What Kind Of Leader Will Texas Send To Washington?

Hot Topic Bold Talk | Texas Senate Election

 

When voters evaluate candidates for high office, campaign slogans often obscure the fundamental question of how leaders actually exercise authority. As the Texas Senate Election approaches, examining the public records, moral philosophies, and ethical histories of competing candidates becomes vital for accountable citizenship. Host Dr. Jackalyn Rainosek takes an in-depth, reflective look at State Representative James Talarico and Attorney General Ken Paxton. From classroom teaching and legislative priorities to high-profile impeachment proceedings and travel investigations, this episode contrasts two starkly different visions of faith, power, and public service. Explore what public leadership truly demands when political advertising is stripped away and character is put under the microscope.

Episode Summary Points:

  • The Core Election Context: The episode examines the 2026 U.S. Senate race in Texas between State Representative James Talarico and Attorney General Ken Paxton, focusing on leadership, character, and public trust.
  • James Talarico’s Background & Priorities: Talarico’s background as a former Title I middle school teacher and state legislator informs his legislative focus on education, healthcare, childcare, and working-class affordability.
  • Faith and Pluralism: Talarico integrates his Christian faith with public service while strictly defending the constitutional separation of church and state to protect all religious traditions and beliefs.
  • The “Christian X-Ray” Framework: Citing David French’s analysis, the episode emphasizes evaluating politicians by their conduct and character rather than succumbing to partisan tribalism and moral inconsistency.
  • Ken Paxton’s Record & Impeachment: Paxton’s tenure as Attorney General is reviewed alongside his conservative legal battles, his 2023 impeachment by a Republican-controlled House, and his subsequent acquittal by the Senate.
  • Legal and Travel Scrutiny: The discussion highlights Paxton’s securities fraud pre-trial agreement and a recent Associated Press investigation documenting extensive travel and millions in taxpayer-funded security costs.
  • Church-State Boundaries in Schools: Paxton’s promotion of prayer in public schools is contrasted with constitutional protections, raising critical questions about government favoritism toward specific religious traditions.
  • The Power of the Voter: The episode concludes by urging citizens to look past super PAC spending, political advertising, and party labels to evaluate candidates based on their actual public records and leadership qualities.

—

Watch the episode here

 

 

Listen to the podcast here

 

What Kind Of Leader Will Texas Send To Washington?

James Talarico, Ken Paxton, Faith, Character, Power, And The Future Of Public Trust

Evaluating Leadership And The Texas Senate Race

I want us to talk about what leader Texas will send to Washington. We’re going to talk about James Talarico, Ken Paxton, fate, character power, and the future of public trust. Now, there are elections about taxes. There are always elections about health care. There are elections about immigration, schools, war, abortion, energy, jobs, and the economy. Occasionally, there is an election that forces every one of us to think much deeper.

What do we believe leadership should be? Is the question we need to ask ourselves as we look at the senate race and Texas, but it’s true for any state that is voting on a senator. I believe the 2026 United States election in Texas gives us an opportunity. James Talarico and Ken Paxton are asking Texas for the same job. They are asking us to send one of them to the United States Senate. They come from the same state. They both served in the Texas government and they’ve done that for a number of years. They both speak about faith.

They both say they want to protect working Texans. They both say they understand the value of this state. Yet when we look beneath those similarities, two very different records emerge. Two different approaches to government, ways of talking about fate, understanding of political power, histories of accountability, and two different visions of public service and what that means. I want us to look at the differences. I want us to look at the facts, their actions, and records rather than advertisements.

I specially want us to consider something I have spent much of my professional life teaching about, which is leadership. What do people do with power? What does it tell about them? Who are they as leaders? Campaign speeches can tell us what they want to believe. Political advertisements tell us that someone with enough money wants us to remember what they said. Leadership records tell us what people did have after they were given authority.

In this episode, I want to start there. Before James Talarico became a legislator, he was a teacher. He taught language arts in a Title I middle school on the west side of San Antonio. That matters to me. I have worked with people and organizations throughout my professional life, and I know that our experiences shape what we notice. Someone who sits with frightened parents may notice things another person misses.

 

Hot Topic Bold Talk | Texas Senate Election

 

Someone who has worked with employees struggling financially may see economic policies differently from someone who has never worried about paying rent. Someone who has taught children in poverty may hear the words education budget differently from someone who has encountered those words only on a spreadsheet. Talarico has written about watching his students struggle against poverty and circumstances far beyond their control.

He has also told a deeply personal story about his own childhood. His mother was a preacher’s daughter from Laredo. Talarico says that his birth father’s drinking led to violence. He remembers the night his mother gathered their belongings, put them in a Ford Escort and took them away. They temporarily stayed at the hotel where she worked until they could find a small apartment of their own. Think about what a child learns during an experience like that.

A child learns that financial security matters, that safe housing matters, that the courage of one adult can completely change another person’s life, and a child learns what vulnerability feels like. Years later, the child becomes a teacher, then a state legislator, then a candidate for the United States. That does not automatically tell us what kind of senator Talarico would be. It does give us important context for understanding the priority as he says have shaped his public life.

 

Someone who has taught children in poverty may hear the words education budget differently from someone who has encountered those words only on a spreadsheet.

 

When Talarico first ran for Texas House in 2018, he won a district where Donald Trump had carried it years before. In his own account of that election, Talarico says he ran to represent working people like his mother and the children he had taught. Again, campaign language is one thing. The next question is more important. What happened after he won? Did education disappear once the campaign was over? Did working families disappear? Did children disappear? According to reporting on his legislative career, they did not.

Talarico has worked on legislation involving education, childcare, mental-health support, prescription-drug costs and workforce development. His record has included schools and setting limits on prekindergarten class sizes. That is where I want us to begin judging elected officials. Not with what they promised before election day. With what they worked on after election day. What did you do when voters gave you power? What legislation did you write? What problems did you spend your time trying to solve? Who appeared in your priorities? Who disappeared? Those are much more revealing questions.

James Talarico’s Background, Faith, And Legislative Record

James Talarico is unusual. He’s a contemporary democrat who has a lot of respect for his religion. He talks constantly and openly about Christianity. He is studying at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He discusses Scripture. He talks about Jesus. He speaks about prophets. He challenges Christian nationalism and he does something particularly interesting. He separates faith or having faith from using government to impose faith on others. That distinction becomes one of the most defining questions of this election.

TIME’s profile of Talarico describes a man who speaks openly from Christian belief while also defending a pluralistic America containing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, people of other religious traditions and people with no religious belief. That position asks us to consider something fundamental. Religious freedom cannot mean freedom only for the religious majority. Freedom that belongs only to the majority is not much of freedom.

 

Religious freedom cannot mean freedom only for the religious majority. Freedom that belongs only to the majority is not much of freedom.

 

The real test comes when we encounter somebody whose belief is different from ours. Do they have the same freedom? That is the American question and that is the constitutional question. In an article, I read about Talarico. It said, “On biblical grounds.” It’s an important thing to look at since it’s part of his political philosophy. I think it tells us something essential about his political philosophy. Talarico argues that politicians have corrupted Christianity when they use religion to preserve political power and the financial influence of billionaire and corporate interests.

He invokes the story of Jesus overturning the table of the money changers. He moves to healthcare. He says in essence that when Jesus healed sick people, he always connected it to biblical teachings to support his universal healthcare, then he went to hunger. When Jesus fed hungry people, Talarico connects that teaching to a society in which no children should not go to bed hungry, then he talks about corruption. He invokes the Hebrew prophets who confronted rulers and powerful people and connects that tradition to challenging corruption in contemporary government.

People of faith can disagree with those interpretations. They do. Christian theology has never been politically uniform. Yet look at what this does to a conservative American. It challenges the idea that Christianity naturally belongs to one political ideology. It does not. Christian conservatives may derive policy conclusions from their faith. Christian liberals may derive different policy conclusions from the same Scriptures. There is a tremendously important distinction between saying, “My faith informs how I serve,” rather than saying, “My faith gives the government the authority to tell you what to believe.” These are not the same.

The “Christian X-Ray”: Character, Ethics, And Political Tribalism

David French has an excellent article called James Talarico Is a Christian X-Ray. The title alone stopped me. A Christian X-Ray? What does that mean? French is not simply saying that Talarico is Christian. He is asking what Talarico reveals about American Christianity itself. French comes from the conservative Christian tradition. His essay is therefore especially interesting as an argument occurring based on what he’s describing inside Christianity and what’s happening. It’s not merely an outside critique of conservative religion because he has come from a conservative background

French explores three concepts. Orthodoxy, believing he has the right belief. Orthopraxy, right conduct. Orthocardia, a right heart. I want a politician who has a faith that can give him the right heart. Suddenly, politics becomes uncomfortable when we talk about those three things. We know how to ask someone whether they agree with us or not. We know how to ask whether someone supports our preferred policies. We know how to ask whether someone belongs to a party.

 

We sometimes become remarkably forgiving when misconduct comes from someone whose policies we support, and extraordinarily moral when the same behavior appears in someone from a different party.

 

The harder questions are difficult and different. How does this person behave? It is a question we need to ask. How does this part of his treat somebody who cannot help advance their career? How does this person speak about opponents? How does this person respond and challenge? How does this person respond to temptation? What happens when doing the ethical thing carries a personal cost? What happens when admitting a mistake could cause votes? What happens when truth and politically advantageous collide?

Those questions are much harder to understand than things that are put on bumper stickers. They may also tell us far more about their leadership. French leads us toward uncomfortable exercise. Imagine taking away the names of the political leaders. Take away the D and the R. Take away the red and blue. Take away MAGA. Take away progressive, liberal, or conservative. Now read only the behavior. Would we evaluate it differently?

That may be one of the most serious moral problems in contemporary American politics. Can we read their behavior? We sometimes become remarkably forgiving when misconduct comes from someone whose policies we support. We become extraordinarily moral when the same behavior appears in someone from a different party. This is not moral consistency. When we become morally upset when a behavior appears and someone of the offset party, we cannot be morally consistent. When we allow someone, our own party does the same. What I named this is tribalism.

Examining Ken Paxton’s Record, Impeachment, And Legal Controversies

Perhaps the real Christian X-ray is not aimed only at politicians. Perhaps it is aimed at you and me. Can we apply one standard? Can we tell the truth when the facts hurt our own side? Can we acknowledge something good in a political opponent? Can we recognize something wrong in somebody we support? That is where moral courage starts. Let’s talk about Ken Paxton. Ken Paxton has been one of the most powerful politicians in Texas for years.

He became Attorney General in 2015. His supporters see him as a fighter. They point to his lawsuits against democratic. They point to his lawsuits against democratic presidential administrations, his advocacy for conservative causes, his positions on abortion and immigration, his support of Donald Trump and his aggressive defense of Texas sovereignty, which I have a different view of Texas sovereignty from his. Those are legitimate parts of his record and help explain his support among conservative voters.

There is another part of his record, and that record deserves examination. In May 2023, the Texas House voted to impeach Ken Paxton. The vote was 121 to 23. Let us understand something. This was not a Democratic-controlled Texas House. It was majorly controlled by the Republicans. More than 70% of Republican members voted to impeach their own Republican attorney general. The articles included allegations of bribery, abuse of office, misuse of government authority and assistance allegedly provided to Austin developer and political donor, Nate Paul.

Those allegations were serious enough for an overwhelmingly Republican House to suspend Paxton and send the matter to the Senate then came the trial. The Texas Senate acquitted him, but we all know how things like that happen in the republican party. Every one of the sixteen articles considered failed to receive 21 required for conviction. Only two Republican senators voted to convict on any article. Paxton’s defense argued that the allegations rested on circumstantial evidence, misdirection and improper political process.

Paxton described the entire impeachment as a political attack. If we’re going to discuss integrity, we have to see whether the person practices it. We can’t say that Paxton was convicted. He was not. We cannot say he was impeached because he was not removed. We can say that the Republican controlled Texas house impeached him 121 to 23. We can say that the Texas Senate acquitted him on every article he considered. These two facts exist simultaneously. You, as a voter, get to decide what significance they carry.

 

Moral courage starts when we can apply one standard: telling the truth when facts hurt our own side, and acknowledging good in a political opponent.

 

We go to Paxton’s security fraud case. It’s another part of Paxton’s story. In 2015, a grand jury indicted him on securities related felony charges. Now, those can be criminal charges for securities fraud. The Texas Tribune reported that two securities fraud charges carried potential sentences up to 99 years, while another registration-related charge carried a potential sentence of up to ten years. Eventually, the matter ended through a pre-trial agreement in 2024.

Paxton did not plead guilty. He was not convicted. Under the agreement, he’s required to reform community service, complete legal ethics, education and pay roughly $271,000 in restitution. Remember, he’s a lawyer in this state. The legal Institute said, “You have to look at legal ethics, education. You have to take it.” Legal experts interviewed by the Texas Tribune noted that cases of this type are often handled through civil rather than criminal enforcement and said, “Seeking incarceration.”

For Paxton, in such circumstances, was usually unusual. That context is important though and still, we are left with another legitimate public question. What should Texans expect of a person serving as the state chief legal officer with this history? This is an attorney general. It is the highest-ranking lawyer in the state government. Should ethical questions carry particular significance in that office? I would say yes. That is a question Texans are entitled to consider.

Now, as the senate election approaches, we have another issue that’s emerged. On October 1st, the Associated Press published an extensive investigation into Paxton’s travel. The AP examined his calendars and travel patterns during his time as attorney general. According to its reports, Paxton took more than 275 out of the state trips during his tenure. The AP also found approximately 730 weekdays on official calendars without scheduled State business. The investigation estimated that taxpayer funded security connected to his travel has caused at least $1.9 million since 2015.

Now, I want to be precise again. An input calendar is not proof that someone’s not working. Travel does not prove misconduct. An attorney general requires security and statewide officials travel. Those facts matter too. Yet $1.9 million in taxpayers supported security costs is not a significant number. I think it is. Not only that, 275 out of state trips and 730 weekdays with no stated business appearing on the official calendar.

Religious Freedom, Public Schools, And Government Overreach

I’ll return to my leadership question. What do taxpayers have the right to know about how an elected official uses public time and public resources? We’re not talking about his personal life. We’re talking about requiring Paxton to be accountable for what he did or didn’t do. Now, we’ve reached what I consider to be a profound difference between the two candidates. Both speak about Christianity. Their approach in the relationship between Christianity and government is not the same.

Texas enacted legislation permitting public school districts to establish periods for prayer and reading religious texts. Paxton then publicly encouraged schools to use a particular version of the Lord’s Prayer. Critics argued that this moved beyond protecting private religious expression toward government preference for a particular Christian tradition. It’s moving from protecting private religious expression toward government preference for a particular Christian tradition.

Paxton and supporters tried to frame it as restoring and protecting religious liberty. That is where the phrase that I read in an article speaks to me. He said in this article by an excellent writer, “The quiet part has now come out loud.” In other words, this was the plan all along to establish his preference with no recognition that all faiths are protected under the first amendment of the constitution. The concern was that a measure presented as religiously neutral then through Paxton’s own advocacy points specifically toward his Christian practice.

Let’s ask something. What happens to the Jewish child, the Muslim child, the Hindu child, the Buddhist child, the Christian child from a denomination that uses a different prayer tradition? What happens to the child whose parents are atheists? Public schools belong to every one of them. That does not mean religion must disappear from people’s lives. It means the government has a special obligation not to determine whose religion is favored. That principle protects everyone, including Christians.

Talarico offers a different religious argument. He argues that his Christian beliefs can guide what he does without becoming the beliefs the government imposes on someone else. Think about how important that distinction is. Faith can inspire public service. Faith can moderate. Faith can motivate care for the poor. Faith can shape more reasoning. Faith can inspire resistance to corruption. Faith can teach compassion. Faith can call a politician to accountability. The constitutional government still must protect the person standing next to us.

His faith is different. That is not hostility toward Christianity. It is part of what allows Christianity to remain free. The government is powerful enough to impose your religion today. It’s also powerful enough to impose somebody else’s religion tomorrow. That is exactly the kind of power that is addressed in the First Amendment of our constitution designed to constrain such actions.

 

The government is powerful enough to impose your religion today, and it is powerful enough to impose someone else’s religion tomorrow.

 

I want to return to Talarico’s Biblical ground message. He takes healthcare out of the language of spreadsheets and puts it into moral language. He connects healing with the Christian obligation to care for people who are sick. That universal healthcare is a political policy. People can argue about how they’re going to finance. If they can argue about private insurance, they can argue about taxes, Medicare, and government administrations. Those are legitimate political debates.

Yet underneath them is a fundamental question. What obligations does a wealthy society have when one of its members becomes ill? That question matters. Help policies sometimes become abstract. They are only talked about in premiums, deductions and networks. Somebody gets cancer or somebody’s child develops diabetes. Someone cannot afford insulin. Someone delays an examination after finding a lump. Someone decides between medication and rent. Suddenly, healthcare policy is no longer theoretical. It becomes human. That is where Talarico places his argument for healthcare.

Children and hunger. Talarico does the same thing with hunger. He invokes Jesus feeding people then he asks what that teaching means in a country where children still experience food insecurity. I was shocked at the meeting that happened. Texas has the largest percentage of poverty written and where children are hungry than any other state in the United States. Again, we can disagree about the policy. Obviously, SNAP was eliminated because Republicans had power.

It means school meals for those kids that couldn’t afford them. We can talk about tax credits. We can talk about charitable programs, and State versus Federal responsibility. All legitimate debates. The moral question remains, though, should a child in the wealthiest nation in the world go to sleep hungry? My answer is no. The next answer becomes, what are we going to and what will we be willing to do to make certain that doesn’t happen? That is the space where values become policy.

Big Money, Super PACs, And Their Impact On Democracy

Let’s look at the money, the Millionaires and the United States Senate. There’s a staggering dimension of money that’s happening in this election. Talarico has repeatedly attacked the role of billionaires and corporate interests in the American government. He says he has not accepted corporate PAC money and presents that decision as part of his argument that wealthy interests exercise too much political influence. His own campaign communication describes his political purpose as taking power back for working people.

I read again about an individual who’s spent a billion dollars trying to influence the political system in America. I think you know who that is. Let’s look at what is happening in this race. The Associated Press stated that Republicans have poured more than $100 million in supporting tax in Pakistan as national attention intensifies around the Texas contest. Other current reports have documented an even larger wave of outside expenses. I’m going to talk about that in a minute in more detail.

We’re talking about amounts of money that an ordinary voter cannot comprehend. Imagine what $100 million dollars would be. Imagine it being spent on not only schools, mental health services, housing, healthcare, and infrastructure. It’s being spent on political persuasion. That is legal political spending. We still have to ask ourselves, what does this level of money do to democracy? Who gets heard? Who gets drowned out? How much does repetition shape what people eventually accept as truth? When an outside source spends enormous amounts to elect a candidate, what does that group expect from political power?

These are not Republican questions or Democratic questions. They are democracy questions. How is the money affecting her democracy? There is a big difference between campaign money and a candidate’s own committee. The distinction is this. A candidate’s campaign and an outside super PAC are not the same thing. A super PAC can spend enormous amounts independently to help elect someone without legally coordinating that spending with the candidate. That is why this statement such as, “Candidate X receives $100 million,” can be misleading.

Sometimes the candidate did not receive the money. The money was spent independently on advertising or other activities designed to influence the election. There’s a much larger reality. Whoever pays for an advertisement determines the message people hear and a democracy works best when citizens recognize persuasion for what it is. Do not ask only, “What does this advertisement say?” Don’t ask that question. We need to ask, “Who paid for the advertisement? What evidence does support this? What has been omitted? What emotion is it trying to produce these questions that may make us better citizens?”

Character is extremely important even in politics. I know there’s a belief in politics that character and policy can somehow be separated completely. I do not believe in leadership. It does not work that way. I’ve worked in organizational development long enough to see how the character of leadership moves through an institution. When leaders lie, people learn that truth is optional. When leaders retaliate against criticism, people learn to remain silent. When leaders refuse accountability, people believe and learn that accountability is for weak people.

When leaders accept responsibilities, something different happens. People begin to trust. They trust the organizations. They trust the public institutions and institutions depend on trust. A government cannot function forever without citizens that trust what is going on. Courts cannot function if nobody trusts judges. Elections cannot function if losing candidates automatically declare the process fraudulent. Public health agencies cannot function if citizens assume scientists are manipulating evidence. Journalism cannot function if every unwelcome comment is considered fake. Democracy rests on institutions. Institutions rest partly on public trust and leaders either strengthen that trust or they damage it.

I think it reveals something. When you give somebody authority, let’s watch what happens. They may be one of the simplest leadership tests I know. Some people become so responsible when given power. Some become less responsible. Some listen more carefully. Some stop listing altogether and some welcome criticism and some punish it. Some surround themselves with independent thinkers, with people who tell them what they want to hear and some understand public office as stewardship and some begin to treat it as ownership.

Power, Institutional Trust, And Healthy Disagreement

Some began to treat it as ownership and think that that is okay. That is the question I want Texans to ask when they examine Talarico and Paxton. Not simply, what do they promise? Ask what happens and what happened the last time they were given power. That is where the record matters. There is a big disagreement. There’s another aspect of leadership that I care deeply about. Can we disagree without destroying one another? Now, those of you that have followed on the topic, know that I am intentionally creating conversation with people who do not share my political views.

The two men that I have on my show are both conservatives and I’m a liberal. Richard Wilson and I don’t always agree. I don’t always agree with Nigel Lakey and they don’t agree with me. Yet we can sit down together. We talk and ask questions. We learn. We sometimes change how we understand an issue. I laughed to myself because I had some attitudes about Reagan and now that I’ve talked with Nigel Lakey so many times and read extensively, I have some different people now.

I can see what was happening in that era. It’s important we ask each other questions and sometimes change, as I said. We sometimes finish the conversation, still having questions and the relationship remains. That’s what matters to me. I do not want an America where every conservative was told every liberal is evil. I do not want an America where every liberal is told, every conservative is evil. We cannot build a country like that.

The people we disagree with are still our neighbors. They still have children. They still worried about money. They still get sick. They still grieve. They love people. They still want safety. They still want meaningful lives. Democracy is not the absence of disagreement. Democracy is the system through which people who disagree remain citizens together. That is the enormous difference.

There is something else we also need to ask about religious leadership. If a politician invokes Christianity, then perhaps Christians have an additional responsibility. Do not merely listen to the Scripture the politician quotes. Watch what the politician is doing. If someone talks about Jesus and humiliates vulnerable people, examine the contradiction. If someone talks about morality and treats ethical rules as inconvenience, examine the contradiction. If someone talks about family and does not demonstrate responsibility toward family, examine that could predict the contradiction.

Comparing Candidate Records And Responsibilities For The U.S. Senate

If someone talks about truth and repeatedly spreads falsehoods, examine the contradiction and apply the same rules to the politician. You like as well as the one that you dislike. Moral standards that are applied only to our opponents are political weapons. Moral standards that are applied to ourselves and to each politician no matter what party they’re in becomes principal. Please know the United States Senate is not a small job. Consider what we as Texans are deciding. A United States Senator votes on federal judges.

A senator votes on Supreme Court nominees. A senator helps determine Federal taxation. A senator votes on war, healthcare, immigration, on funding for education, defense scientific research and infrastructure. A senator participates in oversight of presidents and federal agencies. A senator can serve for decades. This is an enormous amount of authority. Asking difficult questions about the people seeking this office is not negative politics. It is responsible citizenship.

Let’s look at the two records. Let’s bring them together. James Talarico, former public-school teacher, Texas legislator, presbyterian seminarian, legislative work involves education, children, health and workforce development. A campaign focused heavily on affordability, healthcare, children and working families. An explicit critique of corporate and billionaire political influence. A religious argument centered on service while defending constitutional religious pluralism.

 

Democracy is not the absence of disagreement. Democracy is the system through which people who disagree remain citizens together.

 

Now let’s talk about Ken Paxton. Texas legislator, and attorney general since 2015. A national conservative figure known for litigation against Democratic presidential administrations and federal policies. A strong advocate of Donald Trump. An advocate for restrictive abortion policies, aggressive immigration enforcement and conservative religious policies. Paxton was impeached by a Republican-controlled Texas House by a vote of 121 to 23 on allegations including bribery and abuse of office. He was acquitted by the Texas Center in all sixteen articles considered, which was again a republican control of the Texas Senate.

Know something. What part of the things you will read, if you go back to looking at that particular action by the Senate. They didn’t want to embarrass themselves and the state by voting against Paxton. Paxton was indicted in 2015 in the Securities fraud case that ultimately ended in 2024 with a guilty plea or conviction. It didn’t have a guilty player conviction, but it did have an agreement which required him to pay money for restitution and community service. He had to take an Ethics education course.

Now, think about those things. He’s supposed to be a lawyer. Now the subject of a major Associated Press investigation documenting extensive travel, blank days on official calendars and at least $1.9 million in taxpayer-funded security costs tied to travel. These are not campaign slogans. These are pieces of public record and a voter can decide what these records mean. I want every person reading to do something. I want you to read, check, and verify.

Read Talarico’s legislative record. Read Paxton’s records as an attorney general. Read the impeachment oracle’s. Read the report on the Senate trial. Read the deposition for the Security’s case. Read David French. Read conservative critics of David French. Read Talarico’s economic proposals. Read Paxton’s proposals. Read what both say about immigration. Read what both say about healthcare. Read what they both say about religious freedom, then make your decision from information rather than advertising.

The Power Of The Voter: Making The Final Choice

That is what citizenship demands then ask simple questions. After all the articles, the campaign advertisements, the theology, the lawsuits, the most money, the political consultants, the accusations and all the polls, there may be one remarkably simple question left. What kind of person do I trust with power? Not who makes me angry at the other side. Not who has the cleverest advertisement. Not who belongs to the party my family has always supported. Not who has the most money.

Ask, who has demonstrated the qualities I want political leaders to embody? Integrity, service, accountability, respect for constitutional government, concern for ordinary people, willingness to tell the truth, capacity to listen, ability to disagree, and respect for people of different religions, races, backgrounds and beliefs. Understanding that public office belongs to the public. Those are leadership values I believe need to be considered.

Put the candidates under X-ray. Perhaps David French gave us the perfect metaphor, an X-ray. Let us put Talarico and Paxton under it. Let’s put any candidate we’re voting for under it. Remove the political advertising. Remove the slogans, the consultants, the social media performance, the red tie and the blue tie. Remove the party labels, the endorsements, the attacks, the millions of dollars and look inside the public record.

What remains? There are actions, choices, priorities, relationships, legislation, and ethical decisions. The use of public money, the use of public authority, the treatment of vulnerable people to treatment of opponents, the willingness to accept responsibility, and the willingness to live under the same rules. We expect everyone else to follow. That is leadership. Perhaps this election gives Texas an opportunity to talk about leadership again. This is not about celebrities. It’s not about grievance. It’s not about vengeance. It’s about leadership.

A former teacher who says the children in his classroom helped send him into public life. A seminarian who says faith should lead toward service rather than religious domination. A legislator who works include children, education, healthcare and affordability and an opponent with a long and consequential record of conservative governments along with an equally consequential history of impeachment allegations, legal controversy, and new questions concerning the use of public time and resources. These are the records that are available to us.

We don’t have to guess. We can examine them. We can ask questions. We can demand answers. Sometimes extraordinary things happen. The billionaire does not get the final decision. The super PAC does not get the final decision. The television advertisement does not get the final decision. The politician does not get the final decision because the voter decides. The voter is the one that makes the difference. That little rectangular paper, that election ballot, that private moment when one status stands alone and makes a choice.

No billionaire gets a second vote. No politician gets to stand beside you as you vote. No corporation gets to enter the voting booth. For that moment, political power returns to exactly where democracies say it belongs. It belongs with the citizens, which is you and me. Learn, question, examine and compare. Vote from the deepest understanding you can develop of character, record, policies, and leadership of the people asking for your trust.

That’s what we need to ask of them. That is democracy. That is responsibility and that’s what I want us to talk about. We will continue to talk about it on the show. I hope you will examine every evidence. Go see what you can find yourself. I know that I have spent the time looking at it and I intend to vote for Talarico. Thank you so much for tuning in.

 

Important Links

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *