Staging and intervention. Welcome. to The Texas Take, the number one politics podcast in the great state for going on nine years now. 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 QuorumReport.com. Jeremy is usually in Austin with me, but today he's in San Antonio. Why were you there, Jeremy? Some kind of event going on?
Yeah, we just did a live event, you know, breaking down what happened in the legislature over these last couple of months and what's going to happen next. Yeah, I actually had Steve Allison and Cristiano Carranza on the show with me. So it was kind of a nice breakdown of where we are in the legislature.
or what's coming up ahead? Yeah, to debate things. And of course, thanks to readers and listeners who tuned in for the live event in San Antonio on Thursday. We're taping on Thursday because Evan has something more important to do on Friday. That's what he told me. He sent me an email a few days ago and said, hey, can we not do it on Friday? And honestly, it felt like manna from heaven, because sometimes when we get to Fridays, I'm spent. I'm drained.
That leads me right to what I'm going to talk about first. Of course, we're going to talk about the latest on vouchers, and there might be some bipartisan agreement on making some changes to make kids healthier, and all these things are important. But I have to start with almost a point of personal privilege here.
affect what goes on at the Texas Capitol. Jeremy, you know that relationships are very important in politics, right? I mean, it's probably the most important thing when you're trying to get things done, right? Yeah, it's not what you know, it's who you know a lot of the time. Who you know and whether you like them or dislike them. And even if it's someone you like, they might be annoying you. And I hate to use that word about this, but it's a moment of truth telling.
And maybe taking a little bit of responsibility for something as well. Now, I mentioned that a lot of times when it gets to a Friday afternoon, people are tired. They're sick of, you know, working on whatever they're working on. But a lot of times on a Friday, we have a lot of listeners like this, by the way, who are still working when the show.
is published on Friday nights sometimes. And people will turn on the show to figure out what's going on that week while they finish up their work for the week. And we really appreciate it, of course. So we're glad to be there for you as you head into your weekends.
But two Fridays ago, Senator Paul Bettencourt, who I've known for about, I don't know, 20 years or so at this point, Jeremy, he was the tax assessor collector in Harris County years ago when I was working at KTRH Radio. And Bettencourt had a moment of levity in a hearing. And we told folks about it two weeks ago here on the show. He started doing a Trump impersonation. And at the Texas Capitol, people started in the last few days calling it the Benton Trump phenomenon.
That he is on and on doing this Trump impersonation. It started out, I thought it was going to be a one-time thing. And this is why maybe I have some responsibility for this, because when he first did it, I said to him, as I said, I've known him a long time. I said, Uncle Paul. That's not a bad Trump impersonation.
Because it's not bad. I mean, you're going to hear it right here. Remember what happened, Jeremy. They were talking in the Senate Finance Committee about the Texas Department of Emergency Management and the chief of what they call TDEM was there, Chief Nim Kidd, and Senator Betancourt's talking to him. And he slipped into this Trump impersonation. To my knowledge, it's the first time that he did it. We have a best in class.
operation and madam chair i would just you know i may not know what i think of fema but i know what i think of teedham and you know teedham and them kid did like they're the best they're the greatest they're the wonderfulness Was that an impersonation? Nothing. Nothing. Thank you, Senator.
It's Friday. Don't do that to me. Right. It's a long week. It's a little humor. Right. The chair, Senator Huffman, said it's been a day, right? It's a Friday. And you hear Betancourt say it's been a long week. So they just want to have a moment of levity. Have you ever heard Shane Gillis, the comedian, do his impersonation of Trump, Jeremy? Before today, had you heard it? No, not before today. In my estimation...
It's one of the best. And I'm just going to let people hear this as just a point of comparison. All right. And I think that when this Trump impersonation went viral. online. It's been seen millions and millions of times. I think the performance where Shane Gillis first did this was a show that I was at at the Majestic Theater in San Antonio in your hometown. And Gillis was, and he's just a historical guy. I think I have this right. He was one of the guys who was kind of too hot for SNL.
He was one of the guys who was on that show and maybe was a little too controversial. There is some rough language here. I'll warn people about that. It's just incredible, though. Here's Shane Gillis doing his Trump impersonation. He's talking about... Something that actually happened, which was the head of a terrorist group was assassinated by the United States, taken down. And then he does his version of Trump's speech that night. The night the United States killed the leader of ISIS, Trump.
comes out of the Situation Room at like midnight in the White House, and he walks down that fucking tunnel, like he's, and gives a press conference, like he's giving a post-game NBA, just-killing-a-guy press conference. He walks up in front of the entire world at midnight and just goes, Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi is dead. He died like a dog. That's all him, dudes.
I didn't change one word of that. That's what he opened with. Trump's exact words there. Now, this is probably the best part, or at least my favorite part, about Trump just mocking the guy who had been killed. Abu! We can hear him crying, I said, Abu, don't cry. Let me tell you something, Abu cried, he cried quite a bit. I wouldn't have cried. Crybaby Baghdadi, that's what we were all calling.
Back to Betancourt now. He was on the Senate floor and he was praising the longevity of the dean of the Texas Senate, Judith Safarini, the senator from Laredo. They call her Z. at the Capitol. It was her birthday recently. And they were celebrating the fact that she has taken so many consecutive votes in the Texas Senate. It is a world record. It's more than 70,000 consecutive votes, maybe 72 or 73,000, something like that. So here's Betancourt. paying homage to her, paying tribute to her.
on the floor you're so far ahead at 72 000 votes it can never be equaled and not a partisan comment but it's huge it's the greatest ever it's going to be the best ever you're the the most wonderful s ever because it is a world record and it will stand the test of time. Got an honor to serve with you. Lady Z. Thank you, Senator Betancourt. Senator Zafrini just couldn't help himself.
Senator Zaffirini just kind of sat there stone-faced. I don't even know if Jeremy – I don't know if she even knew what he was doing at that moment, if she even knew that he was doing a Trump impersonation. By the way, I have seen some folks who really like Trump and people who hate Trump both do impersonations of him.
Right. So it's not even a partisan thing. And, you know, Bettencourt's a Republican. He's all in Trump's camp. And we're going to talk a little bit later about all these guys are right in Trump's camp. Right. The other day. It slipped. I thought that was it. Maybe he was going to be done with this. But the other day, it slipped out again.
As Betancourt was talking about the size and scope of the property tax relief legislation. You know, Mr. Chairman, at this time of night, we all look alike. Yeah. And, you know, he was talking about the bill that has to do with. property taxes. He said it was a record, a giant bill. The record property tax relief bill. So he's also been doing this, Jeremy, I'm told in private meetings.
in his office and elsewhere that folks have been talking to him and Betancourt will just slip into doing the Trump impersonation. And then the other day, he was at a youth summit in Houston that was hosted by Representative Mano de Ayala. And I think there were about at least 150 young Republicans in the room. And you had Betancourt there giving a speech and he slipped right into the Trump impersonation once again. And it's...
It's one of these things where I know that people want to be nice, but I've gotten so many notes from people about it. Text messages, people called me about it. These are folks who work in and around the Texas Capitol. And as I started out here...
Relationships are very important. Sometimes you can do something in a – this can be a romantic relationship, a business relationship, a political relationship, whatever. You might start doing something that annoys the people that you have otherwise good relationships with. Evan, what we might need is an intervention here with the senator. Do you have some music there? Okay. Uncle Paul.
It's time we had a heart-to-heart about what's been going on the last couple weeks. I know it started out as good fun on a Friday afternoon. Just a little bit of humor, as you said. But it may have gone too far at this point. I have heard from some of your colleagues, from staffers in the Senate and elsewhere, some of the lobbyists in Austin, and some of your constituents who think maybe...
It's enough with the Trump impersonation. And I really think that the breaking point was hit when people started to call it the Benton Trump phenomenon. So, I take a little bit of personal responsibility for this, because I encouraged it at first, and that was in good faith. But I do believe the time has come.
to retire it. Thank you all for that moment. I just needed to have that heart-to-heart with Senator Betancourt. You know, Jeremy, this is the kind of thing that you don't get on other politics shows. Have you ever heard any other show in Texas where they would just go one-on-one with the senator to let him know that this has become a problem? There's not enough help programs for our elected leaders.
to do what we're doing here. Right. You just don't hear it. You just need help. We all need a little help, and we're just providing a little help. Just a little bit of help. Right. In fact, all those other shows, they just sound the same. And I'm thinking of a lot of the TV shows around the state.
that they will do on Sunday mornings where they kind of break down what happened during the week. It's maybe their version of kind of what we do. But all of those shows, they do. They all sound the same. They kind of sound like this. From Action 5 News. It's Texas this week. Is it the end of the lottery? We'll talk about it. Teachers. Will they get a pay raise? We'll talk.
To the teachers union, you can only imagine what they might say. A politician is in hot water. We'll ask him the tough questions. It's all coming up. on Action 5 News and Texas This Week. Is there one called Texas This Week? I'm trying to think. I know there's Lone Star Politics. There's Inside Texas Politics. There's...
There's the What's Your Point crew in Houston. All these are programs that air around the state. And I do think that, Jeremy, one of the problems that we have in Texas – this is a semi-serious comment. One of the problems we have with – such a low voting state where a lot of people just don't vote, don't care about politics, is that we have one of the most insane environments for politics in the whole country.
And yet in media, for some reason, there are a lot of us who make it sound as boring as it could possibly be. And I love, you know, when all that music's playing, it's like it's this scenery going from the Red River to the Rio Grande and a picture of the Capitol and a Texas flag waving. It's always the same. It's like, OK, I get it. I get it. I get it.
Yes. This is your sign to go have brunch instead. All right. So what was going on around the state this week? The PTA was protesting outside the Capitol, chanting public money. for public schools. They're upset with this whole proposal and the big push for school vouchers.
Now, around the time that they were protesting, Texas House Public Education Chairman Brad Buckley tried to give a speech to the PTA rally. This was in downtown Austin. But it didn't go well, and you'll have to listen extra carefully here, Jeremy, because the audio isn't that great. But I do want people to get a sense of it.
what happened. And I don't remember this quite boiling over this way before, right in the chairman's face, where you had some of those PTA moms and others who, as he's trying to speak, they're just yelling at him and saying, we don't want your voucher deal. We want you to fully fund public education instead. I need everyone to be civil, please.
Now, when he started his hearing inside the Texas Capitol of the Public Education Committee, the chairman did acknowledge... the controversy as he made his opening remarks and i think this was this was either on monday or tuesday there will be bills before this committee that will be hotly debated but make no mistake
We're going to make certain that we provide the largest investment in public education in the history of this state. Now, it might just be me, Jeremy, but he sounds a lot more confident about that, about spending a whole lot more money. public education then he does sound you know really confident about passing school vouchers or ESAs listen to this we're gonna hotly debate I'm certain and talk about giving parents the power
to be the primary decision makers in their kids' education future. So you hear that. Earlier in the week, he unveiled a list of 55 supporters of his plan. Or excuse me. Sorry, 75 supporters of his plan. And 75 plus one being himself would be 76. That's a majority in the House.
And you may even count the Speaker who has said that he would support this, and if it comes down to it, he may vote on the floor. Now, the Speaker usually doesn't vote on legislation. Sometimes they do, though, so we'll keep an eye on that. But even at that, Jeremy, you know, with the – With the chairman putting out a list that technically is a majority of the House and, of course, only Republicans, that doesn't mean that it's a done deal. I mean, think of it this way. Those 76 Republicans.
support what he has drafted right now. But there's nothing to indicate that the plan will stay exactly the same as it is. As it goes through the process, there may be some changes made to that. And of course, you could either pick up more support or lose some support, depending on how the changes look. And then the other thing is that the plan that the House has is not the plan that the Senate has.
There are some things that are the same about the two, but there are some differences as well. And as I always say, there's a lot more baseball left to play on this deal. And this probably came up during your live event there in San Antonio. Did you all get into it? Yeah, absolutely. Let me break open my seventh grade Texas history book and just see how does the Texas legislature work actually? Well, let's point out the fact that even if the House were to pass this bill.
Right. It's like in the Senate has their separate bill. Oh, it turns out they have to go to a conference committee where all kinds of stuff can get thrown around. And so so Buckley's right. He has the 76 votes right now, like you said. But what's that mean down the road when we start?
kind of trading back and forth. And one of the things I think that's going to be really important in all this discussion, and it's that money for basic allotment, right? Is there going to be an increase in the basic allotment for... public schools. And right now, it's like there's some people who are saying, well, the House is actually a little bit more generous on that. It's like, yeah, they're proposing taking it from $6,160 to $63.
80. That's not much. That's not doing hardly anything. It's like, remember when the whole package exploded back in 2023, when the governor refused to accept. the increases in public education because he couldn't get his voucher bill through. When they blew that up, I think the proposed increase in the allowance was like 6,700, right? And so... What we're proposing now is not even close to that level from...
two years ago. And you're supposed to think that the public school system is going to be happy with that. And that's where you kind of get into this bigger question of like, yeah, you say the school voucher program is going to cost you a billion dollars now, but what's it going to cost in the future?
What's it going to cost 10 years from now? It's like we don't know that answer still. And then you throw all that on top of it. And we got really into this part of the problem, which is school districts around the state are struggling because they didn't get. That funding increased from two years ago. They didn't get the teacher pay raises that they were promised. They never got to them, right? And so they're also facing enrollment challenges of their own just from natural...
demographics of the state. You have school districts all over the state right now struggling with their enrollment. Houston Independent School District, we just reported on how they had a 4% drop in enrollment. That's going to come with a consequence, right? We already see it in San Antonio. The San Antonio Independent School District, they've already shut down 12 schools and more is coming. Northside Independent School District, enrollment is down. Northeast Independent School District.
It's like all these school districts around the state from Houston, Clear to Lubbock, like are having enrollment problems. And so it's created in this incredible. financial uncertainty for school districts and so when you hear the passion from the PTA people like you have to understand all of that is happening at the same time it's all in them when they're going to these rallies that's why you hear them doing these shows that's why they're yelling
at Buckley is like the schools are underfunded. The teachers are starting to leave. We have a lot of, you know, uncertified teachers in the school system. School districts are having trouble with their budgets. And then you're saying we're going to take $1 billion.
And we're going to give it to the private school instead of to the public school. Yeah. Well, in the Senate plan, it's a lot more than that, right? It's $4.6 billion they're going to give to the private schools. And I think the calculation that's being made here by Republican leadership.
is a big risk, right? I mean, to your point, the frustrations are boiling over. These folks who are either in the public school system, who work there or have their kids in the public school system, or just folks in the community who support their public school. they were already frustrated two years ago that the teachers weren't getting a pay raise and that they weren't getting any more resources from the state.
And now we've essentially had – it's not just two years. We've had four years since they put new money into public education, and it's really getting to the point where you do see this is a big difference between the House and the Senate. The Senate is really emphasizing what they're going to do on the school vouchers, the ESAs, and moving that legislation quickly. Now, they will take issue with what I just said, but in the House, you see... a much bigger and more bold statement.
about how much money they're going to put into public schools, the investment they're going to make in the public education system. When they say, we're not going to do $5 billion or $6 billion, we're going to do $8 billion. They're approaching $10 billion. Texas tax dollars to go into the school system over the next two years. And as you heard from Chairman Buckley, this was the nuance there. He was really confident about that part, about the spin, you know, they absolutely have the votes.
to spend more money on public schools. But when you look at the votes that they have for school vouchers, even though he's got that list out there, that's still the one that's more questionable. Yeah, right. And these details sound so small when we're just – as reporters, you start going through it and you can easily get lost in it. But just even the structure of how the Senate wants to give parents $10,000, right? And the house is trying to...
make it a little bit different. They want to tie it more to what schools get through the basic allotment and through the funding formulas. They want to tie it more to that, right? And one of the things they're trying to do in the house version is who gets...
that that voucher the first dib you know for the vouchers in the house bill is going to be for people of a certain income like a lower income to keep it from being just something where rich people are taking it right off and so those are all small details but those are going to be
a really big part of the debate, which kind of goes to the point that you've made a lot. And actually, Steve Allison made this point where we're talking about like, yeah, sure. There sounds like there's a lot of momentum about this thing. But he told me during our live event that it's like. That doesn't mean it's going to get through. There's still a lot to happen.
to get an agreement on these two things. And you could hear even Dustin Burroughs kind of working around it a little bit where he didn't want to talk about the differences in the two bills. He's like, I'm not going to focus on the differences. It's like, well, yeah, but that the differences is why we win.
went through two special sessions. That is exactly why 2023 was such a disaster for everybody in the Texas legislature. Sure. On some different legislation, they had differences, right? And then that's what kicked off special sessions two years ago. And I do think that and last thing I'll say on this for this episode, we'll move on to some other stuff. But I do think that on this question of school vouchers.
It may end up being that as far as the initiative gets is that there's a vote in the House and that a version of it may pass the House, and then that's it. And then the people who are advocating for it, they'll say, well, we got it further than we ever did. In a very similar way to how casino gaming gets talked about, that they had a vote on it in the House. And they'll say, well, that never happened before. I remember 10 years ago, more than 10 years ago, 2013.
there was a Senate hearing on casino gambling. And at that point, I was informed that it was the first time the Texas Senate had ever had a hearing on casino gaming. And at that time, they thought that was good enough, you know.
We've done more than we've ever done. And so we'll put a pin in this for right now and come back to it because there'll be a lot more to say about this whole fight over school funding and school vouchers going forward. Jeremy, you were saying just the other day that some of today's Republicans, in fact, a lot of them. sound a lot like some Democrats from decades ago, back in the 1930s. What were you talking about? Yeah, this kind of threw me off. I was reading a book.
I was reading a book and I see this quote that says there is only one issue in this campaign. Are you for the president or against him? And by immediately thinking to myself, wait, that sounds so much like what we're hearing from Republicans today on Donald Trump, right? But no, this was LBJ, 28-year-old Lyndon Baines Johnson, 88 –
Years ago today, this week, he was campaigning for Congress for the first time. And in order to kind of outdistance himself from the crowded field he was facing, he decided he was going to make sure there was no daylight. between him and FDR. Anything FDR said was good. Even if he was doing this illegal court packing plan on the Supreme Court that had a lot of controversy, he just went at it and said, nope.
The president's always right. And I'm reading this and like, oh my gosh, this sounds so much like what we hear now, right? We do hear some, yeah, we do hear some of this stuff on the Republican side. about Trump. Here's an example, Troy Nails, and we've talked about this specific quote from him before, Troy Nails.
Republican Congressman from Fort Bend County has basically said, look, Republicans just need to do whatever Trump says. There's no question he's a leader of our party. So now he's got a mission statement, his mission and his goals and objectives, whatever that is, we need to embrace it.
All of it. Every single word. If Donald Trump says jump three feet high and scratch your head, we all jump three feet high and scratch our heads. That's it. He went even further on the issue of tariffs, saying that it doesn't matter. what economists say, what the economic outcome would be from slapping taxes on our trading partners. Nails said that it's fine as long as Trump says that it's fine. And in fact, Jeremy, this sounds just like what you just said about
LBJ saying, oh yeah, you've got this unpopular plan from FDR on court packing. You're putting more judges on the courts who would just agree with him. But it didn't matter. He was all in for FDR. In the same way that Nails is all in for Trump. Take a listen. If Donald Trump says terrorists work, terrorists work, period. Because Donald Trump is really never wrong. Think about it. He's never wrong. Never wrong. Now, here's something I want to make clear to people. Nails is not stupid.
He's not an idiot, right? People will hear that and think – there are people who would be his detractors who would hear it and think, oh, he's a – here's what they would think, that he is a fucking idiot, right, for saying, oh, Trump's never wrong. Just think about it. Trump's never wrong. He's doing what's politically smart in his area, right? As you have pointed out before, when you had a very – at least a slightly different configuration of his congressional district, he didn't talk this way.
But now that it's such a nailed down district for the Trump folks, he's going to talk exactly that way. The danger, though, I think, it goes right to what we were talking about with FDR and that court packing deal. That was FDR's undoing. I mean, he could have been president forever maybe at that time. He was the three-term person, like a teenager.
in Texas now has never known any governor except for Greg Abbott. Back then, think about there had only been one president for the entirety of a person's life if they were a young person, you know, when FDR was around. But at some point... These guys go too far. And of course, Trump runs the risk with all the stuff that he's doing now of going way too far. And some of those Republicans are going to get, you know, drug down with him.
Well, and here's a weird lesson I took from that LBJ campaign. Remember, he's 20 years old, 28 years old, trying to distinguish himself. And just like these Republicans today, and it's not just Troy Nails like you pointed out, right? You could look – you could make the same –
Yeah, we can make the case about Wesley Hunt in Houston. We can make the case about Michael McCaul in Austin. They all make this case like why Trump is right all the time, right? But it's smart politics in a way, and LBJ shows why, right?
So not only does it help LBJ ultimately win a race that many thought he wasn't going to be able to win, right? He ends up squeaking out a victory with just 27% of the vote, completely changing Texas and America forever probably. But, you know, but beyond that... FDR, here's what he's saying. He comes to Houston, or actually to Galveston, and wants to meet with the young LBJ. And so the governor at the time, James V. Allred,
Yes, you heard that name right, Allred. That is actually, you know, Colin Allred's a descendant of James Allred. Who was Colin Allred? Yeah, Colin Allred. Who was that guy again? Never heard of him. I'm saying it for a reason. There's people who are not even going to remember that. He was a congressman from Dallas. He ran for the Senate last year, just so people know.
Yeah, well, so there it is. There's James Allred bringing LBJ to meet with FDR. And FDR takes a shine to the young lad. But it shows you, like, it really worked. FDR and LBJ had a... incredibly odd, close relationship. for a freshman member of Congress because of his undying affection of FDR that went public during his campaign, right? And you see today's Republicans kind of doing that same kind of thing, right?
enough good things about Trump, Trump will hear it. And then next thing you know, he'll bring me to one of his events to speak. You know, Wesley Hunt's a great example of it. Here's a guy who like when he first ran for the Congress, you know, in 2020, you know, before, you know, that was the year. that he was running against Lizzie Fletcher. He wasn't quite...
This kind of MAGA, right? Like he went far more Republican or more Trump on it all. And what he got out of it was Trump bringing him around the country with him at all his speaking engagements and giving him attention. Right. So it helps him run for. higher office down the road if he would like. Exactly what happened for LBJ. So again, I'm not saying LBJ is MAGA, but I'm just saying... No, I know you're not saying that.
Yeah, he started this strategy that makes a lot of sense if you want to climb the ladder for either political reasons for your own benefit and or to get big things done for Texas. I hope that's what our guys eventually are doing. Maybe not. OBJ uses that that clout with FDR to bring home essentially like.
The dams we think of around Lake Buchanan and the Buchanan Dam, the Mansfield Dam, that's all because of LBJ working with FDR to keep that money flowing, which completely changes the technology. Texas Hill Country, and downtown Austin. If you use that power, if you use that, let's say, kissing up to the president effectively, you can bring stuff home. Let's go in a different direction with it, though. The politics of the time...
I think obviously we're a little bit different. And with what LBJ was doing, let me ask this. Was LBJ kind of an outlier with what he was doing? As far as really praising FDR in that way, I'm sure there were other Democrats who were doing something similar, but he was one of the ones kind of leading the way on doing this. So I want to make a bigger point about now.
All Republicans do a version of that now with Trump, with some exceptions, right? I mean, they're all doing it. And in a certain way... I think with LBJ, as you said, sort of kissing up to FDR, he was able to leverage that to get good things done. Right now, it seems that with a lot of Republicans, there's kind of a thing that's sort of the opposite, where they're all doing it so that they don't get...
singled out and punished by Trump. And that's a big shift from what would have happened in the late 30s into the 1940s. Well, yeah, and by the way, I had all this in the newsletter earlier this week. People should really go check out that piece. It's like this is kind of the stuff I like doing, obviously, to find those little pieces of history that kind of make some sense in today's –
craziness and trying to figure out like, you know, we've been here before in some way, shape or form, but just maybe not in the way we kind of always think. And I just think this history, particularly from LBJ, you know, he represented the 10th congressional district, which is now the district that Michael McCall.
now represents. Of course, it's shaped very differently than it was back then. But it just kind of shows you that there is a reason to do this. And you hope that it's not just to get into the green room somewhere on Fox News. And, you know, like, look, LBJ certainly wanted to use it to get to higher office. You know, let's not – he's no saint here in all of this. But he did – he was effective in leveraging it also for –
Good public works project. That Navy base down in Corpus Christi has a lot to do with that relationship with LBJ and FDR at the time. I would say that someone who might be more analogous to— Lyndon Johnson now in the kissing up to Trump would be Dan Patrick. who's been able to do some things to leverage the position to be able to do some things for Texas. Greg Abbott's going to try to do some similar stuff. But I would also say this. Patrick more than Abbott on this comment.
and I think LBJ more than other Democrats of the time, would have also known when to stop doing that, right? Would have figured out that there was a certain time that they needed to do that amount of kissing up and do that amount. of, you know, really just marrying themselves as closely as possible to who's in the White House. But at some point, FDR's fortunes changed. you know, politically right, but then LBJ was still on the rise. And as I look around now at today's crop of Republicans,
I do think that because it's just about all of them, they just all do this, they all kiss up to Trump, they're all MAGA, and they're all trying to be the best version of MAGA that they can be, that there's not that much to differentiate those folks. And so it'll be interesting to see which ones.
Whenever Trump's fortunes eventually reverse and they go down, how many of those Republicans go down with him? And then how many can figure out how to be something after the MAGA stuff is over with? Because there will be a point when it's not a thing anymore. Right. And I know that when some people hear me say that, they're probably.
praying to sweet baby Jesus that that happens sooner. And then there's others who think this should go on forever, right? People are very divided about it. But I do think that it will take a very talented sort of politician, it will take a talented politician to have been MAGA. and then remake themselves as something else. Think about all these people who are at the beginning of their careers, a guy like Wes Hunt, who you mentioned.
He's a young guy. He could be around for a long time. Could be. But what if the MAGA thing passes and people in the – even in the Republican Party at some point may say, you know what? We're done with this MAGA thing. We're going to vote a different way. And then all of these people who have all of this history.
of voting a certain way and making all these comments that are all on video that everybody can show in their political campaigns. When the MAGA stuff is over, will those guys have any way to stay relevant? I think it's a big question.
Yeah, right. It's like who gets to inherit or move on from MAGA after all this is done, right? I'm just not sure. I'm not sure. Who knows what's it going to look like? And we'll start kind of getting a sense of that, I think, when we get through the first two years, right?
When he gets into year three, that's when our presidencies often turn him to lame duck sessions. And there are fewer people who are going to need him to help them out on the campaign trail. So that'll be kind of when we kind of get to it. Well, and in the two years, I want to take another point of personal privilege. I had a few people reach out after, was it last week's show?
when you had talked to Ken Martin, the new DNC chair. Interesting comments from him, and people can go back and listen to that show if they like. He had talked about it with some precision. He had talked about Texas politics, which you and I found very interesting. He was talking about... I chuckled about him saying that all they need to do is only take...
you know, 14 seats in the Texas house, only flip that many and that then they could redraw the lines. And I had said something about him, basically what I had said, and people can go back and listen to it. And of course, just like every other show, I stand by every utterance. You should see Jeremy's face right now. But I stand by everything I said. What I said was essentially that he's kind of putting the cart before the horse, right? That old phrase.
They're going to redraw the lines for Democrats even before they ever win all these seats, 14 seats. Somebody had said, well, Scott, don't you know how redistricting works? If they take the majority, then the Democrats would be able to redraw the lines. I said, OK.
And at the time, I said, I'm not going to put on a clinic about how redistricting works. But I'm just going to say this now, Jeremy, because I did get enough pushback on this that I want to make sure people understand it. Yes, if the Democrats took the majority in the Texas House.
they would get a say in what the lines look like. That's true. But there's also a Texas Senate, which would still be controlled by Republicans. And then this is something that people don't know anything about, but I'll just throw it out there. Do you know who redraws the lines if the House and Senate can't agree on the maps during the regular session? The courts. No, no, no, no. So that's – no.
So it used to be – see, no one knows this. Jeremy, who is among the most informed people, not just in Texas but on the planet, and he just laid out for you all the history of LBJ and everything in the 1930s. So tell me he doesn't know everything. He knows way more than a lot of you. No, the courts don't draw the lines if the House and Senate don't agree. There's something called the Legislative Redistricting Board.
Then the Legislative Redistricting Board meets and they draw the lines. And let me tell you who's on the Legislative Redistricting Board. It's the governor. It's the lieutenant governor, the speaker. The comptroller, it's statewide office holders and the speaker are on the legislative redistricting board. So even if the Democrats took the majority in the House, guess what would happen? It would go to the legislative redistricting board.
where only one Democrat would be on the board unless Democrats are able to win another one of those statewide offices. So just like I said last week, they wouldn't be in the majority when it comes down to nut cutting and actually drawing the lines.
People are going to look this up now and try to correct me about this. Believe me, Jeremy, that's going to happen, right? But I did think that was some pretty interesting commentary from Chairman Martin. You know, this whole thing about the tribalism that's going on. And as we've been saying, with the MAGA people, like LBJ with FDR back in the day, and the Troy Nails, and Dan Patrick with the MAGA stuff now.
Unfortunately, because of that, there are some things that should kind of just be common sense things that Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to agree on. But instead, there are those who will say, oh, that's just a Michelle Obama thing. Democrats would be attacked. for wanting to make kids healthier when it was Michelle Obama's idea, right? Now you have Trump appointing RFK Jr., which is all kinds of problems with that guy, right? And...
You can go down the list of all the issues that people have. But I have seen doctors who were interviewed, medical doctors, not fake doctors, like Greg Abbott was talking about the other day. Not fake doctors, medical doctors. have said that some of what RFK Jr. is talking about is actually right on point, especially about getting a lot of the junk out of kids' diets and stuff like that. And I would have hoped that years ago when Michelle Obama was on this tear...
about healthier living and having a White House garden and all that stuff, that everybody would just say that that's a good thing. But instead, what do you get from a lot of Republicans? Well, that's the government trying to tell us what to eat. Well, look at this. A complete turnaround. by Texas Senate Republicans on that. The same people who would have been attacking Michelle Obama are now pushing this deal to make America healthy again and make Texas healthy again. Here's the example.
And this is going to be a thing that comes out of the legislature in all likelihood. I don't know why a lot of members of the legislature would vote against this stuff. I think there are some details to be worked out for sure. But Senator Lois Cole, of course, has taken the lead on this. And here's what her legislation would do. This is, make note, Jeremy. Take note in your notebook there. Senate Bill 25. You're writing that down? Okay. He's got it. It would expand. Here we go.
You said 25, right? SB25. There you go. Write that down. Would expand the amount of time students spend in physical education, PE class, you know. And it would not allow students to be excluded from PE if they are... being disciplined, you know, like if they're in school suspension, they would still have to do some kind of physical education anyway. It would also require nutrition education for physicians and medical students.
It would establish an advisory council to study connections between processed foods and chronic diseases and mandate new label warnings if a product has ingredients that are banned by, listen to this, that are banned by Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.
Now, in another time, in another universe, I could imagine Democrats proposing that, right? Wouldn't that be maybe a liberal – wouldn't that maybe be a liberal thing? So why is Cole Kors doing this? Here's what she said. We have to do something. to really curb these chronic diseases and life expectancy. This is for our children and this is for our grandchildren.
And it's for all of us. Now, there's another piece of legislation that goes with this. It's a package, Jeremy. And the other one is, are you writing this down? It's Senate Bill 314. Get all this in your notes. Yep, yep. 314.
He's doing it. 314 would prohibit certain chemicals and dyes from being included in free and reduced school lunches. Senate Bill 379 is another bill that would prevent benefits from the from SNAP from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for being used on items considered junk food, removing items like cookies, chips, candy, and soda.
You know, I think they might be on to something with this. So when it comes to a government coupon for food, there will be restrictions for how it can be used. That sounds like... what some folks want to see on school vouchers, that if the government hands out a coupon for education, that there should be some restrictions and that there should be some accountability for that. I think Republicans who think...
that this is a good idea, keeping the junk food away from the kids. Maybe they would also, for sake of consistency, want to have some restrictions, some strings attached, if you will, for this money that's going to be handed out. for school vouchers. Now, I did hear from
Senator Boris Miles, he was speaking out during a hearing the other day, a Democrat from Houston, who said that on one of these proposals that he's all for it, for making the kids healthier, doing anything they can on that, honestly. And as I said, this is something that Democrats and Republicans may be able to.
to come together and work out details and, you know, have something that basically everybody's all on board with. Something that maybe we don't really get all the kids healthy next year, right? But that it's aspirational that we're going to work on this. You know, you're not healthier just because you don't have a cigar today. It's because you just – you don't have them every day. Not that I know anybody who does that, Jeremy. So here's what –
Our friend Senator Miles said – and this is a serious deal. He said that there's part of that legislation about the free and reduced-price lunches. in schools. He said there's part of it that might screw things up for the kids being able to get those meals. For a lot of kids in this state, that's the only hot meal they get a day. And I think we're just opening the door for possibility.
Things to go wrong with this bill. I'm all for getting healthy. I think. I think they should, you know, all the additives and the negatives should be removed from foods completely. But with this bill. All I'm saying, Madam Chair, is opening the door for some of our kids to go hungry across the state of Texas. So it is important that they do these things in a smart way, Jeremy. Go ahead.
Yeah, I remember it was just a week ago we were talking about, you know, Brooke Rollins, the new secretary of agriculture. During her confirmation hearing, she was asked about these programs, the SNAP program and the school lunch programs. Project 2025 blueprint really kind of lays out that this is one of the areas that they see.
places to reform. They think that, you know, one of the things you hear a lot when you kind of go through the process, you hear a lot of people complaining, particularly on the right, that people are using their food stamps for sugary drinks and sodas. things like that and potato chips and we got to like get that out of you know being used they don't want snap benefits used for that
For that reason. Same thing with the school lunches. And so you can see there's kind of like a lot of conversation around this now between, you know, what you're hearing on the Senate floor about this. It was coming out of Brooke Rollins. It's like this is legitimately an area where expect. to hear a lot more from republicans but like but i think you've nailed it on one key point here it's like remember like it wasn't that long ago we're not talking the olden days that michael bloomberg
was trying to do something on sodas. Remember that? Back up in New York and everybody just lampooned him for trying to reduce the size of soft drinks. You know, the Big Gulp sodas are terrible for you because they're going to give you all these calories. and they destroyed him for it but some of these same people are kind of the exact same people right yeah let's stop giving sodas to these people you know because it's bad for them it's like wait
When did you become the nanny state? Why can't people just use those SNAP benefits or however they see fit to feed their family? You know, it turns out kids aren't going to always drink milk every single meal. It's like sometimes. You know, you're going to want to get them a soda. You know, it's just like, I'm just not saying it's right for them necessarily. You know, soda is probably mostly bad for you, but...
Let's be reasonable about it. There's still going to be kids who want to get the French fries. They want to get the soda at lunch instead. To cut the BS here, the same exact people will say, oh, you're being cute with that school voucher stuff.
The same people who cannot stop saying that parents are the ones who always make the right decisions for their kids are the same ones who want to say that they can't buy soda for their kids. The same people, right? Oh, but that's tax dollars. Well, that's tax dollars. So what's your point? Oh, but the SNAP benefits, that's welfare. Okay, well, maybe I think that the vouchers are welfare, just for different people, right? It's a government benefit, right?
It's an entitlement, right? And if you start a program like that, guess what? It's not going to get smaller. It's going to get larger, as we saw already from the fiscal note. on the Senate bill about vouchers this time around. It went from a $1 billion program, and then they actually ran the numbers, and it's already turning into a $4.6 billion program within four years.
Yeah, and what happens if every kid in River Oaks and their parents decides to apply for one of those ESA scholarships, right? Do they get it? Do we give all this money to River Oaks private school kids to continue their education? Is that what's going to end up? I don't know. So yeah, it's just one of those things where I continue to struggle with that part. No consistency.
fully against like a school choice, school voucher type of program. But, you know, the way this is set up right now, I just don't see many guardrails. You know, it's like there's no guardrails that makes like, you know, schools take kids, you know, private school.
can make any decision they want. If you're not Christian enough, you don't get to go to their school. Of course. Yeah, it's just one of those things of fairness that ultimately, I don't know, I get your point. Yeah, all right. Let's wrap up here. with the up and down of the week. All right, Jeremy, you had fewer days to think about it because we are recording here on Thursday.
So if you kind of get it wrong, usually you get this stuff right. But if you kind of get it wrong, I'll say, well, all right. I mean, he didn't get that last 24 hours to really consider what the up and down of the week were. But let's start with the up. Who you got? Yeah. Yeah, it was all questionable. Like, you know, this early into a week like this, you're putting all kinds of pressure on me. But I think this one's clear.
This one is Mike Johnson. I know he's not a Texan, but the U.S. House Speaker had to wrangle his Texas wing of the Republican Party to help him get this big spending package out of Congress this week. I didn't think he was going to get it. And I think a lot of people didn't think he was going to. In fact, he said he wasn't sure he was going to get this vote done. But with Trump's help, he was able to get this thing passed. And he kept, more importantly, he kept chip.
roy at bay who clearly has some problems with what they were doing but he was cool this time like he just kind of laid back let this bill go through knowing that that's going to be time to negotiate down the road so i think i'm going to give a louisiana guy my you know up of the week just because he was able to work with the texas republicans and keep them all together i know this will be controversial but there are some east texas folks who will they'll count shreveport
as one of their neighborhoods. All right, who was the down of the week? Well, this one's just pretty obvious to me, too. It's like this one really kind of started last week. But, you know, man, I tell you what, CQ Brown, you know, that name should, you know, ring a little bit of a bell to our listeners. We talked about him. He was the chief. chiefs of staff under joe biden uh he is the top air force general before that uh and he got canned
In this DEI purge that the Pentagon is doing, led by Pete Hegseth, they wiped out CQ Brown, who is this accomplished fighter pilot who is from San Antonio. He's a Texas Tech graduate. He was so, like, even Trump world liked him. You know, Trump himself appointed him to lead the Air Force. But here it is, this decorated general gets booted out of running. the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest office a military person can be in, just gets canned.
Because Pete Hexas doesn't like the guy. To me, I think, sadly, he's the down of the week just because he's clearly, like, he got shown the door when he probably shouldn't have. Right. You could probably strike the word probably there. All right. The up and down of the week there is the condensed version of the up and down that Jeremy does every day.
In his newsletter, which you can check out on X, it's the pin post there on Jeremy's X page. And his handle is at Jeremy S. Wallace. If you want to follow me, you can at Scott Braddock. You should be a subscriber to quorum report.com and Houston. Chronicle.com and we'll see you next time.