Welcome to Party Politics.

I'm Geronimo Cortina, a political science professor at the University of Houston.

And I'm Brandon Rottinghaus of Political Science professor, also here at the University of Houston.

Thanks for joining us on this episode of Party Politics.

Geronimo, I'm surprised to see you not wearing your tinfoil hat because it seems like we're being invaded by aliens.

Yeah, that's all the talk, right?

Right.

Well, I mean, No!

You're good.

Okay, well, it's because it's kind of expensive, you know, aluminum paper.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So you recycle them, do one, and then keep using it, right?

Okay.

That's the way I would do it.

I figured.

Well, you're going to have to probably get this in the Senate briefing that's coming this week, because in an unusual twist of events, we have more of these unidentified objects that are being shot down over U.S. soil.

Lawmakers have demanded answers from U.S. officials.

Basically for the fourth time in eight days, the U.S. has shot down a flying object.

This latest one, as we're recording it, was over Lake Huron, near the Canadian border.

This is an unusual series of events and we don't know what it is.

They haven't really said it.

The senators are getting a briefing to hopefully tell us it's not aliens, but they're telling us it's not aliens.

Right?

Right.

Initially they said, well, we don't know what it is.

It could be aliens.

And then they walk it back saying it's not aliens, but isn't it really aliens, though?

Because the truth is out there, you just have to kind of look for it.

It's kind of confusing.

Your logic is confusing me.

So probably there are.

There are.

Not.

Isn't that what the aliens want?

They want us to be confused, right?

Oh, okay.

Yeah, it's like that.

I cannot remember.

Aliens in the attic.

There you go.

Yeah, that's a good move.

Oh, wow.

That's a deep dove, right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Just like memory lane.

There you.

Go.

Well, China says that this basically is sort of retribution in a generic way, right?

They're saying that the U.S. has flown balloons over Chinese airspace.

U.S. has said, no, that's not happening.

So, again, it's hard to know exactly what's right.

Right.

Everything is fairly clandestine.

We know it's not aliens.

Right.

Wink, wink.

Okay.

But there are some questions about sort of what they are, what they're doing, how many there are and how many there have been.

And these are the kind of things that politically, you know, keep this sort of controversy alive.

Right.

I mean, I think the Biden administration is dealing with a lot of issues.

And to be honest, although this doesn't make them look that great, since obviously a lot of this falls on their shoulders, it seems to me like it's distracting people from other kinds of issues that they could be talking about.

So maybe this is actually a welcome kind of wag the dog scenario.

Right, right.

Right.

Wag the balloon scenario.

Yeah.

There you go.

Yeah.

No.

And it's interesting because we don't know, even if we had these things before and probably we were not paying attention because like the balloon, just let it be a now is that oh, a balloon.

Let's go and shoot it down.

It's.

They're spying on.

Us.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, I mean, we don't know anything, so we'll keep an eye on it.

We will literally watch the skies for.

Exactly that.

Because it's part of our job here, part of the service we provide here, Party Politics.

The other part of service is actually talking about politics and actors.

And interesting news this week is that Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under Donald Trump, is announce she's running for president against her former boss.

She said she wouldn't.

And, of course, now she is.

Maybe this is just the political world we live in.

But basically you've got, I think, a new cohort of people who have to grapple with Donald Trump as a candidate after he lost the election.

So there's a lot of pushback on Nikki Haley saying that, you know, she was initially presented herself as a kind of Republican who didn't want to buy Trump's what Trump was saying.

Right.

You know, in particular, you know, she had indicated that, you know, she was kind of, you know, kind of candidate, the kind of Republican that was antithetical to Donald Trump.

Right.

She was a child of immigrants.

She was of the South, kind of moderate in a way.

And now here she is kind of running for president in a world where it's very different than it was politically.

So what do you make of kind of her choices here?

Is this folly or is this bold?

Well, I think a little bit of both.

And so, first of all, I think that I'm going to use her logic and not exercise.

Okay.

So at the end, I exercise good.

So I'm going to follow that, that particular logic.

But I think it's very interesting.

She posted that in a Twitter video three and a half minutes ride, and it has a lot in three and a half minutes.

She packed a lot of stuff.

Yeah.

So to me, you know, like my first God reaction, right, was I guess kind of going back to Reagan years, right?

It's a new day in America.

You know, she kept saying it's a great day in South Carolina, taking back some of those, you know, I guess 1980s Reaganesque type of ideas in terms of conservatism, fiscal responsibility.

Let's rediscover fiscal responsibility.

Let's go back to basics.

And then, on the other hand, you know, saying I did the right thing when South Carolina's massacre in terms of the shooting in the black church happened, you know, took the Confederate flag from the Capitol and then going back and say, bad, I'm anti-woke, right?

And in the video there's a or image superimposed of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying, well, they're wrong and we're right.

So there is a lot here to unpack.

She goes after Trump, but not really.

And it's in a very subtle way.

So it's going to be interesting to see.

Right.

And obviously, she doesn't shy away from her roots.

Right.

Immigrant rules and also take in, you know, the American dream back to the forefront.

It's always been a strength of hers.

And certainly that's why she was so popular for so long.

This is going to be a tough race, there's no question.

I mean, you know, we're already here, right?

2024 is upon us.

She's the only non-Trump entrant so far.

She's the only female so far she's the only female.

That's even been discussed.

And so she may be ultimately the only female in the crowd, which is really interesting.

In fact, if you look at some of the way that she tried to generate some activity on social media, fully 60% of the ads were shown to women over 35.

So it's clear where she's trying to pin this.

But this is a very different kind of political world that she inhabits that and in that, you know, both from before.

So it's a Trump world now and these other Republicans are just living in it.

Trump controls the apparatus at the local level.

For a lot of these primaries, you've got, you know, a lot of loyalty there.

The tone of politics is very different.

The type of issues they talk about are very different.

So can she set the stage here?

Can she set the tone for the race here?

I'm not sure, because, you know, Trump has really changed everything.

Now, she's not going to be alone.

Right.

It's likely that actually fellow South Carolinian.

Is that the right way to South Carolinian?

Okay.

Caroline Carolinian.

Tim Scott's going to join.

It's possible that obviously Rand DeSantis has talked about Mike Pence has been described as being a candidate.

So there will be more people in the field.

But obviously Trump is the one kind of wild card.

True.

But I think that, you know, she might bring an interesting you know, proposal at the table to the table.

So I think that, you know, a lot of people a lot of Republicans do not like the Trump.

Yes, I teary eyed a lot of Republicans understand that we live in a diverse world.

Right.

That the world has changed that diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, so on and so forth are important, but also in terms of ideas.

Right?

So diversity of ideas are extremely important.

And she's walking.

Yes, indeed.

A very fine line between.

Yeah, you know, really, really getting on on Trump's bad side.

Yeah.

But I think that she might bring something.

Yeah.

You know to people said yeah I think this is the right way.

Yeah she's not going to be an all white man.

Yeah.

I mean, like Yeah.

From the start.

Yeah.

And she brings that part of, you know, going back to America, I'm a success story.

I'm, you know, that rosy picture of immigration that we all love.

Yeah, right.

Going back to those origins, bringing back the American dream.

And I think that she might have, you know, if she's able to thread the needle in a very, very, very careful way, I think that she might be someone that we really need to pay attention very closely.

I think so, too.

And I think for Donald Trump, the bloom is off the rose.

You've got organizations like this week who have announced that they no longer plan to back him in any way.

In fact, even like the Club for Growth has gone so far to say as they're shopping for a candidate and they want to put all their eggs in that basket.

So we don't know who that will be yet, but that's a pretty clear indication that the money is leaving Donald Trump, not that he needs it.

Right, because, you know, he's able to generate so much free money.

Right.

But like I said, you know, he kind of sets that tone.

And I think you're right, that juxtaposition is really important for her to try to promote.

But Trump takes so much oxygen out of the true.

It's a real challenge.

So we'll see.

This is obviously going to unfold in all kinds of different ways, magnificent ways, as elections always do.

So it won't be the last time we talk about that, but one thing that might be the last time we talk about is in Texas, Ken Paxton has agreed to apologize and to settle with whistleblowers.

A lawsuit that will have the state paying $3.3 million.

Some of the kind of background for this were basically that these whistleblowers had accused Ken Paxton of some illegal actions.

They were fired subsequently.

These are eight individuals, former top deputies, who accused him of bribery and abuse of office.

They essentially were either resigned or were fired and they filed suit.

And the result of that is that now there's been a settlement that the state has to pay, just keep in mind this.

Yeah, this is not something that Ken Paxton personally this is basically a lawsuit against the state as in his role as attorney general.

Right.

Right.

And now they have to pay I don't know what more there is honestly say about this.

Like, it, you know, is the case and has been the case of him.

Ken Paxton has been so, you know, like labeled with these scandals and it doesn't seem to have any real political impact.

But I mean, a little bit at 18 we talked about he got close.

In 22, his numbers weren't as good as the other statewide officials.

But this is still something that doesn't seem to resonate with people at all.

So tell me, what's happening here is this people don't care.

They don't know.

It's just a kind of drop in the bucket.

We don't necessarily worry about our attorney general engaging in illegal activities and then settling lawsuits.

What do you make of this?

Well, I mean, first of all, I would settle.

I mean, yeah, the office of State attorney general, he's going to pay that money.

Yeah.

So you're paying.

For that.

Part.

You know, it's smart for everybody to settle, frankly, but politically it means something.

Or at least it should mean something, but it never seems to.

So, I mean.

I don't know what to make of it.

You know, I think that, you know, the apology is important, right?

Because they demanded these they were called rogue employees.

Right.

But now it's I think the apology, you know, to a certain extent, admits fault one way or the other.

Yeah, perhaps not the one that has legal concept.

Right.

And perhaps the one that doesn't have, you know, consequences with voters.

Because you're right.

Yeah.

People do not care about these things.

Why?

How that's a different we can devote, you know, perhaps ten podcasts and ten episodes.

I think it's.

Going to be like like a short, limited run series.

Exactly why scandals don't matter anymore.

But exactly.

You're totally right.

Like it's just something that hasn't really impacted the office.

And I think we've talked about this before, but one of the reasons is that the attorney general's office doesn't tend to get that much publicity.

Yeah, although, of course, Ken Paxton brings a lot of publicity to it because these sorts of things happen.

Right.

Two things are important, I think, to me.

Number one, I think you're seeing some legislative pushback.

So Jeff Leach, who is the incoming chair of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee, said, you know, it's unacceptable this happening.

Right.

And so on.

Sort of clear what he means.

Exactly, except to say that using taxpayer money to pay this off as something that rubbed him the wrong way.

So you could see hearings on this.

But remember, speaking of Ronald Reagan, the 11th commandment for Reagan was thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.

So I don't know how far you're going to go, but for sure, number two, I think you're not going to see expanded powers to the office of Attorney General.

Right.

That's something that the AG is wanted politically.

He's strong and obviously in some ways impenetrable.

And so I don't think you're going to see the ledge excited to give the attorney general's office more powers until Ken Paxton's gone.

Yeah, but what true.

And the other point he's here is like, yes, the 11th commandment.

That is true.

However, you know, there is a point where these two, two, two.

All right.

And people really notice that.

Yeah.

And people, especially Republican and is like, what are we doing?

You know, and they can nod, you know, hide the sun with the finger.

So it's just something that they will need to address and they will need to address it very, very, very fast.

I like.

That.

The hide the sun with the finger.

That's good.

Yeah, that's.

Good.

You know, when you go up and just I like these, it's.

Like you're pretending it's not.

There.

Exactly, but it's very much easier.

Yeah, absolutely.

So I think that Republicans, you know, generally, you know, just, you know, I think highlights something very important is like, yeah, I'm sorry, what?

Yeah.

Why are we losing $3.3 million of taxpayer money just to settle, you know, DC donation?

Yeah.

Something that shouldn't have happened to start with.

Exactly.

Yeah.

And I mean, I think on the same lines of, you know, Republicans trying to sort of figure out their own internal way of going about things.

This week was the state of the state.

Every session the governor gives the state of the state, which is basically a kind of laundry list of things the governor would like to see happen, including items to be able to kind of jumpstart that process.

But Greg Abbott this particular year has decided not to give the speech in the chamber, which is normally where things take place.

No, Abbott did this in 2021 because of COVID, so for safety reasons he had this at a separate facility, but now COVID seems to be less of an issue.

The legislature is meeting and things are more or less on regular pace.

But the governor is still giving the speech in San Marcos, the capital of Texas is in Austin, where all the lawmakers will be.

So I think it's interesting that you've got, you know, the governor here basically ignoring the legislature.

I think it's really risky right now.

We know that the tension between the governor and the legislature is pretty high because there has been this friction where in last session the governor vetoed the funds for the legislature.

We shouldn't forget this because that really shapes the stage, I think, for this kind of difficulty.

So I think it risks like isolating the legislature from this process.

And the governor has got a pretty big to do list.

Right.

You've got to get vouchers through.

You've got to get some pretty serious social, you know, policy issues through.

That's not something the Republicans are be going to be kind of together on.

So I think that he needs to be a lot more present than he is.

And doing this speech in San Marcus where, you know, people will watch.

But I don't know how many lawmakers will necessarily watch is probably risky.

Well, I mean, certainly they're going to watch.

Right.

But, you know, they're going to do as their you know, told.

Interesting.

That's the other part.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He's like, I don't need you.

I got me.

And that's exactly.

And and to me, it's earned the the message fried is like I'm very powerful.

I'm, you know, just won reelection very strong.

I have, you know, a significant war chest that shields me against any potential political attack.

And this is what you need to be doing.

Yeah.

So again, we know that politicians, by definition, are ambitious individuals.

They want to, you know, propel their carried forward.

So I don't know if these gives them the opportunity.

Right.

To coalesce around a anti Abbott camp.

Right.

That's one.

And the other one is for those that are institute National by Institutional is Republicans and also Democrats.

Right.

It's like, wait a minute, we have a separation of powers because of a recent that's, you know, politics, American politics, 1 to 1.

Yeah.

That's how the framers thought about our government.

Yeah.

So you need to really, really, you know, take a step back and let us do our job.

Yeah.

So I think that's important.

I'm not denying that he's extremely powerful, Governor.

Yeah.

But also is you have, you know, as Spiderman said, right.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Right?

Right.

And I think that he needs to be very careful not to step over the other line because, you know, the state legislature, he's going to say, you know what, enough.

Well, everybody around Spider-Man was in danger all the time, right?

Yeah.

Like and so like, I think that's the problem he faces is that, you know, he runs a risk of making these legislators angry and he needs their help.

Like that's the way the Texas government functions.

Yeah.

I mean, not to say that they're going to take it out on him, because I think that's probably like long gone, but he's not going to get the things he wants or the things the party maybe needs.

And so that's really where things are.

And I think that's a real risk.

But I won't talk about the Democrats for just a quick second, and that is that they have the kind of obvious response to this.

They talked about the following issues gun safety, the electric tricity grid, expanding Medicaid, opposing vouchers, the assault on LGBTQ rights, highlighting the Biden-Harris record on the border, investments and infrastructure, health care, small businesses.

Do they overreach here?

My thinking is that, like, if you go for everything, you go for nothing, right?

And it's just basically a litany of things.

Also talking about how many great things Joe Biden did in a state where Joe Biden, supported by 33% of the people or whatever that terrible number is for him, seems like a bad choice.

Right.

So again, it's like there are opportunities here to be able to kind of, you know, wedge the Republicans against each other or to try to pick these popular issues that, you know, the Republicans are going to pick.

So, for instance, this stuff they didn't talk about were legalization of marijuana, abortion policy.

Yeah.

You know, even gambling.

These are things that are popular with people, but the Republicans probably won't pursue.

So I think they probably missed an opportunity here to kind of really set the stage for kind of where they're going to be in opposition to the governor.

Oh, no, absolutely.

I think you're 100% right.

I think that, you know, they need to focus on bread and butter issues.

Right.

Talk about the infrastructure.

Yeah.

You know, talk about, you know, broadband Internet in rural areas.

Talk about, you know, the issue of teachers pay.

Yeah.

And those very, very narrow issues.

Pick one, two or three.

I agree.

And focus all the energy on those.

Yeah, right.

Do an acronym or have a jingle like I don't care where it is, but like something like people remember that's like this is what they stand for because it looks to me like they sort of stand for everything that the Democratic.

Party and these are important issues, you know.

Really for sure.

And these are their core issues that they're kind of curious about.

But it's not necessarily something that's going to get you that next level, which is frankly winning elections.

And that's really what they need.

In addition to that, this week, the GOP speaker of the House state Thielen announced committees.

Some interesting things happened.

The biggest picture was about, number one, how the Education Committee was stacked with people probably who aren't necessarily that supportive of vouchers.

So that's unique.

The other is that the speaker appointed eight Democratic Chair Standing Committees and one the great Mrs. T Sinfonia Thompson to a select committee.

That's a total of nine Democratic chairs.

It means I owe you lunch because we did over under a ten, you said under.

And you're right, that's this 24%, 24% share is the lowest minority party share.

Some Republicans are crowing that they have won.

So you have a positive slate and say, you know, our push to get fewer Democratic chairs has been successful.

Okay.

They did take Dutton Dutton out of out of public education, which was, you know, going to be the kind of key committee for vouchers.

But I'm not sure that that issue really resonates with the rank and file.

Right.

I mean, certainly, like the sort of elites in the Republican Party care about who's chairing what, but most people don't care about that.

So talk about that and let me know what you think about the rest of the kind of particulars about the the committee assignments.

Well, I think I mean, obviously, Republicans had a, you know, a win if you want to see it that way.

Still, they did not win everything because, you know, there's democratic chairs during some of these issues.

For example, Harold Dunn now is in the Juvenile Justice and Family Issues Committee.

You have Joel Moody in the criminal jurisprudence, you know, Derek analysis in transportation.

So you have, you know, still, you know, Democrats having very important control of it.

And the important thing is that every piece of legislation that goes through the state House has to be buried through a committee.

Right.

And that has very, very important implications because each committee member, you know, votes on them.

But the important thing is that even if a bill is heard, the committee chairs decide if they're going to vote on it or not and if they're going to, you know, send it to the Calendars Committee or not.

So they're gatekeeper.

Exactly.

So there is a lot of power in these particular issues.

And I think that Democrats have an opportunity here in advancing some of these, you know, very narrower issues, especially, you know, talking about transportation.

Right.

Talking about, you know, juvenile justice and family issues, the foster care system.

You have also, as you said, a suffering the Thompson on the Select Committee and Youth Health and Safety is super important on this issue.

So I think there's movement and it was, you know, the spear filled trying to be like, okay, I need to walk these very fine line.

And this is what that's what.

I thought, too, is that feeling kind of, you know, gave them a little bit of what they wanted, but not everything, which is frankly the mark of a good speaker.

And he's been absolutely careful about this.

But here's something interesting that almost all of the Democrats who are given committee chair positions are Latinos.

And so obviously the Republicans have been trying to kind of increase their representation there.

And this might be that opportunity locally here.

The Elections Committee was shaken up.

BRISCOE Cain was given the Agriculture and Livestock Committee, which is exactly what you'd want if you're from Houston, right.

Replace there.

So that might be interesting.

Ryan Galen, who is a former Democrat now Republican, is going to be chair of Homeland Security, which is a pretty high profile position.

So they want to protect him as a new Republican.

Right.

But speaking of bills, let's talk about Dan Patrick's priority bills.

There's a huge array of very conservative things here, increasing the homestead exemption, parental rights in terms of school choice, banning drag shows, banning obscene books in libraries.

Ultimately, this is a clear move to the right for Patrick, especially after an election he's been more or less governing from the right and for the right for a long time, in part because he's been able to shape the Senate in a way that works for him.

So what do you make of these policy choices and the possibility that they're actually going to pass?

I mean, like it's a move to the right indeed.

Right.

It's those issues, once again, that are cultural issues.

Right.

These are very, very, you know, red meat issues that just feed a very pretty large part of the.

The rarer the better.

Right.

Exactly.

So, you know, from a policy perspective, ride, in terms of, you know, cents in terms of economic growth, in terms of the how competitive Texas is going to be in the next ten, 15, 50 years, should we be focusing on whether one book or not book is appropriate for a school?

I mean, we have librarians and librarians spend a lot of time.

Right, deciding what is and what is not appropriate for a school kid, you know, and I trust them.

Yeah, very much so.

Yeah.

They're always telling you to shush, so you respect that.

You're like, okay, well, I said, I'm being too loud.

Exactly right.

So I think, you know, it's, it's that.

Yeah.

But I don't think that eventually is, you know, the his legacy.

Right.

As a, you know, very powerful lieutenant governor as someone that could actually pave the road for you know great is Texas lieutenant governor going through history.

I think that perhaps he should focus also on other issues.

And to be fair, he has also, obviously, the electric grid, the power grids is in his big priorities and natural gas on on.

Scholarships for nurses.

I mean, there's stuff here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Instead of being in the most powerful lieutenant governor, he's being the most divisive.

And sometimes those things go hand in hand.

But it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out.

Let's talk Houston before we run out of time here.

Council member Robert Gallegos is the lone Latino on the city council.

He's running for mayor.

And interesting.

What do you make of this in a in a 15/2 soundbite?

Oh, well.

I think I think that, you know, Houston is 45% Latino.

If he's able to win, it would be historic movement.

I think he has experience.

He has been you know, he has nine years in city council.

He knows the city problems.

He knows how the city's governed from a policy perspective, I think he has a lot to bring to the table, a lot of experience.

And it would be interesting.

I mean, at the end, unfortunately, it's going to be an issue of fundraising right now.

It's easier to get your name I.D.

up than to get your money up.

It's going to be a strength test for the Latino vote, right?

Right.

It's never been as prominent.

And so he's going to test that.

And I think for the others in the race or all Democrats so far, it's going to be tough.

So we'll see how that plays out.

Yeah, we'll talk more about this.

Another very important issues next week.

Thanks for watching and listening.

Appreciate everybody here at Houston Public Media for making us look and sound so good.

I'm Jeronimo Cortina.

And I'm Brandon Rott We'll see you next week.