, what would be off the top of your head? Just what would you think? Well, certainly above the $15 minimum wage in some cities. Yeah, a little higher. But I'm going to say we're talking at least
$30 million, right? For the two of them, it's way higher. For the two of them, it's more like $300 million net worth for those guys. I'm in the wrong business. Well, clearly. Politics is show business for ugly people, right? Yes. That's what they always say, including us as journalists. I have the perfect face for a podcast, so I know it. I know it. I know the feeling all too well.
McConaughey, just on his own, is estimated to have a net worth at about $200 million, something like that. So forgive me if I don't cry a river over the fact that he and Harrelson are giving up 15% of their normal paycheck to shoot a show in Texas. They could just as easily go do the one in California. They could do it in California where Evan is or just go to Georgia because they have their –
incentive program. Now, Patrick and others say that Texas needs to compete with Georgia, that these other states are stepping it up and we need to do the same thing. Harrelson said that he wishes more of his work was filmed in Texas and McConaughey. said the same thing. And then McConaughey completely, and I'm sorry, this is just the truth, he completely misrepresented the opposition to government handouts for filmmakers.
It's my understanding that the rub against a film incentive in Texas is more philosophical than economical. You don't want to help a movie get made in Texas that throws rocks at Texas or Texas. Somebody wants to do that, let them go shoot in some other incentivized state like Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, or... go to malta and do it but not here i'm with you jeremy i did not selectively edit that that is all he said about the opposition to this
And as you know, covering this for a long time, and we've talked about it here on the show, you've written about this, I've written about this, the conservative opposition to film incentives isn't about whether they say nice things about Texas or not in the movies or the shows. I mean, it's much more – I mean, he's right that it's philosophical, but the conservative line on this has simply been to say it's not a proper role of government to have the state of Texas.
give tax dollars to this industry and to pick winners and losers in these situations. Now, you have some on the committee, social conservatives like Donna Campbell, who are concerned about what they show in these movies and television shows. You know, whether or not they might have some things that people might find offensive or obscene.
And she raised that during the hearing. She said, you know what, if it's going to be something where they're cursing a lot and carrying on a lot and something where there might be sexual content and things like that.
well maybe we don't want to put tax dollars into it we have the discretion and it's outlined no porn no images you couldn't say specific on language You know, if we're saying it's family friendly, Texas, it's all about Texas, yet would we allow our children in the schoolrooms to use this language?
yet it may be put on television that they're going to hear it. So if we're going to go family-friendly, then we should stay family-friendly. It doesn't mean you can't use some words. There are just a few words that are
More offensive. And I don't know about anybody else in this room, but using the words at home in front of children, they're not good. And it's not good to put them on the screen. It's not good to use taxpayer dollars for that. So given what she said, and I know a lot of conservatives feel that. Do you think, Jeremy, that Senator Campbell would agree with giving a film incentive for a film project like the one we started with, Dazed and Confused?
Which was the movie that made that guy, Matthew McConaughey, made him famous. And if you're offended by rough language, this is the part that you need to fast forward through, dear listener. But I don't think that Senator Campbell or Dan Patrick. or a lot of these other social conservatives would agree with some of the stuff that's in that movie. Go ahead, Evan. Or what McConaughey's character, who's no longer... the character's not in high school anymore, when he says that he has an interest in
Say, you're a freshman, right? Yeah. So tell me, man, how's this year's crop of freshman chicks looking? Would you gonna end up in jail sometime, really? So I know that's a fact. No, man. No, I'll tell you. That's what I love about these high school kids. Of course, that's an iconic scene, Jeremy. But the point I would make about this is, you know, It's controversial content, whether I agree with any of it or not, or who ought to see it or not. By the way, in 1993...
That was a rated R movie. I was 13 years old, so I would have just been PG-13 ready, if you will. But here's the deal. That is a movie that was put together without any kind of film incentive program. They weren't getting tax dollars for that. And so nobody like Donna Campbell could come along and say, here's what you can say in this movie and here's what you can't. And in that hearing.
Jeremy, they were talking about the idea that, you know, as the film projects would come to the state and ask for some of this money from the film incentive program, that the state would have – the government bureaucracy would have a say. in what the scripts can look like for these movies and TV shows. You know, and you have a First Amendment. I mean, you create all kinds of, you know, First Amendment and free speech issues when you get into something like this.
Yeah, absolutely. And I get, you know... You know, the idea behind it. It's always sold as, look, this is great publicity for the state. You do these incentives. You get these advertisements. People see stuff in the movie and they want to go to it. When I was in Florida and the same debate was kind of going on, they focused on, oh, look, Florida looks beautiful. It brings more tourists in there, that kind of stuff. I get that.
economic argument and you can see where mcconaughey was kind of going on that it's like look you do this incentive you get you know more money back and all this tourism and all this other stuff you know etc etc but it but you go back to that point of like This is where the left and the right actually end up agreeing at some point where when you start handing out tons of money.
Like, you know, taxpayer money, mind you, as I get better be going to something that people can say, you know, the government should have this role. Certainly, if you're listening to Abraham Lincoln, government is intended for helping those who can't help themselves. Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson do not qualify under that.
philosophy of republicanism, right? Absolutely don't, no. Yeah, it's a complete conflict. So it's really surprising to see, as a lot of states have cut back those programs. because of the pushback of corporate welfare. That's kind of how it's been framed. It's like Texas is going the other way with their Republicans. That's a surprising kind of twist to me that I'm still trying to get my head around.
Yeah, it's all about priorities. What is the government going to spend your tax dollars on? So let's look at a different example. Dan Patrick and Matthew McConaughey and the Republican senators in the state Senate, they want to give hundreds of millions of dollars to wealthy people to make movies and TV shows.
In the meantime, you covered the story in the Senate this week about how Senator Mays Middleton and other Republicans want to restrict what poor people can spend their government benefits on. And this goes into this debate about making America healthy again and all of that. What is it that they are banning for these folks when they use their SNAP benefits?
Yeah, they want to ban junk food. And what they've decided is junk food are energy drinks, sodas, candy, potato chips, corn chips, cookies. All of that would be banned from being, you know. being purchased by SNAP beneficiaries with their benefit set. They could still do it with their own money, as Mace Middleton made it clear. He's a Republican from Galveston. He said they can still spend their own money, but we shouldn't be subsidizing that. We shouldn't be buying a bag of chips.
for somebody who, when we know that chip, that bag is terrible for him. Yeah, and here's what Middelson said on the floor in response to some of the critics of this. So this bill is not about limiting personal choice. but taxpayer dollars should not subsidize unhealthy eating habits that contribute to preventable health conditions and place additional strain on Texas's health care system. Now, Mays Middleton, who was born very wealthy, his family is very wealthy, has never not had the 50 cents.
for a soda is dictating to poor people what they can spend this money on. Now, I have heard from some who say, look, the stuff is bad for you. Who cares if they restrict it because the people shouldn't be eating it anyway. But I did have eating or drinking it, but I did have.
uh one very conservative friend of mine the other day uh as this debate came up jeremy a conservative republican from houston who said, really, they're going to tell a parent who, you know what, there might be a situation where the only thing...
That's going to make that kid happy that day is the fact that they're going to get to drink a Dr. Pepper or something. And they're really going to tell them that they can't do that, that they can't buy that with this benefit. Even to some Republicans, it sounded cruel. to make that decision and make the decision for the parent. Yeah, correct. The Democrats, you know...
organize some debate against this and, and, you know, and they did it two ways. One, exactly what you're talking about. It's like, boy, you're, so you're going after, you know, parents who are kind of struggling, they're trying to make ends meet, and you're in that line trying to buy something for your kids, and you're going to have some retailer have to say, no, you can't have those chips for your son. You have to get something else. Go get some fruit.
It's just like – and look, when you're poor, you're poor. It sucks. It's like the last thing you want is the government – I know it's the government benefit. So that was their first argument. The other argument in Boris Miles, you know, the senator from Houston really kind of hammered this home. I wish I had more audio from all that, from his exchange. But one of the things he said is like, you know, the problem is that there are a lot of food deserts in the state of Texas right now.
There are places that won't take SNAP benefits in those areas. Right. And so there's a lot of people like even you have, you know, sure, there's some grocery stores out there that will take it. But in some of these urban areas and very rural areas, you don't have many offices. And as you put this restriction in place, that puts another burden on retailers. And retailers are going to have to decide, do I want to do this administrative policing of all of these products?
Do I want to have to get into this argument with somebody at the counter that their granola bar is more of a candy bar? than that you know it's like or wait wait wait those you know you know tortilla chips you know even though they have protein and you know whole grain that's bad you can't have You know, it's like, do I want to be the food police? So a lot of Miles made the case that, look, you're going to have retailers who opt not to participate in the program.
potentially expanding the food deserts in places like urban city, Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas. So you're going to have fewer options for poor people. That you say you want them to be healthy, but if they don't even have access to – if they have fewer places to go to get any food. And the best argument he made in the whole thing was, would you agree that some food is better than no food?
And I think that's kind of where we kind of got at the end of this argument, where it's just like at some point – like I understand both perspectives. Sure. And they made a case at one point. Some of the Democrats did. I think Miles was one of them. Actually, Nathan Johnson out of Dallas, he actually made the suggestion that, well, if you want people to eat healthier, maybe double the benefit.
If you go to like a farmer's market to go get food or if you go to like someplace with a lot of fresh produce. And incentivize them to go buy the good stuff then. Of course, that was not going to be an amendment on this bill. Middleton said that's not what we're doing. That's for another bill somewhere other than we're down the line. Right now, all he wants to do is stop. poor people on SNAP benefits from buying soda.
Yeah, well, and that argument from Miles, it's just not going to resonate with a guy like Mays Middleton at all, who, as I said, was born wealthy. He has never gone wanting for a meal. When he asks him, you know, is, you know, this what you call junk food, is that, you know, which is better, the junk food or no food? Middleton can't imagine a reality where there would be no food.
Right. He just always had it. I mean, you know, that would be the same for it's not all across the, you know, everybody who's a Republican. There are some people who are Republicans who have struggled. But one of my mentors in politics years ago just said, you know, when it comes to some of these folks, when they're making some of these proposals, it's just the reality that they have no idea what it's like to be poor. They've never been poor and they have no idea what that reality is like.
Back in the committee hearing a couple of weeks ago, it was Senator Perry from up in Lubbock who had made the point that We have to be careful as we're going along this way. He voted for the bill, but he said we've got to be careful on this because... Not everybody has access to that fresh food you want them to have, and not everybody has access to even a kitchen or a working stove to prepare it. And so you got to like keep that in mind when you're doing this.
People are living in ways that maybe some of us can't understand. Having that warning coming from somebody out and has a lot of rural communities in this district really kind of struck home, I thought, and it was a good warning for them to try to take into account. It's like there's things you can't see or understand in poverty if you've never been there or seen it yourself. And of course.
In the end, this bill passes the Texas Senate easily. Now it goes over to the House, and we'll see what the House does with it. So over in the house is speaking of some programs that may benefit the wealthy and things that are being sort of tipped toward the wealthy in our state. the school voucher proposal moved forward in the Public Education Committee this afternoon. Now, that is exactly what Speaker Dustin Burroughs said last week would happen.
During a news conference that Jeremy and I attended, Speaker Burroughs said, hey, it's a false choice for so many people to be arguing. that we can't fund public education and also have an ESA or school choice program at the same time. We can fully fund public education and do school choice at the same time. Let me repeat that. We can fully fund public education and provide meaningful opportunities and competition through school choice at the same time, which is why the House has been committed.
both SB 2 and HB 3 and 10. Governor Abbott said the same thing at that same event. We're going to get this across the finish line. And when we do, Texans will see that when it comes to education, it's not one or the other. It's not either public schools or school choice. We can do both.
at the very same time. Now if this proposal was so great I still come back to this idea, Jeremy, that it would stand on its own, that you could put a school choice proposal out there and you could have the House and the Senate vote on it. And it might not even be controversial if the real point was to help those people who are being denied soda benefits through the SNAP program. If you were really trying to help the kids.
who live in those homes i do think that this would be less controversial let me put it that way in fact if it was really a program maybe it would be more controversial let me let me keep thinking this through jeremy if it was really a program to just help poor kids It would have no chance in the Texas legislature. I'm going to make that assessment.
When you look at the way that the school finance legislation and the school voucher legislation has been handled, here's another question I would have. If it's so great. Why do they have a meeting about it on a Thursday afternoon? And unlike just about every other meeting about legislation at the Capitol, they don't put it on a video live stream where everybody can just watch the conversation unfold. This afternoon, the... The committee voted on both the school finance bill and the voucher bill.
But there was this back and forth at the beginning of it. And you're only going to get to hear this because I was there because there was no live stream of it. At the beginning of this deal, Representative James Tallarico is a Democrat from Williamson County. He pressed Chairman Brad Buckley.
in the public education committee about why the meeting was being held in a way that didn't provide a video stream. That's just where everybody can watch it. It's just basic stuff. It's just government transparency stuff. And again, you're only hearing this because... There were reporters in the room. and they're not able to watch this. My folks back home are
working in, if they're going to see what's happening, they need the live stream on. And there's nothing in the House of Rules, I've already checked, Mr. Chairman, that prevents us from turning on live stream. I spoke about this in private with you yesterday, so I'm not bringing this... to the dais without having gone through the steps I would not do that to you that we're about to discuss last minute changes to these multi-billion dollar bills that will change public education forever.
And we are not allowing our constituents to watch the discussion. Austin Democratic Representative Gina Hinojosa said that the way they're spending the money in the school finance bill isn't helpful to school districts. like the Austin ISD. I'm no expert at school finance, but it is always my understanding that an increase in the basic allotment is the rising tide that raises all ships.
And so to the extent we want to do right by all students, I appreciate it going up from the last sub. I think we still need more money in it. Here's the thing, Jeremy. I heard from some Republicans privately. before this meeting and during and a little after, that they're not exactly thrilled with the way all this is being handled, that things seem to be, it's being done in a way that's just not transparent, as I said.
Right now, the leadership is also not providing for the public, for those of us who are in media. And for the school superintendents, this is the more important part, for the school superintendents, the school boards around the state, They're not being given access to the data.
about what would happen under the school finance plan. And traditionally what has happened anytime there would be a school finance bill that would be debated in the legislature is there would basically be these spreadsheets that are provided for everybody that show you who the winners and losers are.
which school districts get more money under the plan, which ones get less money under the plan. And this is being done in a way where they're kind of hiding the ball on all that. We're not seeing those spreadsheets.
All of the members of the legislature haven't seen those spreadsheets. The school superintendents haven't seen the spreadsheets. If they had seen those spreadsheets, If the superintendents had seen them before this meeting today, that bill might not have passed out of the committee today because all of those representatives who are there debating this would have spent the last.
few days getting an earful from the people who run the school districts back home, right? It's almost as if, and I hesitate to go this far with it, but it's almost as if The leadership is trying to sneak a school finance bill. through the legislative process. And that's just not the way this has ever been done. And I would also say, you hear those Democrats who are objecting, and they're upset about it. A school finance bill is always one of the heaviest lifts.
at the Texas Capitol, because so much is at stake. You know, they might get sued by the school districts over it. You know, you have 6 million or so kids who are in K-12 education, and we have not had... An increase in public education spending in Texas, and I know there's some spin about this and some back and forth about it, but we haven't had a real increase. in six years since the last school finance bill passed in 2019.
And so you do have, as you pointed out, in South San Antonio and other places, some schools that are closing down, teachers are not getting pay raises. We have some consolidation of some school districts. layoffs in certain school districts and some of those layoffs happening in some very Republican areas of the state, particularly in suburban areas. And so the politics of this, I do think, as you have said,
that the governor is in better position to pass his school voucher thing at this point. It's moving through the process now. But if there's not a school finance bill, that voucher bill is dead in the water. The reality in the House. is still that those things have to move together. And that's why Dustin Burroughs, the speaker, is talking about it that way.
Yeah, absolutely. Well, and I don't think it ever, we can never stress this enough. And so if you're a poor kid in, you know, on the South side of San Antonio. You're not going to be able to get to some of these private schools that, you know, Abbott thinks that are going to benefit you, right? You're not going to get to San Antonio Christian.
uh school which is on you know way up on the uh north side off of 1604 if you live on the south side of san antonio even if you get ten thousand dollars you can't afford the tuition and the travel and to get there so it gets to this thing where it's like, this is almost thematic throughout today's, you know, episode. And if you look at my Texas Tech newsletter this week, it's all felt like a Bruce Springsteen song, you know, where they look, it's not enough that the, you know.
It's like the rich are always getting more money and the poor are taking the shot. So the parents of a poor kid on the south side of San Antonio, you don't have many private school options to use this on. they're going to be kind of left out of this thing. They're going to hope that the Catholic schools are still going to be functioning in the area that can get to those. Even those have been closing down over the years, so who knows what they'll end up getting. But it's just like...
And the Springsteen song I'm talking about is the song The Badlands. The rich man wants to be king, and the king ain't satisfied until he owns everything, right? And that's kind of what it feels like the politics are right now. It's like the wealthy are kind of like... You know, doing these things like, hey, we're going to get a...
And food stamp people, you can't buy these chips. And the rich people who already have their kids in private school, they get a coupon, a discount on the private tuition. And the poor people, they can't even buy a bag of freedom. Yeah, so if you have a kid already in the private school, you're basically going to get this chance to have a rebate on that tuition you've been paying.
Congratulations. The kid who's at the Catholic or at the private school or at the public school on the south side of San Antonio who can't afford tuition, guess what? He gets nothing. His family's getting nothing out of it. You know, it's like, you know, again, if if Abbott's, you know, and boroughs, we take them at their word, we'll get a little bit more money for their public schools. But is a couple hundred dollars.
going to really change the dynamics of what's happening in the South Side where teachers aren't paid enough. You know, it's like they're not, you know, the schools aren't getting enough money. They don't have enough resources. to do what they got to do with a harder education process. Look, it takes more money sometimes to make sure you're taking care of people who have different needs, right? You know, low income.
kids are coming to school in different ways, and you've got to address that. I know the teaching community knows that. Those who are listening to this, it's not the same as a kid coming from a McMansion coming to school. You have to do different things for somebody who may be hungry, who maybe is from a split family, who doesn't have transportation to get things, get to school easily.
It's like all that kind of stuff factors into the educational process, which is why so many teachers go, you know what? I'm going to go to Alamo Heights and take the big paycheck over there or the bigger paycheck rather than go to the South side. Whatever. It's the state of our politics at this moment. Do you remember three years ago? There were about 20 officers in Austin who clashed with some protesters. And this was in the, there were 20 officers who were indicted.
after they had clashed with protesters about two years before that, here in Austin, with these people who were protesting after the death of George Floyd. And this was a huge controversy. here in Central Texas and of course it made headlines all across the country. Nearly two years after people took to the streets following the death of George Floyd. The president of the Austin Police Association says 19
We're supremely confident in being able to defend these cases in court. And we actually hope that a judge throws them out because they're just very weak cases. Kenneth Cassaday defended the officers while accusing the Travis County District The DA pushed back against critics the day before. Our office investigates and prosecutes any person who causes harm in our community, regardless of who causes it.
That's Jose Garza, the Travis County District Attorney there. Now, that same evening, it also came out that one of the indicted officers was running for a seat. in the Texas House as a Republican candidate. We also have breaking news tonight. We know that one of the indicted officers is a political candidate, Justin Barry. Now, we won't know the names of all of the officers until they turn themselves in, but a spokesperson for Barry confirmed to us that he was named in the indictments.
Barry's currently running in the Republican primary for Texas 19th House District, representing parts of Travis County and the Hill Country. Barry's spokesperson told us, quote, We have volumes to say but can't comment until a judge takes action. Now, Officer Berry did win that primary, but he did not win a seat in the Texas House. And later... He was appointed to the state-level board that oversees police conduct in the state. And this was obviously very controversial. And in fact,
The appointment was withdrawn at one point, and then Abbott was going to push to get him back on this board, which is very important. And Senator Sarah Eckhart, the Democrat from Travis County. raised concerns about this. So she said, you know, and it's an interesting argument, Jeremy, she said, that it's not so much about Barry himself and his qualifications, and we should point out that the indictment was later dismissed,
But there were these serious allegations, and Senator Eckhart was trying to talk about her concerns over this issue during the Senate Nominations Committee. Now, the way it works is the governor makes an appointment to these boards and commissions. It's one of the most – It's one of the exercises of power of the Texas governor. But then the Senate gets to confirm the way they do in Washington, very similar to that. There's a nominations committee.
And in that nominations committee, Senator Eckhart, who is a member of that panel, she was trying to ask her Senate colleagues to take a real look. at Barry's record. And she was saying, you know, the threshold... for being on this commission might be a little different from what the threshold would be for pursuing a prosecution. But listen to how nasty it gets between Senator Eckhart.
And Senator Donna Campbell, who is chairing that committee, Campbell did not want her to keep talking about this. Officer Berry is not my constituent, but he is an Austin Police Department patrol officer. So I've been aware of Officer Berry for some time due to his now dismissed indictment for being among the officers who shot less lethal bean backgrounds into a crowd of mostly young protesters in 2020.
My 16-year-old daughter was among the protesters that day, as was a couple of her girlfriends who were also 16. She witnessed the shooting, and she was not injured. This incident alone should cause some question regarding his fitness to set the standards of conduct and training for peace officers in Texas.
So as she continues to lay out her objections, she's repeatedly interrupted by the committee chair, Senator Campbell. Although the full Senate Democratic Caucus requested the opportunity to bring Officer Berry to the committee to answer questions about his fitness.
The Lieutenant Governor informed me on Thursday that he was denying the Senate Democratic Caucus request. Senator Eckhart, we're going to go ahead. As a substitute for the nominations committee, having the opportunity to question Officer Berry. I delivered to all of your offices a packet. Senator Eckhart. Of the more than 8,000 patrol officers. Senator Eckhart, please, you've agreed. Madam Chair. No, we are ready to vote. I am a member of this committee. Senator Eckhart, thank you so much.
I am sure there are thousands of patrol officers across the state of Texas who set a better example. for law enforcement across the state. Jeremy, do you see a pattern developing in these hearings in both the House and Senate where you have the chair trying to cut off discussion or in the House not even have it live streamed out for people to be able to watch. And in this instance, the debate cut.
completely short, the senator who's running the thing says, actually, we're just going to vote now. I know you have all these concerns about this. We're just going to vote now. So later, the Senate went ahead and confirmed Barry to this commission on a vote of 21 to 10, which means that one of the. Democrats did join the Republicans to vote for Barry's confirmation. So he's on that commission now. I thought the statement from Senator Eckhart...
After the confirmation was what was interesting. What she said was, and this was in a news release, and we quoted her at quorumreport.com, Eckhart said simply that it's not so much about the specific qualifications of Barry. What she's saying is that there's a symbolic thing that Greg Abbott is doing by appointing him. which is saying that, look, you had this clash between the cops and protesters.
You had one of the cops, some of the cops get indicted. Then Abbott's going to try to put this guy on this panel that oversees police behavior in Texas. And she says, look, Abbott's sending a message. She's sending a signal to people. that if you clash with cops in Texas, it's going to be the state's position that we are going to just naturally always err on the side of the cops being right, even though we know there are times when they are wrong.
Yeah, and to the continuation of a theme, like remember, after the whole incident with George Floyd, the reaction of a lot of people in the Texas legislature, particularly among Republicans, was that, oh, these protests got out of hand. So we're going to crack down on the protesters, not do the criminal justice reforms that people thought initially was going to end up happening after that.
Instead, what ended up happening, if you remember, Abbott did sign legislation that made it a felony to block highways in which there's an emergency vehicle that needs to get through. And so you're going to get a felony potentially if you're on that highway. So you better not do that. Right. And remember, also, he took the side or he ended up pardoning the guy who ended up shooting.
you know, who had been convicted. You know, it's like, but, you know, Abbott was like, I'm going to pardon him right away. And so in each case, we've seen it over and over again with Abbott, like, you know, if it goes back to, you know, George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. or sticking with the cops, we know where he's going to be. He's been driving home this point repeatedly.
I'm not saying he's insensitive to what happened with George Floyd and what caused the reaction from the community, but he is absolutely 100% going to side with law enforcement. at all times on this, right? You know, you kind of hit it. It's like he's going to, like, this is a guy who, like, he got his, you know, when he was in high school, he got a scholarship from the Duncanville Police Department to go to school.
And so he's always had this relationship with law and order. He himself is a judge. He's been around lawyers. You can see where he's going to be on this stuff. And so like if anybody thinks there's going to be give on his part, no, no, he's going to show you that he's with the cops no matter what. And I think this appointment adds to that.
your legacy for him. Man, he's looking for that Tucker Carlson cred, right? I mean, remember, he was not going to... let that guy off the hook for shooting the protester until... You had Tucker Carlson go on a rant about this and say that – what did he say? That there's no justice in Texas, something like that. There's no law and order in Texas, that these protesters can get away with whatever they want in Texas.
And something you said is very important in there about the fact that these were, in all these cases, they were the protests against racial injustice. And it is following the death of George Floyd. And in that moment, right before these protests really got ugly and the big clashes happened between the protesters and the cops, Jeremy, don't you remember? I mean, we thought just analyzing the situation.
that Texas and the rest of the country should be on the cusp of some major reforms in the opposite direction. And then the political moment turned the other way against those protesters, against those folks who were in the street. And Governor Abbott, now President Trump. President Trump, who in his first term was one of those guys pushing for criminal justice reform. It has all gone the other way.
I mean, there was a point where Republicans and Democrats, as you said on the film incentives, there's a point where some of these very conservative and very liberal folks, they join together against something like that film incentive thing. Those same folks in a lot of ways will come together about criminal justice reform and will push for policies that have to do with only punishing people because they actually did harm to somebody and not just because you might be mad at them.
And going after these protesters this way, it seems like... you know we're just we're mad at them or a bunch of people are mad at them because they're blocking up the road and they can't be doing that and we don't agree with their position and And then you have these people arguing about reverse racism and acting like it's somehow worse to be white in America than it is to be a minority, which is completely divorced from reality. Speaking of that, all these racial tensions.
we have another immigration debate. And this has really been kind of on the back burner in a way that I might not have expected so far, this legislative session, Jeremy, but they've kind of done all the things they can do on immigration around here. in a special session that essentially says that local cops can round people up for being brown and march them back to Mexico.
Right. And of course that got caught up in the courts and then the DOJ went a different direction on that. Well, there's a new immigration crackdown that's being debated in the Texas Senate. We're focusing a bit on the Senate here. Senator Roland Gutierrez was mixing it up. with the author of this new crackdown, Senator Charles Schwertner, who is a chairman in the Senate. And what this would do, it's basically the 287G program.
where the local sheriffs have to cooperate with ICE, cooperate with the feds on immigration enforcement, and listen to Gutierrez, the Democrat. Press Senator Schwertner, the Republican, about whether they're really doing this based on data or just some dreamed up fear of the other. You're a doctor, which means your profession is based on science, correct? It's science and art, I would say, medicine is.
okay and so you you know you believe in hypothesis you study you believe in studies right studies that you read Whether it's in the medical field or just some study that you read along the way as you prepare to do your work in this building. I believe in the scientific method and hard data, yes. And so the hard data tells us that migrants actually perform or commit less crime than United States citizens. Have you read that?
through the Department of Homeland Security, over 451,000 criminal non-citizens have been booked into Texas local jails between June 1st of 2021 and February 28th of 2025. Jeremy, you've covered this stuff a lot, so you know there's a reason that he's giving raw numbers and not percentages, right? He's not really answering what...
Gutierrez was talking about. And Gutierrez said, you know what? He says, I'm just grossed out by the way that you're talking about this. I am the son of immigrants. I came here into this country with nothing. I am tired of people calling human beings criminal aliens for trespass. on a DWI, on so much more, when the vast majority of studies in this country show that migrants commit less crime.
Far less crime than U.S. citizens. And he compared this concern that Schwertner has about crimes committed by migrants, he compared that to what he said was Schwertner's complete lack of care at all. about citizens going on shooting rampages. in schools and other places. You can tell me the data nationwide, sure.
But if you want to come into this building and call them criminal atrocities, fix the atrocities that are happening in this state on mass shootings by U.S. citizens. That's not happening in this bill, is it? This bill is addressing the atrocities committed by criminal aliens through open board policies under the prior administration. We need to, as a state, be much better at identifying, detaining, prosecuting, and deporting criminal aliens from Texas and from the United States.
as quickly as possible I hope you get as impassioned Now, it is difficult to take the Texas Senate seriously as a deliberative body anymore, Jeremy. It's important what they do, and that's why we cover it. But none of those facts...
matter at all. Of course, the Senate moved forward with this. I don't know what the debate is going to be like in the House exactly, but it's starting to feel like on the immigration issue at the state level, it's starting to feel like it started to feel about abortion. maybe two sessions ago, where there just wasn't any fight left in the minority party about it. They'll make their points, like Gutierrez is making his point, but I'm almost...
It's almost something they do by rote now is just they always put a whole bunch more money into Operation Lone Star so that the governor can continue his operations down there along the border that you've covered so well. And then on bills like this. It may just sail through the house as well. I don't know that there'll be a big fight about it. Yeah, right. Even as immigration numbers drop.
it doesn't mean the issue of immigration drops in the Texas legislature, right? There's still points to be scored on this issue. Even Governor Abbott, I was at an event with him today. in which he talked about how there's just a handful of people crossing the border. But does that mean we're going to have, well, just a handful of dollars now that we're going to send to the border? It's like, no, definitely not. It's still a very important issue.
It's like you can't look like you're lightening up a bit. And so to have Schwartner's Bell, like you said, it's just at some point you're like, okay, when do we get to enough? Clearly we're not there yet. Yeah, and we're not there even though Trump's in the White House. Isn't he supposed to be fixing all this?
Remember when the little governor floated the idea that maybe they would spend a little bit less on border security? And his argument was, well, we've got Trump riding to the rescue. He's going to take care of this. But then when their base budgets came out for what they were going to spend, you know, Texas tax dollars on the border, they're not pulling that back at all. And to your point, it's because in a Republican primary, it is still the issue that inflames the base the most.
And that's the election of consequence in the state. That's what they're going to do. When I told you I was just down in Eagle Pass a couple weeks ago, and the razor wire is still there. The barriers are all there. The law enforcement is there. The National Guard is still there. Nobody is coming across right now. It's like, but all of it's still there. It's like, we can't help but keep doing it. You know, even if there's nobody coming across.
So it's like the buoy barrier is still out there. All of it's out there still. And yet no humans are trying to cross the river. Yeah, well, they'll say it's because they're there with all that stuff that nobody's coming across. Exactly. It's a downward spiral. Abbott is now being – we mentioned him. He's being accused of dragging his feet on the special election in Houston. And you saw that even though Republicans were able to win,
Those special elections – where was it? In Florida? Correct. For Congress, although the Democrats picked up that seat, that judicial race in Wisconsin. Did you see how much the margins were cut though by the Democrats in Florida? Oh, yeah. I mean they went from – Somebody sent me some numbers. This might be a little bit off, but...
Looked like 30-point Republican seats cut by 20 points. Something like that is not great as far as a trend line for the Republicans. But in the meantime, there is this open seat in Congress. based in Houston. It's the district that had just been represented recently by the late Sylvester Turner. One of the people who's running for it is the former county attorney, Christian Menefee.
By the way, that's a resign to run. As soon as you announce for something else, you're out. So he's the former county attorney. Menifee, by the way, look at what he rolled out. I think more than $200,000 in contributions in the 24 or 48 hours after he announced. And he had a long list of the endorsements you would want if you're running for...
Congress as a Democrat in Houston, right? Now, Menifee said... that he and others want to see the special election for that seat held as soon as june he was saying that it probably should have been held already and he wants to know why abbott hasn't made any announcement about it, hasn't really said anything about this. Every single day that our governor delays, the more than 750,000 people who live in this district will go without a voice in time.
It's been 24 days since this seat became vacant, since the passing of our fantastic congressman, Sylvester Turner, a dedicated public service. And still today, the AT&T congressional district does not have representation in Congress. Jeremy, let's get into it. This is just raw politics, right? I mean, in Washington, they have razor-thin margins in the U.S. House.
And the Republicans, it benefits them to just not have a Democrat around, right? And so Abbott can take as long as he wants on this as far as I understand. Oh, yeah, there's no, he does not have to fill the seat at all. He could just wait until the next election. regular election and lead the 18th without any representation. It's within his view. And the question was, you know, watching what happened in Florida, like if, you know, since the Republicans won those two seats.
They're now back up to what will be 220 members, and the Democrats are currently down to 213, if my math is correct. But the Democrats have two vacant seats remaining. One is the Sylvester Turner seat, and there's another one out in Arizona. A week after Sylvester Turner passed, a congressman out there passed. But here's where the contrast is. Arizona has a Democratic government. And Arizona's Democratic governor has already set a special election.
for that seat. Even though Sylvester Turner died the week beforehand, we still have no idea when or if Governor Greg Abbott is actually going to call a special election for this seat. And so you can see the frustration is not just with Menifee, but Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the U.S. House. he started raising the same question. He started saying that he wants to look at some legal ramifications for Abbott too because he's not moving faster.
Now, to Abbott's, you know, on his side, there's really nothing that says he has to do anything. It's like, so he has complete power. in this according to our state constitution he has all the power is in him right now decide when the seat gets filled the only thing that can make him move faster if he honestly does get concerned that the 18th Congressional District, one of the poorest districts in the entire state of Texas, goes without any representation for the next year.
Again, it kind of goes to what we were talking about before, right? you know, the rich, these two seats that were just filled out in Florida. I know these districts really well. I used to cover both of them when I was there. In fact, I know Randy Fine, who is one of the guys who went out there. It's like, these are people. These wealthier districts got their representative, but the 18th congressional district. Of a lot of minority communities with low income, they are still without somebody.
It's hard not to feel the difference here. And I just wonder how long can we go? And I want to say kudos to Sylvester Turner's staff. Right now, they are still trying to track down people's VA benefits and looking for Social Security checks and things like that. They're still doing the work as if Sylvester Turner was still there. It's just there's no vote for that district on any issue. They can't negotiate anything. As the budget starts getting debated,
Who can be there to pick up the mantle that Sylvester Turner left behind to go after making sure the EPA is still doing the work to find the contaminated soil within the 18th congressional district? That's what's missing. It's like we don't have that voice to put that pressure on them until there's a new representative, whoever it is. I don't care who it is.
And Abbott, you know, he can move as quick as he wants. Abbott in the past has bent the rules to, you know, call the special election faster if that's what he wanted to do. Do you remember when, who was it, Blake Farenthold left Congress? And Abbott moved quicker. He cited the fact that we were under a disaster declaration, not for COVID, but in the wake of a hurricane along the Gulf Coast. And so, well, you know, this.
He said it, that they have so many needs in this district. They need to have representation in Washington ASAP. And it was my understanding at that time that he was trying to move in a certain way and have it on the calendar at a certain time because he had a candidate in mind who he wanted to win the seat. And he was trying to position it such that that person could win. Guess what?
A different guy won instead. That was Michael Cloud, Congressman Cloud now, from that area down along the coast. One other thing about Abbott here, as we round out what has been... Just a perfect show here, Jeremy. You had... You were working overtime today here on Thursday. You went over to the UT Law School, and Greg Abbott was there to talk to, what, the Federalist Society? These lawyers who are generally young conservatives. The whole idea is that...
will be some of those later young judges who will then be appointed to these judgeships and just be there forever. They'd like to have these Federalist Society guys, they'd like to have them appointed to the bench. by the time they are, you know, still under 40 so that they can just be there till they're seven. And the liberals just don't have any version of that, right? What was this event today?
Well, yeah, Abbott used this event to talk about, particularly about his views of wanting strict constructionists to become judges. This is people who look at the Constitution and read what it says and sticks with it. Very Anton Scalia type members, judicial stock in the future. So that's where he started off. But what I wasn't expecting was to hear what I heard in him talking about.
I don't think he was trying to make the case, but he ended up making the case of how much Elon Musk has control and access to our top leaders in the state of Texas. Yeah, so here's the story that Abbott told to these guys at this event, and you can hear them start to laugh about how funny they think this is. that Abbott apparently, you've got to listen closely here, that Abbott apparently took a call from Musk.
while Abbott was supposed to be out on a date with his wife. I've been married for 43 years, and there's only one time a year when I dine alone with my wife. And that's on Valentine's Day. Valentine's Day a year ago, I was out dining with my wife. I said, I'm sorry, I'm going to take this phone call. This is Valentine's Day, not this year, but last year. And the call was from Iman Ra.
And he said that he's about to tell Delaware to go pound sand because of their rulings that were contrary to historical Delaware rulings on corporate law. And he wanted to know if I would have his back. Now, I have no idea if it played out exactly that way. One of the things that I have noticed here, especially since January, Jeremy, is that so many of these Republicans are almost just desperate to not only curry favor with Musk, but to make sure everybody knows that they're doing it.
And previously, when you had a billionaire, somebody who was one of the benefactors of these politicians, usually they would – they always previously would operate in the background. Nobody knows Kelsey Warren's name the way they know Elon Musk's name, right? But you don't have Abbott bragging about taking a call from Kelsey Warren while he's out on a date with his wife on Valentine's Day.
But with Musk, he's become this celebrity on the right. He is the doge guy. But it's interesting because even among Republican voters, when we've looked at some of the polling on this, The results are kind of mixed about whether Republicans really like Musk all that much. But at least in Trump world, and this gets to the real point in Trump world.
He's good as gold. And so with all of those folks, if you're Abbott, you want to appear as somebody who would even put a call from Musk above the Valentine's dinner with your wife because Musk is what's really important. Musk is the one, if Abbott was going to tweet out a picture of himself and his wife or tweet out a picture of himself with Musk, the one that would have the little pink hearts all over the picture would be the picture of him and Musk.
Well, and what struck me about this is it goes back to what you said, you know. It's not just that Elon Musk has gotten over $100 million in tax incentives from the state and local governments to move his businesses to Texas. Look, Texas has already proved that it really loves this guy. It's like it really wants him here.
On top of that, earlier this week, the Texas Senate, I had this in the Texas Take yesterday in the newsletter, earlier this week, the Texas Senate passed a law that will make it a felon. of a Tesla charging center. Any electric vehicle charging center would be affected. So if you cause any damage, even if it's a small damage, if it's like a $10 damage to it, you face a felony that could get you two years in prison.
for damaging that thing. And why is that? Well, Joan Huffman, the state senator from Houston, made the case that, look, with these protests going on, we want to send a message that we're not going to allow that kind of damage to happen in Texas. And in case anybody thought it wasn't about Elon Musk, she ends up putting out this press release later that says, hey, Elon, Texas Senate has passed a good bill for you.
It's clear we're doing it for Elon Musk. If Elon has any trouble with anything, and then toss in the fact, this hit me too, and this will be in my newsletter tomorrow, or this evening and into Friday, which is like... Remember, Ted Cruz just had Elon Musk on his podcast.
with his less interesting podcast than our podcast, of course. That's correct. But he had Elon Musk on there. But what strikes you is there's this chummy relationship that they're having in this conversation, which is fine in most instances. But remember, Elon Musk, Mr. SpaceX, You know, it's talking to Ted Cruz, the chairman of the Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over all commercial space programs in the United States of America.
And you hear this chummy conversation. Every Republican right now, and maybe even some Democrats, are so enamored at times with Elon Musk, they're just...
They're letting things go that I don't think they normally would have, right? The fact that... abbott will interrupt a valentine's dinner with his wife to take that phone call tells you how many other people would that you know if he saw calling he says i gotta take this call let me say let me let me let me say one more one more thing about that
Now, I leave open the possibility that it didn't exactly happen that way, that he called him and he kind of left the dinner with his wife or took it instead. And previously, what I said about Kelsey Warren, I bet you, well, I bet you all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket, because I'm not Kelsey Warren or Elon Musk. But I'll bet you that some of Abbott's big donors have absolutely called him when he was out with his wife and he took the call.
The difference is he doesn't go and tell that story. to a group of people, right? That would not happen. It's this constant ingratiating himself with this guy. They would do all these favors for this person. And it really – I mean it speaks to something I've talked about here on the program before, which is just the death of shame in politics. Previously, you know, of course they took big checks from all these guys. This is Texas. I had a reporter from a national media outlet call me.
last week about the school voucher issue. And I was talking to them about The big contributions that have been made to Abbott by this guy from Pennsylvania, Jeff Yass, the $10 million that Yass gave him with the idea being that Abbott's going to help him pass school vouchers in Texas. And the reporter says, well, why?
And I said, was this a real question? This is Texas. If somebody writes a check to a candidate, they take the money. I didn't even know how to answer that. But it's always been that they would take the money. and then do things for the big donor, right? But now they're bragging about doing things for the big donor.
And I think it's terrible. There are some other people who probably think that that's great. But I would say this, it's absolutely different. We're in a different era about all of that. Oh, yeah. And I think you hit on a key point. They want to show that they have a relationship with Musk. It's like I've heard Ted Cruz. I've heard Greg Abbott. I've heard legislators all talk about.
you know, Elon Musk like they're friends. You know, it's like they want people, they want... particularly Republican voters, to think that they have this connection with Elon Musk. And I get it. And that's not to take anything away from what Elon Musk has done from a business standpoint in the state of Texas.
I get it. He's bringing a lot of jobs, you know, what he's done for, you know, bringing SpaceX, you know, here, what he's done out in Bastrop, where he has like all those businesses operating, including, you know, the social media platform. the artist formal you know in his twitter you know that guy you know like he's definitely brought a lot to texas and i don't take it you know take anything away from that but we're still spending a lot of money and he has access to these folks that like
don't have. And I guess that's fine. That's the way things work. And maybe I'm just in a Springsteen kind of mood, but man. After a while, we just need like, okay, the wealthy always have access to the governor, and the poor, all you're going to get is potentially less potato chips in your life. It's like I just don't understand how –
how this Springsteen song just keeps playing out right now. You can drink some water and you might get a coupon for a private school that still won't cover the whole cost of tuition. It's life in Greg Abbott's Texas. Let's do the up and down of the week.
Each and every weekday in his newsletter, Jeremy covers the up and down of the day. It's kind of a stock market report on what's happening in politics. Who has their stock on the rise? Who has their stock going down? When the stock on the graph... Jeremy when it's going down and to the right that's not what you want so here on the show each week he does the up and down of the week who do you have for the up Jeremy well I don't really like to stick with Texans on this
But I'm going to go a little bit outside the state lines here and pick Mike Johnson. Okay, I'm going to stop you. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Yeah. This is the third time you've had Mike Johnson as the up of the week. You do it all the time. Don't give us this bullshit about how you don't. You never go outside the lines of Texas. You've given Mike Johnson. At this point, he might as well be from Texas.
The number of times you've given it to him. Yeah, Bossier City's close enough. I'll include it. But the thing is, he wins those two races in Florida that we're talking about, which gives him a seven-seat majority, which does affect Texas because now that he has that majority... there's a chance that Abbott will be under less pressure to hold that 18th congressional seat vacant. It's like, I think it's off now. Like we're...
If Abbott's going to call a special session, he probably has the flexibility to do it as long as there's no other losses. for republicans certainly if uh either one of these seats had flipped you know uh you know towards the democrats there's no way this seat would have been filled for a while you know there's
Mike Johnson needs a better, more stable majority than what he had. He can't be down to five votes and hoping that he can get through all the stuff that Trump wants him to get through. He needs these seven. All right. Where's the down of the week from? Montana or something? Yeah. Well, it's almost Wisconsin. It's almost Wisconsin. But it's going to be Elon Musk is my down because he spent... $21 million. between him and his groups to try to influence that race up in Wisconsin.
And it didn't work. The important part is that Elon Musk, even though what I just told you about how Republicans in Texas still want to be associated with them, the thing is what I think we finally saw happen in Wisconsin is Democrats were welcoming. Having this campaign that could say, this out-of-touch billionaire who wants to cut Social Security is trying to tell you how to run your state.
I think it totally turned him into something else where I think he now might become more of a political liability on the campaign trail. Republicans still want his money. Don't get me wrong. He's still going to be up with the money. But when it comes to getting on the campaign trail, watch for a lot more swing state type or battleground airs to say, no, thanks, Mr. Musk. Just send us a check.
We'll appreciate it. And they will campaign without you anywhere near the neighborhood. They'll run it that way. All right. Check out Jeremy's newsletter. It's where you find the up and down of the day each weekday. The link for that is on his X page. It's the pin post there, Jeremy S. Wallace. You can follow me as well at Scott Braddock, and you should be a subscriber at quorumreport.com and houstonchronicle.com. And we'll see you next time.