.jpg)
Seeing Red
The Seeing Red Podcast dives head-first into Texas politics with its hosts Garrett Fulce and Andi Turner, as they bring the facts, insights, and commentary on the issues that matter most to conservative Texans.
Our mission is simple: facts matter and an informed opinion is the key to making positive change in our great state.
Seeing Red
S001 E031 - Is The RPT Going Bankrupt?
In this episode of the Seeing Red podcast, hosts Andi Turner and Garrett Fulce discuss the current state of Texas politics, including the influx of outside spending in primary races and the financial struggles of the Republican Party of Texas. They also touch on the importance of civility in political discourse and the need for open-mindedness and respectful dialogue. The hosts address the issue of religious discrimination within the party and emphasize the importance of inclusivity and diversity. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion on the future of Texas politics.
0:02:05 Discuss the significant amount of outside spending in Texas legislative races.
0:06:09 Mention Matt Rinaldi’s lack of fundraising and reliance on big donations.
0:08:37 Express concern over potential losses in down-ballot races and the need for effective voter turnout efforts.
0:09:31 Analyze Trump’s stance on abortion and its potential impact on the election.
0:11:36 Discuss the low voter turnout among young adults and the need for engagement.
0:14:02 Civic duty is a developed habit.
0:15:40 Identity politics dominate the current political landscape.
0:16:48 Disagreements can be productive without being caustic.
0:18:28 Populist movements lack a clear underlying philosophy.
0:20:21 Persuasion requires understanding the other person’s perspective.
0:21:42 Demonstrating the impact of an issue can change perspectives.
0:23:39 Respectful dialogue is crucial, even with differing opinions.
0:25:19 Asking questions to address inconsistencies in persuasion.
0:26:10 Public debates aim to convince the audience, not the opponent.
0:26:57 Former Speaker Strauss confirms conversation about religious prerequisites for leadership.
0:28:30 Separation of church and state and the freedom of religion.
0:31:13 Political party’s freedom to set their own criteria vs. political consequences.
0:34:19 Slow incremental shifts vs. radical changes in governance.
Follow us on all socials at @theseeingredpod and online at our website Seeing Red Podcast. x.com/gwfulce
Welcome to the Seeing Red podcast with Andy Turner and Garrett Fools checking up on Texas policies and politics, with some federal issues thrown in like the assault weapons ban, interest rate hikes. You get it, but it's mostly Texas, since we can't ignore the big stuff either.
Speaker 2:And now here are your hosts, andy Turner and Garrett Foles, maybe even vacations, because some of you have children and you go on vacations. I want to tell you, want to remind you guys, that if you're on YouTube, we need you to beat the YouTube algorithm and like and subscribe. Also, if you've got comments or questions or you disagree with us, put those right there. We did that helps us in a number of ways. Algorithm helps us to know what you're thinking, what you want to hear about, what you don't want to hear about. You can find us on Facebookcom if that's your jam, facebookcom, slash the Seeing Red Pod, and you can email us H-O-S-T-S hosts at seeingredpodcastcom and, of course, as always, on Twitter at the, you know, at the seeing red pod.
Speaker 3:um, and we love to we love to hear from y'all all over youtube or um, twitter, facebook, etc. We love to hear from folks, uh, email, any way y'all can get a message to us. We'd love to get some feedback to kind of talk about what you want to hear about. So, but right now, andy, there's some stuff going on. We're kind of in this dead period between the primary and the runoff, where the runoffs are just now starting to ramp up. I saw that some of the outside spending has bought millions of dollars worth of ads against incumbent state reps. Yeah, so there's that's happening. That's kind of on the going. Every which way there's going to be another several million dollars spent on a handful of Texas ledge races.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean it's just. I mean it is and, and, and, particularly in some of these races, it is just. As I've said over and over again, it's a civil war. And now we're spending money we don't need to be spending because, oh, that person's a bad person and no, no, no, no. Either they voted the way and I say this all the time vote on the policies. If they voted on the right, your policies, the right way. If you're happy with the bills that are going through, then keep them. If they're not, get rid of them.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, I mean there's. There's just the. The financing for politics right now is is quite odd. It's not exactly who knows if it's healthy or not. There's a lot of commentary on that one way or the other. But you know there's less money, far less money is going through party apparatuses and far less money is going through candidates themselves. A lot of stuff is just going directly through outside groups um, not packs, et cetera, and you know they're they're spending millions upon millions to one way or the other, and it's on both sides. I mean there's PACs and there's groups on every which way. But it seems to me that's where most of the money is going. And what's interesting is that, like you have all of this money out there, but like the party itself once again, like according to Mark McCaig is just so far below its benchmarks from four years ago that it's just having trouble. People are spending in like handles.
Speaker 3:Reimbursements came out and hit the vice chair, dr Dana Myers, over the weekend with some report saying that she had excessive reimbursements. What's interesting about this is that, to me at least, is that the entirety of all these sessions have been held in executive session, so that other members of the SRAC I think there's five members on that committee out of 60 some odd SRAC members Right and that committee has been held in executive session so that the other members of the SRAC can't hold them accountable. No one knows what's going on. Apparently, I saw on Twitter and I'm not sure exactly the exact numbers are this committee has gone into executive session four times as much as the previous four committees had um combined, like they've basically spent the entire time in executive committee.
Speaker 3:Well, all the reports have said were that dr dana myers was sent by the chairman to actually try and go recruit and get money for the election integrity committee, so that was like the election integrity unit of the party so that we could, you know, do poll greeting or a poll watching, training, ballot integrity training, things like that all over the state.
Speaker 3:Well, we cut that. The RPT cut that at the end of last year because there was no money for it. And the reason there was no money for it was because nobody trusted the party with any money and Dr Dana Myers went and talked to donors. They said we'd love to support this but we do not trust any money that goes to the Republican Party of Texas and that was what everyone has heard, has been said across in those meetings and what everyone's heard from donors across the state when it comes to the RPT. The reason why they're going to these outside groups to fund all these primaries and anything else, but everything else is because they do not trust the leadership of the Republican Party of Texas, namely Matt Rinaldi and his cohorts on the SRAC.
Speaker 2:Well, and he wasn't raising any money anyway. He was waiting for he couldn't.
Speaker 3:He couldn't raise any money because he was so in the pocket of the Wilkes brothers, being their actual attorney for several of their companies. That's where he that's his job.
Speaker 2:So he was just waiting on. I think it was Jonathan Strickland, am I right?
Speaker 3:Yeah, strickland, which was Strickland, had the before all the controversy. With his meeting with Nick Fuentes he controlled where the political money, most of the political money for Tim Dunn and the Wilkes brothers went in Texas.
Speaker 2:I feel like I need a scorecard for all these players that are all A scorecard? Do you mean like a flow chart of yeah, like something we can put up on the screen.
Speaker 3:An infographic yeah, some people have tried. It's quite large. That's how the web of the stuff goes. It's how any large organization would look.
Speaker 2:But you know, getting back to Matt Rinaldi and his let's just say lack of fundraising, for various reasons I have gotten precious little under his leadership, asking for funding Like precious little. And having done fundraising for a major organization in the state, I can tell you if you're not asking every month, then you get what you deserve. I mean, you can go for the small dollars, you can go for the large dollars. There's different ways to do that. And the rest you know. If you're a political nerd, if you're a campaign geek watching the show, you know what those are. But he should be asking anyway, like you know, and maybe he's not bringing in. You know and maybe he's not bringing in. You know, maybe he's asking monthly and he's not bringing in. You know a hundred thousand dollars. But I mean any money is better than no money I guess, and he, he would always.
Speaker 3:He's always relied on the big donations at the last second. It looks like there's going to be some. Some people are sponsoring and paying to go to the, the convention, so that hopefully will be figured out. But, like the, the finances of the party are in just dire straits and there's like, if the democrats can organize themselves even a little bit, we're going to start seeing republicans lose down ballot races, and we could. I don't think it'll happen this year, but if it perpetuates for this cycle into the 2026 cycle, we're going to have some serious problems with the ticket um, and we could see some republicans lose statewide. If there's just not the infrastructure in place to turn out the Republican voters, you can have more voters all day long. If you're not doing the efforts to turn them out, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and you know, that's absolutely true, and that makes me think of the other day Trump came out with his stance on abortion and he said basically that what I saw was it's the will of the people, and I don't think he understands who he needs to be turning out for this race. At a minimum, he needs to turn out the base that you know, the the conservative republicans. To win, he needs the conservative republicans and the reagan republicans and moderate republicans. Um, and I feel like he didn't say anything like I feel like that's a non-comment comment I.
Speaker 3:I mean, listen, the pro-life faction, like the people who are single issueissue voters, are going to be pissed off about it. But he's also the president that appointed the judges that got us the Dobbs decision regardless, so I don't think he's going to lose too many people there. Standpoint like it's how. It doesn't differ much from what Nikki Haley was saying when her points on abortion in the primary, which doesn't work well in a primary. But Donald Trump's position now for a general election and he can't be like death penalty for people who get abortions candidate you know like that's not going to work in swing States. So I mean I haven't looked at the electoral math on who like in the the part of the voting coalition he has to win or to win those key States, but at this point it seems like I mean we lost the wave in 2022 because of Dobbs. I mean we lost the wave in 2022 because of Dobbs. 2022 should have been a bigger Republican victory.
Speaker 3:For the most part, republicans held across the board which, after redistricting and everything else, was unsurprising. We were hoping to pick up a lot more seats in Texas, but also in Congress and across the board, but also in Congress and across the board and I think that, dobbs, really that was the thing that the Democrats kindly floundered about and found that kind of turned some turned some voters out. So yeah, I don't know how relevant it's going to be in the next year. It does seem to be an issue that resonates with unmarried women and that's not necessarily a particularly large voting block.
Speaker 2:I mean, it's pretty big but like it's not, I'd have to see the demographics, like in Texas, how many of the 18 to 35-year-olds vote. I'd love to know that number.
Speaker 3:It's not high, it's, it's pretty low. Yeah, the median age is typically around 65. So Really, yeah, it's pretty, it's, it's pretty, it's pretty scary, you know it's so different than when, when?
Speaker 2:when I, when I turned 18, I could, and when I turned 18, I couldn't wait to vote. But my parents did things like, took me to the polls with them while they voted, like you know for years.
Speaker 2:And I would stand in, you know, when they have the curtains and stuff, and I would stand in there and I didn't really know what they were doing. And later on, like as I got older, they explained, as I get older, they explain, but and and my husband's family, you know very much, shows up and and votes and and so I don't really understand and like my kids, like I'm like you're busy, get a mail in ballot, like get your voice heard.
Speaker 2:So you know, and I'm like you know, I'm out here doing all this public policy work and you're not making your voice heard, and especially with my 22 year old, who knows everything, trust me, and I love her. I love her, but she's got very strict viewpoints and she's 22 and these things happen. I'm like, okay, that's great, why aren't you voting? Like if you're not voting, then you should be like shut up, like I don't want to hear it. If you're not showing up to vote, I literally went to school.
Speaker 3:I've always looked at non-voters not as people who don't care, but as people who just look at the system, say any option is fine, I don't need to have a particular opinion. I don't look at it as not being involved. I look at it as being a just approval of all the candidates that are up, and so if you have a candidate that you absolutely dislike or a candidate you like a lot more, it's going to inspire you to go vote and you know, inspire you to go vote. And you know citizenship and civic duty is a habit, it is a skill, it is a, it is something that you is developed. It isn't something that just happens one day. So I think you know we need to look at it more of a um, something that we develop. Like you said, like our parents both of our parents took us to go vote um.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and I took the kids, I took all my kids, right I remember standing in line for my mom to vote for George W Bush in 1994 and 1998 at the Lancaster High School, at the community center and then at the high school. You know, I remember.
Speaker 2:First show I cast ever was for Reagan, so you're really making me feel kind of old here. But yeah, I couldn't wait, like it was the only perk left of turning 18 and because they had changed all the drinking laws which I grandfather missed, the grandfather cut off date by like six months, which was a bummer, but um, but yeah, my, my first vote was was for ronald reagan. But yeah, and the kids aren't voting, they're're not. They're demanding all these things. Speaking of DEI, they're demanding all these things but like they're on various platforms and they're demanding these things, but you don't see them up at the Capitol en masse.
Speaker 3:You don't really see a lot of classic organizing. You see some stuff online, so we'll see how that percolates. You see it on the right and left. You just have a lot more identity politics on the left and right now. You just have a lot more identity politics on the left and right now, and it's.
Speaker 3:You know, when I was going through UT back about 15 years ago now, you know there was a ton of stuff. There was like a lot of the gender and sexuality stuff was popping up and that was pretty much the main deal. But, like on campus, I was known, not in campus, the whole campus, but among the people I knew on campus I was known as the Republican. Um, I was not there, weren't, they didn't know any other Republicans, so I was the Republican, they knew, um, and so this kind of had like these leftist bubbles that pop up and you know you got to go in there and pop it a little bit and you know you don't. But you don't have to be the turd in the punch bowl. You don't have to be an asshole. You can be. You can disagree with somebody while still being an agreeable person. And I think I think the politics of the youth right now. If you look at all the everything I'm you know, you see, if you look at everything, you see everything that makes news and everything that kind of goes viral on social media are going to be things that are caustic or just like Don't have to be a jerk, even when you disagree with somebody. You can actually change people's minds and move them on an issue if you have an agreeable affect.
Speaker 3:And I think the party has been taking too many leads from kind of this identitarian mentality because they see it working on the left. But if you look at what this faction of challengersers and I guess now they'll be incumbents I've been doing um across the board is they've been following the playbook of 70s radicals. They, if you look at it and some of them have tweeted about it on on on x they talk about a book by I don't remember who it's by, but it's called roles for radicals and um, literally kind of a playbook, for they're following the playbook to a T and they're also like really trying to like drive people's identity. They're talking about, you know, christian or American patriotic things like that.
Speaker 3:It's a little bit broader but they're still doing the same um tactics that the left has been using for the past 20 years, and when that happens, it's all wedge issues, instead of there being a couple wedge issues. You remember wedge issues. Everything is a wedge issue now, and it's all tactics and it's all about winning. There's no underlying philosophy or political ideology that I can really identify, other than just populism, and other than just they want to win for winning's sake, not just. They want to win for the betterment of the people they can say whatever they want.
Speaker 3:but they just take the verbiage of the conservative movement, they put it on top of whatever issue of the day they think is going to piss people off, and then they throw it out there.
Speaker 2:This is no longer about public service. This is no longer about discourse, this is. You know, we're throwing things at each other and this is not who I am. And, garrett, you know we sat on my back porch and disagreed about things and I still adore you and your family, like you know, we just feel differently, but I'm always happy to hear a different point of view because maybe it's something that I've never thought about I have a family member who feels very differently than you and I on a particular issue, very radically differently, and so but I sat and I listened and it took me a long time to wrap my head around like that thinking because I'd never heard it before and I still disagree, but I'm not going to be like trying to change their mind, because this, for them, is a deeply held core belief.
Speaker 3:Well, so they're much older than I am so when you, when you're looking at trying to change somebody's mind, especially somebody like if it's, if it's a big difference and it's somebody close to you, so you're somebody you want to deal with and you want to have conversations about, like where they're at, if you. But if you want to try to change anybody's mind, you have to start from a place of. Just because a piece of logic, rhetoric or whatever convinced you of a particular policy position, does not mean that that is going to be the issue or the way that that person will change their mind as well. So, basically, people tend to the way that that person will be changed their mind as well, just because. So, basically, people tend to emphasize the points that work the best for them instead of having a conversation with the person and listening to figure out what's the type of logic would work for from their point of view.
Speaker 3:Like, as an example, let's say you're, you know, wanting to talk about immigration and you know some people have a hard time and want to limit immigration because they've been in a field that ended up having a lot of people come in and from other countries quickly and a lot of jobs went to those folks because they would do it for less money. So they had a displacement and the labor a displacement effect in the labor market. So talking about somebody coming in to, um, you know, talking about immigration as a thing that can, like you know, reduce jobs, well, that might work for some folks. If you're, if you're trying to to do that, other people may have been impacted by crime. Other people may just have some sort of ideological issue about borders or whatever else. If somebody, you don't know what somebody's perspective is going to be on an issue. So if somebody is from the north, they don't have to see immigration and the impacts of it every day.
Speaker 3:Right you know, one of the things that was effective was showing them the impacts of it by busing people there.
Speaker 2:You know that really flipped the script on the whole immigration debate because people had to live with what border states had been having to been going through for the past 20 years yeah, yeah, I thought it was, I thought it was absolutely appropriate and you know, if you're a sanctuary city or you're providing certain services that these folks need that we don't provide they, they belong there, and so I absolutely agree with you. But the other problem, you know. So a couple years ago I represented a major 2A group here in Texas and we were going through permitless carry and I know I've told you this offline, but you know I would have. We had at the time 50,000 members and we were trying to get permanent carry-through. And I make, when I'm lobbying, my phone number is out there, fully out there. So I would have people call me who were members and most of them, literally 95% of them, were like yes, let's do this, let's go constitution.
Speaker 2:And I would get these phone calls from people who didn't understand the talking points and they were like I had one guy said to me I don't care what you say, I will never be for this. And in my head, like, never say this. But in my head I'm like but you're a member of the Texas State Rifle Association, so doesn't that imply that you support the second amendment? But okay, right, so, but for most of these folks I would say okay, tell me why, and I would wait, I would not interrupt them, I would let them get everything. And because you never know, somebody may have a point that you haven't thought of that either may change your mind and whether it's permitless carry or whatever we're going to be dealing with in next session or it, as was the case with these few, these precious few people that called me and were like, oh my god, there's got to be blood in the streets. And it was always the same arguments.
Speaker 2:And so I waited and I was like so I'm not here. My job is not to change your mind. My job is to represent the association's goals and that's my job. If you want to know why we're taking the position that we are, I'm whether you agree or not, I'm happy to share that with you. And most of them, like all but one, we're very happy to listen. And most of them said to me again all but one said to me I never thought about it that way and I was like look again, you do with this information what you want, because I want to hear from people. I still have people calling me over issues and I'm happy to talk about them. I don't represent that group anymore. But I'm happy to say look, I don't represent them. But if you want my opinion, here it is. But you've got to listen. You have to listen and you have to respect that, even if what somebody is saying to you is, in your opinion, not logical or not respectful.
Speaker 3:You need to be that way, you need to maintain logic, you need to find, even if it doesn't make sense to you or it doesn't seem like it's logical. You need to work back where they're coming from, to figure out where the disconnect is and see if you can explain, or see if you can get them to ask them questions about that disconnect, Because typically somebody just telling you what the right answer is or whatever, isn't going to convince anybody of anything. But if you ask them questions about the inconsistencies without calling them inconsistencies, oh, you say that everything's fine. But would you say that these things are fine? Well, no, and then they have to start explaining it. And then they all get to where it's the Socratic method have to start explaining it, and then they'll get to where it's the socratic method.
Speaker 3:You ask questions. Um, yeah, yeah, try and work through the, the, the issues, but that's, that's the main the way to do it, don't confront them on an individual basis. Now, when we're talking about politics, it's a different type of persuasion. Um, we're talking about campaigning, at the very least, it's a wholly different type of persuasion because it's not individualized, it is a broad, you know, you know it's public it's public debate.
Speaker 3:It's a different conversation we have to keep in mind. When you're publicly debating somebody, you're not trying to convince the person you're debating, you're trying to convince the people listening. That's right. You're having a conversation not so like if you you know Beto and Abbott are debating. Well, abbott's not trying to convince Beto that he's wrong and vice versa. They're trying to convince the people listening that they're right, and that's a wholly different type of situation. Story that came out in that former speaker Strauss confirmed conversations that have long been rumored, that Tim Dunn had basically told him that he did not think the only people he thought who should be in leadership were Christian, evangelical Christian. He said that that should be pretty much a prerequisite for any leadership. Speaker Strauss, if you don't know, is Jewish. There is consternation about whether or not Tim Dunn knew Strauss was Jewish when this meeting took place. This was right when Strauss was coming up. I'm not sure how much it was reported in the media at the time.
Speaker 3:So this is Tim Dunn that said this and tim dunn being the kind of the main funder of defend texas liberty, texas scorecard the same group that met with anti-semi racist nick fuentes. Yeah, so we knew this a long time ago and we just didn't, we just hadn't had it confirmed like well, it'd been reported that it had, and I think this is the first time strauss confirmed that that conversation had in fact happened I mean, go away, speak, speaking of civility, speaking of civility which we just were like no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2:You don't get to say what religion somebody has to be to hold office in the party or in in in public office. Um, you don't, you don't get to. No, no, your religion is your religion and sometimes your religion informs your opinion, on, on, on public policy. But no, no, no, no, like you don't, you don't get to determine that. That is like gosh garrett, I mean, you're better at this stuff than I am, but it does. Isn't that the very heart of separation of church and state?
Speaker 3:well, just this is a lot to the separation of church and state.
Speaker 3:When that yes it kind of kind of doesn't, but basically the government. There's two elements in the First Amendment. Well, first off, there's five elements of the First Amendment. One of those elements is the freedom of religion. But the freedom of religion has two elements. You have the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, the establishment clause being that the government shall not establish a religion. This is a national religion. That was applied to the states with the 14th Amendment. And then you have the free exercise of meaning you can practice your religion without penalty from the state. So how those two clauses have interacted kind of chafe at some people. There's been some recent wins for the free exercise clause while people who want to have more of the establishment, anti-establishment things kind of ring more true.
Speaker 3:There was a case where basically certain religious groups can't be excluded from government grant programs strictly because they're a religious organization. The original argument was there was these old laws that were anti-Catholic, that basically said, you know, catholic schools can't get any funding, and it kind of has applied it to all religious organizations. Or there was a case where the state of missouri was like helping um to pay for certain elements of, like children's playground areas and they were like doing, like. You know, the fill material to like it was softer impact, so fewer broken bones or whatever. Well, they said that a church couldn't apply for it, even though the church or a church school couldn't apply for it because it was a religious institution. Well, the church got representation and fought it in the Supreme Court and basically said we're being excluded on the basis that we are a religious organization because this is open to anyone in the state.
Speaker 3:So it's a whole kind of separation. Church of state doesn't really exist, kind of does exist. There's basically there's nothing in the constitution that says it. Um, there's just a demarcation between religious and political life, um, to a certain degree. But that said, when it comes to there's also the free association. You know freedom of association, freedom of you to freely associate with whomever you'd like or not associate with. So, if the party, which is a private entity, can, say whatever they'd like.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that's a whole other question. I mean they can do what they want, but politically, is it wise? It wouldn't go over well in my county where there's a tremendous amount of Muslim, hindu and all sorts of religions located here and there's a number of non-Christians in the Republican party, a dominant Republican party from 20 years ago where it was a white suburban Republican party, and that party exists to some degree but it's changing, the state's changing. I'm not sure how effective that strategy is going to be in the years to come.
Speaker 2:Again civility. And, by the way, anybody who was backed by Tim Dunn and Defend Texas Liberty and kept that endorsement did not like no, I don't want your endorsement. Thanks, I got no use for you. I got no use for people who hate. I know plenty of people who disagree with me on various public policy issues across the red and blue and purple spectrum, and I literally was working on a project locally and it had to do with public policy and I said no.
Speaker 2:So we represent all Republicans, like bright red to you know, right of center. So we can't have this point of view, because this pushes just that and leaves everybody else out. And the person came back to me he was a lawyer actually and said well, how would you feel if somebody came to you and said well, you know, I'm pro-gun control and I'm like I've been doing this a long time. You think I haven't run across Republicans for gun control? Oh, yes, darling, please. And especially before I got to Texas. But you know, I have actually run across people here who tell me they're Republicans but are pro gun control because they don't know, and so I just have no patience for the. You know. Oh no, you're going to do it our way or the highway. You know you're going to do it our way or the highway we need to be, and I feel like nationally, we are not civil in our debate.
Speaker 3:Well, basically it comes down to a are we trying to persuade people and try to have lasting movement change that's lasting or are we just trying to force something down people's throat? Damn the political and hope that the, if the democrats win, they won't dismantle everything? Because one system has worked for the past 30 years where we've had slow, incremental shifts, that where we haven't like just use all of our political capital at once and have not angered folks and we've been successful and shown like credibility. And then one group shows from other states where like they'll come in and they'll just black and they'll just change stuff and it kind of you start to see people lose. So I don't, I don't know which is better, but I presume that the one that we've done, that has the fastest growing or most growth, best business climate, et cetera, state for the past forever the way we've been doing it was pretty damn good. So I'm not really sure.
Speaker 3:I've never really understood what they're really fighting for, except for the fact they just want to be the people in charge, and it kind of pisses me off. But we'll see. We'll see how they govern. Um, they seem to be a group that, uh, loves to be on the outside to cause trouble, because that's kind of what their business models relies on. Um, if they have their way and they win these primaries, now they're going to be in charge of actually governing and we'll see how they do. I, I hope, I, I hope they do well, I pray they do, well I.
Speaker 3:I don't know if they'll rest the occasion.
Speaker 2:So that's all we have for you guys this week. Thank you so much for joining us. I know it's been a slow news week, Um, but as things pick up, you know well, you never say that, you never say slow news.
Speaker 3:That means it's going to change.
Speaker 2:But we need. We need to be informing people, we, but we need. We need to be informing people, you know we record this on Monday morning.
Speaker 3:with our luck, Everything will have broken by Wednesday morning and this will be just completely irrelevant. So well, but if it's.
Speaker 2:If she said slow news week, yeah, you all can blame it on me, but we have done special episodes when something's come up in the middle of week. You know, like we didn't expect it to come up, Garrett and I drop everything, and so we'll be here for you and we will let you know what the facts are, where we get the facts and what we think. So we will see you next, next Wednesday, if not before. Yeah, yeah, depending on how much of a jinx you are. So, yeah, so, depending on how much of a jinx I am on the media. But, uh, um, anyway, thank you all so much for joining us. Don't forget to follow us on facebook. Don't forget to like and subscribe on youtube. Leave us a comment. And again, if you want us to cover a topic, man, put it down. Put it down in the comments. We're, we're all about it. Thank you you so much for joining us, garrett.
Speaker 3:Yeah, thanks, Bye guys.
Speaker 2:Bye.
Speaker 1:You've been listening to the CN Red Podcast. It's always Texas politics and beyond. We present the facts and opinions the CN Red Podcast with your host, andy Turner, and Garrett Foles. Thank you and tune in next week and please do us a favor. Hit the subscribe button so you don't miss a single episode.
%20(1).JPEG)
