Talking Purple

The Trump Manifesto, Newsom’s Bad Trump Cosplay & The Gerrymandering Lie

Good morning from a rainy Houston, Texas. It is Beth Guide, and welcome back to Talking Purple — where I try to make sense of common again, because lately, common sense feels like a lost language. Today’s episode is a big one. Pull up a chair, grab the coffee, because we are unpacking the latest assassination attempt on President Trump, the manifesto that should be lighting up every parent’s radar, the late-night comedians who have completely lost the plot, Gavin Newsom’s failed Trump cosplay, the SD4 special election here in our backyard, and a deep dive into what gerrymandering actually is — not what the keyboard activists on your local school board Facebook page think it is. Buckle up. THE TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT — AND THE CROWD CHEERING FOR IT Let’s start with the elephant in the room. There was another assassination attempt on President Trump, this time at the Correspondents’ Dinner. The shooter did not make it into the room, thank God. And immediately, the staged-event crowd started up again. Let me say this loud enough for the people in the back: nobody is packing up a gun, throwing away the rest of their life, and walking themselves into a federal prison cell for a staged event. That is not how this works. Use your head. What is flying under the radar — and shouldn’t be — is that the alleged shooter is a teacher. A teacher. That means he has been in front of our kids, influencing students, day in and day out. That is a massive problem and we should be talking about it a whole lot more than we are. Then there is the manifesto. Three words: rapist, pedophile, traitor. And here is where I want to stop and have a real conversation, because if you actually believe the President of the United States is the second coming of Hitler, that he is molesting children, that he is selling out the country — I cannot fully blame somebody for thinking they need to take matters into their own hands. That is the logical end of believing those narratives. The problem is not the guy with the gun. The problem is the machine that convinced him those things were true. Let’s go through the three accusations like grown-ups. Traitor. This comes from the Russia collusion story. That story has been debunked six times over. The minute they came back with hookers in a hotel room, common sense should have told everybody this was a put-up job. Smart people are still repeating it. Get out of the echo chamber and actually read both sides. Pedophile. This one rides on Epstein. Here is my common-sense test: if Trump was meaningfully implicated in the Epstein files, the Democrats would have released them the second they had the White House. They went down every legal road they could find — convicted felon, civil cases, the whole nine — because they did not have the goods. If they had Epstein-file dynamite on him, he would have been Prince Andrew’d long before he was a candidate, never mind a President. And by the way, the Democrats should be very careful what they wish for on Epstein, because I suspect there are more of theirs in there than ours. Just look at how fast Eric Swalwell’s situation got weaponized the moment he was inconvenient. Rapist. I had to look this one up myself. The alleged incident was supposedly between 1996 and 2002. From 1996 to 2022 — twenty-six years — Trump was on Home Alone, on Bones, on every TV show in America. Not a peep. Then a civil trial, a judge who said the charges were “similar,” and George Stephanopoulos running it down the field on national television. ABC was forced to pay out a heap of money for that little stunt. That is libel money, folks. That is not vindication of the claim — that is a judgment that ABC said something untrue. But these accusations get plugged into the social media algorithm and repeated until they become “the truth.” That is how you end up with an educated teacher pulling a trigger. THE REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY THE LEFT ISN’T CONSIDERING I want to say something to the TikTok crowd cheering that the shooter missed. There has never been a single political figure in this country I have wished dead. Not one. But here is the thing the left isn’t thinking through — every single president who has ever been assassinated became a martyr. Reagan got the favorable treatment. JFK. Lincoln. If something ever did happen to Trump, all you would do is cement his mystique forever. Maybe think that one through before the next post. LATE-NIGHT COMEDY, THE VIEW, AND THE SLOW-MOTION CULTURAL SUICIDE I don’t usually do pop culture. But the late-night comedians have stopped being comedians. Jimmy Kimmel is so far into Trump Derangement Syndrome he is making jokes about the First Lady looking like a widow. There is nothing funny about wishing somebody’s spouse dead. Nothing. If the ratings are bad, take the show off the air. Don’t watch it. Same with The View. Whoopi Goldberg used to be able to articulate the left side of an argument better than almost anybody on television, and I respected her for that. She has gone off the deep end. Joy Behar is in another zip code entirely. Know what you believe and be able to defend it. If you can do that, you can have a real conversation. This hyperbolic name-calling approach is destroying the fabric of the country. GAVIN NEWSOM IS DOING TRUMP KARAOKE — BADLY I do not like Gavin Newsom. Every time I see the man I think of the wooden Santa Claus from the Tim Allen movie — the sprayed-on hair, the whole deal. Lately he is trying to cosplay Trump. Calling people lazy. Calling people sleepy. Sir, you don’t have the chops. People do not like Trump because he calls Joe Biden “Sleepy Joe.” That’s a flourish, not the substance. People like Trump because of the policy — America First, citizens first, putting our own house in order. Newsom thinks the appeal is the insult. It isn’t. It’s a New York bravado, and California does not have New York bravado. I should know — I have one, and I can tell you it doesn’t translate west of the Hudson without a lot of practice. If you actually want to win those voters, Gavin, try talking about putting Americans first. Try talking about families first. Try talking about why we’re mutilating children in the name of progress. Try the policy. The voice is not the brand. “BOOK BANNING” IS CURATING A LIBRARY Quick segue, because this connects to everything else. We have committees in Texas reviewing books for school libraries — the ones that are sexually graphic, the ones with no educational value. The left is calling this book banning. It is not book banning. It is curating a library for a specific purpose. If I’m building a law library, I’m not putting in a recipe book. That is not a ban — that is a librarian doing her job. Call things what they actually are. We have a really bad habit in this country of being hyperbolic about everything, and it makes us look crass. SD4 — GET OUT AND VOTE, HOUSTON AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY Tomorrow is election day in Senate District 4. We have Brett, the DA from Montgomery County, running to replace the seat that opened up when our previous senator left for the chancellorship at Texas Tech. SD4 is roughly 90 percent red. In a low-turnout special election, the most committed side wins. Get out and vote. We have a serious flooding problem in Kingwood. Brett has come in, learned the issues, and is working with elected officials on both sides of the aisle — including the Democratic mayor of Houston — to get a real flood mitigation plan moving. He is strong on crime. He understands the district. Go vote. AND NOW — GERRYMANDERING. WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. Here’s where I want to spend the rest of our time, because somebody on a Facebook post the other day told me she lives in a “gerrymandered district” because she’s a blue voter and her senator is going to be red. That is not what gerrymandering means. Let me show you what gerrymandering really looks like — using my own zip code. EXHIBIT A: KINGWOOD, TEXAS I live in Kingwood. Kingwood was built by Exxon Mobil for its executives in the 80s and early 90s. Add in the United/Continental Airlines families and a few Shell people, and you’ve got the demographic. Engineers, executives, upper-tier professionals. In 1994, the City of Houston annexed us. Why? Because we had no crime, which meant no infrastructure investment, which meant high tax revenue with almost no spending. They had already done the same thing with the other Exxon enclave — Clear Lake — which is a full hour south of me, down where NASA is. But to give us a Houston City Council seat, the districts had to be contiguous. So they connected Kingwood and Clear Lake — these two upper-crust, white-collar Republican enclaves an hour and a half apart — through a single stream of water. One stream. That was the contiguous boundary. Why? Because they did not want to add two more Republican seats to Houston City Council. So they stuffed all the Exxon executives, the Continental Airlines families, the engineers, the rocket scientists from NASA, and everybody in Kingwood into ONE district and gave us ONE councilman. That, my friends, is gerrymandering. That is the textbook definition. And nobody has touched it since 1994. EXHIBIT B: SD4 IS NOT GERRYMANDERED Now contrast that with SD4. The district runs from Harris County through Montgomery County, Chambers County, Jefferson County, and Galveston County. Five counties. It includes Port Arthur. It includes Beaumont. It is racially diverse. It is geographically enormous — almost a hundred-mile drive from end to end. There is no like-minded clustering. It just happens to lean heavily red because the population in those five counties leans red. That is not gerrymandering. That is geography. EXHIBIT C: THE EIGHT GOOSE-EGG STATES Here is where it gets interesting. There are eight states with zero Republican members of the House of Representatives: Massachusetts (36 percent Republican population). Connecticut (42 percent). Maine (46 percent). New Hampshire (48 percent). Rhode Island (42 percent). Vermont (32 percent). Hawaii (38 percent). Delaware (42 percent). Now, some of these I get. Vermont and Delaware each have one congressional seat — if you’re losing 58-42 statewide, you lose the one seat. Fine. Hawaii has two. Okay. But Massachusetts has nine House seats and 36 percent of the state is Republican. Where is the math on that? Connecticut, 42 percent Republican, zero seats. New Hampshire, 48 percent Republican, zero seats. If those lines were drawn by geography instead of by political concentration, you would have a 60-40 or even a 70-30 split. Not a 100-0 wipeout. Make no mistake — Democrats are drawing those lines. They are slicing and dicing voters by demographic and concentration to guarantee no Republican can win, anywhere, ever. That is gerrymandering. That is the real thing. Compare that to Pennsylvania, which has only 12 percent independents and is split 9-8 in the House. That is a state drawing lines like an honest broker. New York is 14-10. Reasonable. But Massachusetts? Connecticut? Those are political maps drawn with a butcher knife. EXHIBIT D: THE HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT STUNT A few years ago, our Republican-led Commissioners Court here in Harris County pulled their own move. They had two Republican commissioners in red districts. They literally swapped which districts those two commissioners represented — meaning the guy I was used to voting for got moved off my area, and a guy I had never voted for got dropped onto me, while the original guy had to run for re-election in a district where nobody knew his name. That’s how Lesley Briones picked up her seat. The Republicans handed it to her by playing musical chairs with their own incumbents. So when I tell you both parties do this — yes, both parties do this. The Republican Commissioners Court did it to themselves. THE SUPREME COURT JUST DID SOMETHING SENSIBLE Thank God somebody has some sense. The Supreme Court just ruled that you cannot draw congressional districts based on race or demographic clustering. You draw them by geography. By zip code. By population. Everybody is screaming about the Voting Rights Act. It is 2026. There is not one single American legally in this country who is being prevented from voting. I was born in 1966. I am Gen X. We are the first generation that never lived a single day under segregation. We never saw a “whites only” bathroom. The 1950s norms people are still arguing about — they are not here. They have not been here for my entire life. Here’s the part nobody wants to say out loud: when you ball minorities together into one district to maximize Democrat seats, what you have actually done is concentrate poverty into one district that gets ignored for 50 years. Look at Sheila Jackson Lee’s old district. The schools are bad. The crime is bad. The neighborhoods have been neglected for half a century. Why? Because once the seat is “safe,” nobody has to fight for it. Nobody has to deliver. The district becomes a vote-harvest machine. If you mix those neighborhoods into broader geographic districts, you get all boats rising. Better representation. Better infrastructure. Better schools. Real competition. But you have to ask yourself the uncomfortable question: do the people in power actually want all boats to rise? Or is the current arrangement — concentrated poverty, locked-in Democrat seats, no accountability — exactly the system they want? THE BIGGER PICTURE I’m going to leave you with this. The Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar in 1917 with no plan for what came next. Millions died. We don’t teach the Stalins and the Pol Pots in school anymore, and we should. Because what social media is doing right now — the manifestos, the rage clips, the algorithmic radicalization, the labels of pedophile-rapist-traitor pasted onto a sitting president — is the same kindling. Different century, same fire. We have to figure out how to ratchet this back. The red team is not as good at this game as the blue team. But the blue team has to ask themselves: what is the end goal? A handful of red states and a handful of blue states? A nation split in half? Because that is the trajectory. Know what you believe. Be able to articulate it. Stop the group-think. Stop the labels. And for the love of God, go vote tomorrow if you’re in SD4. This is Beth Guide. I want to make sense of common again. You all have a good week, and I will talk to you soon.   Talking Purple is a podcast for people who are sick of the screaming on both sides. Subscribe, share, and join the conversation. For political campaign services — SEO, bulk email and texting, voter data across Texas — visit TalkingPurple.com [https://talkingpurple.com/]

Common Sense Over Chaos: Immigration, the Dignity Act, and Why We Need Real Solutions

It has been a busy few weeks, and there is no shortage of headlines demanding attention. From the Houston City Council’s controversial immigration ordinance to the Dignity Act making waves in Congress, birthright citizenship landing before the Supreme Court, and the situation with Iran — there is a lot to unpack. So let’s get into it. HOUSTON CITY COUNCIL GETS IT WRONG ON IMMIGRATION This week, the Houston City Council voted to approve what they are calling Proposition A — an ordinance that essentially directs the Houston Police Department to limit its cooperation with ICE. Several of the more progressive members of the council pushed it through, and only five had the courage to vote against it. I went down to City Hall to speak on this issue personally, and what I witnessed was telling. There was a long line of organized left-wing groups, each taking their turn at the microphone to explain why the ordinance was necessary. The common refrain was that the Hispanic community is afraid — afraid to call the police, afraid to go to the hospital, afraid to go to the gas station or the grocery store. Here is where my perspective as a naturalized American citizen comes in. I have had to show my naturalization papers and my passport to do the most basic things for as long as I have lived in this country. I do not think twice about it, because that is the reality of being foreign-born and legal. I have never been afraid to go to the doctor, the gas station, or anywhere else — because I am here legally. The people experiencing fear are experiencing it because they are not. The Houston City Council has no business making immigration policy. Immigration is a federal matter, full stop. Instead of creating local ordinances that encourage police to circumvent federal law, the council should be advocating for legislative solutions at the national level. You do not fix a bad law by passing another law that breaks the first one. You fix the law itself. Hats off to the five council members who voted against this — Amy Peck, Fred Flickinger, Mary Nan Huffman, Twila Carter, and Willie Davis. They voted for the Constitution and for the safety of every Houstonian. Two of them represent Kingwood, where I live, and I am especially proud of that. I also have to call out Julian Ramirez, who was elected on more conservative principles and still voted in favor of this ordinance. He allowed himself to be swayed by arguments rooted in emotion rather than law, and in doing so, he turned his back on the people who put him in office. I hope he is primaried, and I hope he never shows his face at a Republican luncheon again without being asked to explain himself. And to Cindy Siegel’s credit — our Harris County party chair has filed a complaint with Attorney General Ken Paxton, because this ordinance likely violates state laws already on the books prohibiting exactly this kind of behavior. THE DIGNITY ACT: A COMMON-SENSE SOLUTION NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT This brings me to the other side of the immigration problem — the side that the pundits on both the left and the right refuse to address honestly. Under current law, there is no path to legal status for people who are already in the country illegally. None. Most Americans do not realize this. They assume that undocumented immigrants simply choose not to pursue citizenship, but the truth is that once you are here illegally, the system offers you no way forward. That is a problem that has to be dealt with. Congresswoman Maria Salazar, a Republican from Florida, has introduced the Dignity Act. The right-wing commentators — Steve Bannon, Meghan Kelly, Laura Ingraham, even Charlie Kirk — have all come out against it. Meghan Kelly spent twenty minutes mocking the name and insisting we just deport everyone. That sounds great on television, but it is not a viable strategy for dealing with twenty to thirty million people. Here is what the Dignity Act actually proposes: anyone who has been in the country since before 2021 and has not committed a crime would receive a seven-year legal status. No path to citizenship — just the ability to live and work without hiding. After seven years, there is a five-year renewal period. At the end of those twelve years, there is an option for permanent residency. I support the framework of this act with one critical modification: permanent residency should be the ceiling. No citizenship. No voting rights. Ever. My reasoning is simple. The Democrats allowed millions of people into this country because they wanted to import a voter base. Rewarding that strategy by eventually granting citizenship and voting rights is unacceptable. However, ignoring the reality that these people exist and are embedded in our communities — working jobs, paying taxes, raising families — is equally unacceptable. Many of the DACA recipients are now in their forties. Some have been here since they were toddlers. They do not speak the language of their birth country. They do not know the culture. Sending a forty-year-old who has lived in America since age two back to Ecuador is not a serious policy proposal — it is a talking point. If you want to solve the problem, you have to start somewhere. The Dignity Act is that starting point. If you would rather keep immigration as a wedge issue to rally your base, then just keep doing what you are doing. But do not pretend you care about solutions. And to the people who are afraid to go to the grocery store because of their status — if that is truly intolerable to you, your options are to deal with the consequences of your circumstances or to go home. You cannot disrupt an entire country’s legal framework because your situation is uncomfortable. That is what happens when you operate outside the law. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND THE LONG GAME The birthright citizenship case now before the Supreme Court deserves more attention than it is getting. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure citizenship for the children of freed slaves after the Civil War. The case law most often cited — involving a Chinese family in the 1800s — involved parents who were legal residents. That is a fundamentally different situation from what is happening today, where an entire tourism industry exists around flying to the United States, giving birth, and returning home with an American citizen. The long-term implications are staggering. An American citizen born abroad to foreign parents can have children who are also American citizens. Those children can eventually vote. Over generations, this creates a mechanism by which a foreign power could cultivate enough citizens to influence American elections without a single person ever living on American soil long-term. It is a slow, methodical strategy, and dismissing it as far-fetched ignores how patient and strategic certain nations — particularly China — have proven to be. Only about thirty countries in the world have birthright citizenship. There is a reason the rest of the world does not. We should be examining whether the Fourteenth Amendment, as currently interpreted, serves its original purpose or has become a vulnerability. THE FILIBUSTER, THE SAVE ACT, AND VOTER ID While we are on the subject of broken systems, the filibuster needs to be reformed. I am not necessarily in favor of eliminating it entirely, but the current version — where a senator can effectively block legislation without ever standing up and making a case — is a mockery of the process. If you want to filibuster, stand up and talk until you cannot stand anymore. That is how it was designed. The modified version where you can go home, eat a sandwich, take a nap, and come back the next day needs to end. This matters because legislation like the SAVE Act — which would secure our election systems — cannot pass when eighty percent of the country wants it but a procedural loophole allows a minority to block it indefinitely. On the topic of voter ID: the argument that requiring identification to vote is somehow discriminatory against women or minorities is insulting. You need an ID to open a bank account, to receive welfare benefits, to enroll your children in school, and to board an airplane. The suggestion that certain groups of Americans are incapable of obtaining identification is not compassion — it is condescension. If someone cannot figure out how to get an ID, they probably are not equipped to evaluate candidates and cast an informed vote. Every American should have a passport at this point. It effectively serves as a national ID, and it would settle the issue once and for all. IRAN: THE RIGHT DECISION, POSSIBLY THE WRONG EXECUTION Shifting to foreign policy — I believe the world is a safer place without the Islamic Republic in charge of Iran. They have been the largest state sponsor of terrorism for forty-seven years, and the Iranian people themselves are out in the streets celebrating, not protesting. That said, I am not entirely comfortable with how the execution has unfolded. I do not think the people who advised the president on this anticipated that it would extend beyond a few days, and now it is heading into months. The Strait of Hormuz situation sets a concerning precedent for international shipping, and there needs to be some form of international regulation to prevent any single nation from shutting down a critical waterway on a whim. I also find it remarkable that the Democrats are now protesting a ceasefire. At some point, we need to figure out how to row in the same direction on issues of national security, because the level of divisiveness in this country is approaching a point of no return. THE COMMON THREAD Every one of these issues — Houston’s immigration ordinance, the Dignity Act, birthright citizenship, the filibuster, voter ID, Iran — shares a common thread: we have lost the ability to approach problems with common sense. We live on the extreme fringes of every debate while the majority of Americans sit in the middle, wondering how we got here. Politicians posture for cameras instead of solving problems. Pundits chase ratings instead of telling the truth. And the rest of us are left sorting through propaganda to find facts. I started Talking Purple because I believe that most political issues are not left or right — they are right or wrong. If you do not like a law, change it through the proper channels. If you want to solve a problem, start with the facts, not the rhetoric. And if eighty percent of us agree on something, we should be able to get it done. That is not a radical position. It is common sense. And it is long past time we made it common again. ---------------------------------------- Beth Guide is a naturalized American citizen, political commentator, and the voice behind Talking Purple. She lives in Kingwood, Texas. Have thoughts? Reach out — even the hate mail is welcome.

Iran is a 47 year war, Texas Primaries and Elections

By Beth Guide | Talking Purple | Houston, TX | March 14, 2025 Back in a new studio, Beth Godt pulls no punches — challenging mainstream narratives on Iran, calling out her own party’s electoral blind spots, and demanding common sense from both sides of the aisle. ---------------------------------------- 1. IRAN: THE END OF A 47-YEAR WAR While cable news scrambles to frame the latest developments in Iran as the dawn of a dangerous new conflict, Beth Godt sees something entirely different — the closing chapter of a war that started when she was in sixth grade. “I was ten, eleven years old when the Shah fell,” she says. “For those of us that remember, this is not new. The mullahs have been running Iran as extremists and fundamentalists for nearly fifty years.” What gives Beth’s perspective particular weight isn’t punditry — it’s personal. Living in Austin and Houston, she’s spent decades in communities with Iranian dissidents who escaped the regime. The stories, she says, are all the same. One woman’s grandparents get out of bed every single morning waiting to hear that Iran is free. > “This is no different than the fall of the Berlin Wall under Reagan. I’m looking at it as Trump ending another cold war — not starting a new one.” She draws a clear line between American and Israeli interests, noting the two nations may not share the same long-term goals. On Turkey — a NATO ally — she’s blunt: “Unless you’re talking about a turkey sandwich, you probably shouldn’t go after Turkey right now.” Her bottom line: the people who actually lived under that oppression are relieved. Framing this as reckless warmongering, she argues, completely erases their voices. ---------------------------------------- 2. TEXAS CD-2: A PRIMARY NOBODY SHOWED UP FOR Dan Crenshaw is out. Steve Toth is in. And only 13% of Republicans voted. Beth doesn’t sugarcoat what that means heading into the general against Democrat Sean Finney, who is actively positioning himself as a moderate. The structural problem: a moderate Democrat who caucuses with Democrats is still a Democrat vote. The center-left framing may win a general election, but the governing reality doesn’t change. Beth’s message to Republicans is blunt — you cannot win from the far right. You will lose. And then you will wonder why. Key takeaways: * 13% Republican turnout is a critical alarm bell * Finney’s moderate positioning makes him dangerous in a general election * Whoever talks kitchen-table issues best, wins * Trump staying out and defacto backing Toth, but may have underestimated the other side ---------------------------------------- 3. MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND THE FUNDAMENTALIST PROBLEM Montgomery County is deep red. But Beth argues it’s become a liability. Churches are mobilizing entire congregations for party conventions, driving outcomes that shut out large Catholic and economically-minded conservative populations in Harris County. “You have to do a secret moose handshake to get in the front door of the Republican Party in Montgomery County. That’s ridiculous.” Her concern isn’t purity — it’s math. The far right is not how you win a general election. And winning is the only thing that actually changes anything. ---------------------------------------- 4. THE MARIETTA ALLISON CASE: A FAILURE OF COMMON SENSE A friend of someone in Beth’s community — already fighting stage-four ovarian cancer — had her friend shot and killed while parking her car. An 18-year-old has been charged. His prior record: aggravated robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, probated rather than served, with supervision running until August 2027. “What have we done for this young man by letting him out? We’ve now set him up to potentially face the death penalty.” Her critique isn’t about cruelty — it’s about consequence. Best intentions, worst executions. The question she keeps asking: if you let someone out, what’s the if-then? Have you honestly assessed what happens next? ---------------------------------------- 5. NATURALIZED CITIZENS: DON’T TOUCH THE CONSTITUTION Beth was naturalized at age seven. She’s been an American citizen for 53 years. Richard Nixon signed her naturalization letter. And she is furious at the political rhetoric targeting naturalized citizens’ right to serve in Congress. “Article One, Section Two. Seven years. That’s what the Constitution says. You can’t change it with a regular law — you need a constitutional amendment. You look foolish saying otherwise.” She’s open to revisiting the timeline — 25 years might make more sense — but it must go through proper process. And she notes with some pointed irony: some of the loudest voices on this topic are younger than she’s been a citizen. ---------------------------------------- 6. LINA HIDALGO SHOULD STAY Here’s where Talking Purple earns its name. Beth gives full credit: Hidalgo worked across party lines on the Elm Grove flooding crisis. She checks on homeowners when storms hit. She secured a unanimous vote on a key property purchase. Beth will not run her down for that. But the rodeo incident — refusing to leave when told she wasn’t permitted — is entitlement. Plain and simple. Her strategic calculation: keep Hidalgo in place through November as a contrast. The case for Orlando Sanchez writes itself. “He was out there volunteering for the rodeo. Not demanding tickets.” ---------------------------------------- Beth Guide closes where she always does — with a call for common sense over political performance. The problems are fixable. The laws can be written. The elections can be won. But not if everyone keeps choosing the issue over the solution. Watch the full episode on the Talking Purple YouTube channel. #Iran #TexasPolitics #CD2 #TalkingPurple #BethGodt #LinHidalgo #NaturalizedCitizens #CommonSense #Houston ----------------------------------------

80% in the Middle, 20% on the Fringe: A Week of Politics, Primaries, and Pressure

MAKING SENSE COMMON AGAIN: THE WEEK IN REVIEW By Beth Guide | Talking Purple ---------------------------------------- It’s been a week that barely fits in a single broadcast. The State of the Union, airstrikes in Iran, Texas primaries, and ongoing chaos in Harris County — there’s a lot to unpack. So let’s get into it. ---------------------------------------- THE 80% IN THE MIDDLE Before diving into the issues, I want to restate the core thesis of this show: I believe 80% of Americans are reasonable, pragmatic people who want to go to work, keep their families safe, and live in peace. They may disagree on climate policy, social programs, or foreign aid — but they broadly agree on the fundamentals. It’s the 20% on the fringes, both left and right, that keep dragging the rest of us into the mud. That framing matters for everything that follows. ---------------------------------------- THE STATE OF THE UNION: CREDIT WHERE IT’S DUE Say what you want about Donald Trump — and plenty of people do — but the State of the Union address showcased a president with a list of accomplishments. If you’re watching through a purely partisan lens, you may not like them. But if you’re watching as an American, there’s a fair amount to acknowledge. The moment that stuck with me, though, wasn’t the policy discussion. It was the reaction to the U.S. Olympic hockey team’s gold medal — the first since I was in grammar school. That’s an extraordinary achievement. And instead of a unified celebration in the Capitol building, we had members of Congress sitting in protest while the chamber chanted “USA.” Whatever your politics, that image says something troubling about where we are as a country. ---------------------------------------- IMMIGRATION: EVERYBODY ACTUALLY AGREES ON MORE THAN THEY THINK Immigration is where I think Democrats are most badly misreading the room. And here’s the thing — it’s not just a conservative position that illegal immigration is a problem. Go back and listen to Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton over the years. They’ve all said, unambiguously, that a country cannot have open, lawless borders. That was the mainstream Democratic position for decades. Somewhere along the way, that consensus got lost. Most Americans — including many who lean left — understand the word “illegal.” They’re law-abiding people. They want their kids to have good schools, safe streets, and economic opportunity. They’re not anti-immigrant; they’re pro-rule-of-law. There’s a difference, and it’s an important one. My own position is this: we need a viable, reviewed work visa program for people who want to come here and contribute. If immigrants want to pursue legal residency, there’s a pathway for that too. What we can’t do is pretend that the status quo under the previous administration — releasing violent offenders on their own recognizance, ignoring court orders, and abandoning any coherent enforcement policy — was a reasonable approach. It wasn’t. On the emotional question of families being separated: yes, it’s a painful reality. But the solution is legislation, not paralysis. If a child born here is an American citizen and the parents are not, the law provides mechanisms to work through that. The right response is to use those mechanisms and, where they’re inadequate, to write better laws. That’s literally what Congress is there to do. To the lawmakers who spent the State of the Union in protest: your job is to legislate. If you don’t like the current policy on immigration, dreamers, or anything else — write a bill. When Trump rescinded DACA, he said plainly that he’d sign a legislative solution. Both parties know how to fix this. My suspicion is that both parties prefer the issue. A solved problem doesn’t raise money or mobilize voters. That has to change. ---------------------------------------- THE REAL REASON PRICES HAVEN’T COME DOWN The Democratic response to the SOTU, delivered by Governor Abigail Spanberger, focused heavily on tariffs and the cost of living. She’s not wrong that prices are a problem — but I think the analysis is incomplete. Yes, tariffs have costs that ripple through to consumers. But there’s another major driver of inflation in goods and services that rarely gets the same attention: the dramatic rise in labor costs. When minimum wage moves from $10 to $17 to $20 an hour, you cannot simultaneously keep a Big Mac at $2. That’s not a knock on workers — it’s just math. Businesses, especially small ones, absorb those costs and pass them on. I run a small business. I know exactly what it looks like when expenses rise. I’m the first person to cut my own salary when hard times come. One-third of the American workforce is employed by small businesses — not corporations, not conglomerates, but small shops and cottage industry operations barely keeping the lights on. When we talk about the price of goods, we owe it to ourselves to understand the full picture, including what labor costs have done over the past several years. That genie is not going back in the bottle. ---------------------------------------- SAFETY ISN’T PARTISAN — BUT POLICY IS Spanberger also spoke about safety, and I genuinely believe Democrats want safe communities. But there’s a causality problem they haven’t fully reckoned with. You cannot simultaneously advocate for policies that allowed millions of people to enter the country without vetting, release repeat violent offenders without bail, and then campaign on public safety. Those things are in direct contradiction. Most people crossing the border illegally are not criminals. But unchecked mass migration — especially of predominantly male populations from cultures with very different norms around gender and legal authority — creates real risks that cannot be wished away with good intentions. You don’t have to be anti-immigrant to acknowledge that. You just have to be honest. ---------------------------------------- IRAN: SOLVING PROBLEMS VS. APPEASING THEM The airstrikes in Iran are still developing as of this recording, but I want to frame my view on them. The Iranian government is not a rational actor in the Western sense. It is an extremist theocracy whose hostility toward the United States, Israel, and the West is rooted in a religious and ideological framework that predates modern geopolitics — stretching back, if you want the full picture, to the split between the tribes of Abraham thousands of years ago. You do not negotiate durably with that kind of adversary by putting $150 billion on a pallet at an airport and hoping they’ll behave. That’s appeasement, and every student of history knows where appeasement leads. Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. That isn’t a conservative or liberal position — it’s a basic assessment of what a nuclear-armed extremist regime would mean for global stability. I’m also going to say what needs saying about the members of Congress who rushed to make TikToks and TV appearances criticizing the strikes before the situation had even resolved: the reason you weren’t briefed in advance is because you cannot be trusted to keep classified information confidential. That’s not an accusation — it’s a demonstrated pattern. If you want a seat at the table on national security, earn it by acting like the stakes are real. ---------------------------------------- TEXAS PRIMARIES: A PARTY EATING ITSELF Closer to home, the Republican primary landscape in Texas — particularly in Montgomery County and Harris County — is getting messy in ways that concern me. Let me be direct about the “RINO” problem. The term has lost all meaning. It’s being thrown at reasonable, solutions-oriented people whose only offense is that they won’t sign onto every litmus test a faction has invented this cycle. John Cornyn? Sure, have that debate. But calling local officials RINOs because they won’t play along with a good-old-boys network that has its own corruption problems? That’s not conservatism — that’s tribalism. The Republican Party’s great strength right now is the coalition Donald Trump has built: broad, results-oriented, and focused on outcomes rather than ideological purity. The worst thing Texas Republicans can do is fracture that coalition from within by insisting on a “conservative blood test” that has more to do with loyalty oaths than with actual policy results. Colony Ridge deserves special mention here. This is a sprawling, problematic development in Liberty County that has drawn national attention as an illegal enclave. What doesn’t get said enough is that conservative money helped build it. Candidates who want to run on immigration enforcement while their donors built Colony Ridge have a credibility problem. Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. ---------------------------------------- HARRIS COUNTY: THE STAKES ARE REAL On the Harris County front, Commissioner Rodney Ellis and the Democratic majority on Commissioner’s Court just voted to abolish the County Treasurer’s position — an elected position, currently on the primary ballot. I’m still working through the legal mechanics of how that’s possible, but the message is clear: remove the financial oversight, and who’s watching the money? This is why I’ve been supporting Orlando Sanchez for Harris County Judge. He has the governing experience, the financial background, and the institutional knowledge to actually unravel what has become a deeply dysfunctional county government. He’s the only candidate in that race I believe can both beat Anise Parker in November and hit the ground running on day one. In CD2, I remain firmly in Dan Crenshaw’s corner. The flooding issues in Kingwood are complex, ongoing, and require a representative who has taken the time to understand them — not someone parachuting in from Montgomery County armed with Harvey talking points from six years ago. The dog park situation resolved the right way, and I know that’s because of relationships and advocacy that have been built over years. That’s what effective representation looks like. For county party chair, I believe it needs to be Michelle Boussard. We need a big-tent party built on constitutional principles, not an exclusionary club built on ideological tests. And for the Senate race, I believe Wesley Hunt is both the most electable candidate in November and the right person to take on Jasmine Crockett. A Paxton-Hunt runoff is what I’m hoping to see come out of Tuesday. ---------------------------------------- GO VOTE If you’re in Harris County, Tuesday matters. Flooding policy, financial oversight, congressional representation, and the long-term direction of the county Republican Party are all on the line. Get to the polls. And as always — there’s your side, there’s my side, and then there’s the truth. I’m just trying to find the truth. ---------------------------------------- Beth Guide hosts Talking Purple, a centrist political commentary podcast now with over 2 million views. New episodes drop weekly.

Kingwood Flooding Truth: Crenshaw vs. Toth CD2 Primary, Elm Grove, Lake Houston Gates

KINGWOOD FLOODING TRUTH: STOP THE TALKING POINTS. START THE FACTS. If you live in Kingwood, here’s the uncomfortable truth: your house doesn’t care about campaign slogans. Water doesn’t care about Facebook “hot takes.” And flooding sure as hell doesn’t stop because someone repeats the same blame script loud enough. My podcast is blunt for a reason. The misinformation about Kingwood flooding, SJRA, Lake Houston, and what actually protects this community is out of control. And no—this isn’t abstract politics. It’s about whether Kingwood gets the money, coordination, and leadership needed to avoid being wrecked again. ---------------------------------------- WHY THIS MATTERS: KINGWOOD IS ONE FLOOD AWAY Kingwood is not “fine.” Kingwood is not “overreacting.” And Kingwood is not protected by vibes. Kingwood is one major event away from: * flooded homes, * destroyed property values, * residents displaced for months, * businesses wiped out, * and the kind of community trauma that people outside flood zones never understand. So when candidates (and their supporters) toss around lazy one-liners like “SJRA did it” and call anyone who disagrees a liar—here’s what that is: political theater. And political theater doesn’t install flood gates. ---------------------------------------- THE ACTUAL FLOOD TIMELINE: WHAT HAPPENED (1994 → 2017 → 2019 → IMELDA) 1994: RELEASES + “HANDSHAKE AGREEMENT” MENTALITY In October 1994, heavy rain forced officials to release water from Lake Conroe and it flooded parts of Kingwood. Rescues happened. It was ugly. Then a “post-mortem” mindset took over: don’t release like that again and we’ll be fine. That’s not infrastructure. That’s hope. Hope is not a flood plan. 2017: HURRICANE HARVEY — THE EVENT EVERYONE REMEMBERS In 2017, Hurricane Harvey hits. Water releases happened. Homes flooded. Boats launched. People stranded. Deaths. Evacuations. A disaster that scarred the area. Harvey exposed a brutal reality: * Lake Houston’s aging dam and gates can’t discharge fast enough * coordination between Lake Conroe and Lake Houston matters * and when it goes wrong, Kingwood pays the bill 2019: ELM GROVE FLOODING — A DIFFERENT STORY PEOPLE KEEP LYING ABOUT Here’s where the “SJRA did everything” crowd loses the plot. Elm Grove flooding (2019) wasn’t a Harvey rerun. It wasn’t just “the river.” It was tied to development and drainage: land cleared and elevated, runoff directed, and downstream neighborhoods taking the hit. Beth describes: * being on the Elm Grove HOA board, * two rain events exposing the problem, * water flowing into neighborhoods through a large drainage pipe, * and Montgomery County officials refusing responsibility. You can argue the politics. But pretending every flood has one single cause is ignorant or dishonest—pick one. IMELDA: “YOU BARELY RECOVERED—NOW DO IT AGAIN” After residents rebuilt from earlier flooding, Tropical Storm Imelda hit and the damage expanded—hundreds more homes affected. This is the part people who “debate” flooding from safe neighborhoods don’t get: these aren’t “weather events.” These are life events. They erase years of work in hours. ---------------------------------------- THE UGLY PART: DEVELOPMENT + DRAINAGE + ENFORCEMENT FAILURES According to the transcript, a core issue wasn’t just rainfall—it was how runoff was handled when land was developed and elevated. This is the simplest way to explain what Beth is accusing: * developers elevate land (so their lots are “safer”), * runoff gets pushed into adjacent neighborhoods, * and enforcement in the upstream jurisdiction is weak or nonexistent, * meaning downstream residents become collateral damage. If you represent a district touching these problems and you refuse to engage, you’re not “conservative.” You’re not “pro-family.” You’re useless. ---------------------------------------- CRENSHAW VS. TOTH: THE TALE OF TWO CANDIDATES This transcript isn’t “neutral.” It’s an argument. And it’s built around one big comparison: who shows up and listens vs who repeats talking points and shuts people out. WHAT BETH SAYS DAN CRENSHAW DID Per the transcript, Beth credits Dan Crenshaw with: * showing up to help residents (including muck-outs), * supporting community recovery efforts through local networks, * and pursuing/obtaining funding and support for mitigation-related projects (including dredging-related impacts and broader federal involvement). The point isn’t that Crenshaw is perfect. The point is: he engaged with the problem. WHAT BETH SAYS STEVE TOTH DID (AND DIDN’T DO) Beth describes reaching out to Steve Toth to discuss flooding—specifically the Elm Grove / North Park side issues that weren’t just “Harvey.” The transcript claims: * Toth refused meaningful engagement, * dismissed or ignored residents’ distinctions, * pushed a simplified blame narrative, * and even banned critics from his page after they challenged claims. Here’s the blunt reality: someone who won’t listen to constituents on life-and-property issues has no business asking for their vote. ---------------------------------------- STOP THE SJRA-ONLY SCRIPT: IT’S NOT A SOLUTION, IT’S A CRUTCH Beth’s argument is not “SJRA is irrelevant.” Her argument is: SJRA is not the only cause, and blaming SJRA for everything is a dodge. Why does that matter? Because if your fix is “fire a guy” and scream “SJRA” forever, you’re not doing mitigation—you’re doing branding. Flood mitigation involves: * discharge capacity, * gate modernization, * sediment management, * watershed management, * drainage coordination across jurisdictions, * enforcement of development standards, * and funding. If a candidate can’t talk through that like an adult, they shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power. ---------------------------------------- FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS AND THE “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” LINE One of the most abrasive parts of the transcript is Beth’s reaction to Toth’s “personal responsibility” framing in flood-death contexts. Here’s the thing: personal responsibility matters—but it’s not a substitute for: * warning infrastructure, * accurate real-time gauges, * coordinated evacuation routing, * and public systems that prevent mass casualty scenarios. Blaming victims as a political posture is not “tough love.” It’s lazy. ---------------------------------------- THE REAL QUESTION KINGWOOD VOTERS SHOULD ASK Forget the memes. Forget the consultant talking points. Ask this: “WHEN I TELL YOU MY NEIGHBORHOOD FLOODED, DO YOU LISTEN—OR DO YOU LECTURE?” Because water doesn’t care whether a candidate “won” a debate online. It cares whether: * the gates get upgraded, * the drainage gets enforced, * the sediment gets managed, * and the funding gets secured. Beth’s conclusion is simple: * Kingwood needs a representative who can actually deliver resources and coordination, * not someone who turns everything into a one-note grievance campaign. ---------------------------------------- BOTTOM LINE: THIS IS NOT A HOBBY FOR KINGWOOD People outside flood zones treat flooding like content. People who’ve lived it treat flooding like survival. If you’re in Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita, or nearby areas affected by these systems, this is not theoretical: * Your home is your biggest asset. * Your neighborhood stability matters. * Your insurance and recovery timelines matter. * Your life during a major event matters. And if your elected representative can’t handle the complexity—Kingwood loses. ---------------------------------------- FAQ IS ELM GROVE FLOODING THE SAME AS HURRICANE HARVEY FLOODING IN KINGWOOD? No. According to the transcript, Elm Grove flooding involved a different chain of events tied to drainage/development issues rather than being simply a repeat of Harvey dynamics. WHY ARE LAKE HOUSTON GATES IMPORTANT? Lake Houston’s discharge capacity is a major factor in how quickly water can be released and managed during extreme events. Aging infrastructure can increase downstream flooding risk. WHAT DOES “SJRA” STAND FOR AND WHY IS IT CONTROVERSIAL? SJRA is the San Jacinto River Authority. It’s often discussed in relation to releases and water management, but the transcript argues that blaming SJRA alone ignores other major causes of flooding. WHY DOES THE CD2 PRIMARY MATTER FOR KINGWOOD FLOODING? The transcript argues that federal relationships and funding priorities can impact mitigation projects, and leadership style (listening vs. dismissing) affects whether local problems get addressed. ----------------------------------------