The Clock Is Ticking: Republicans Got Their Six Weeks—And Squandered Every Minute
Opinion – When Republicans demanded their Continuing Resolution (CR) almost six weeks ago, they told conservatives to be patient. “Give us six weeks,” they said, “and we’ll get back to regular order. We’ll pass the twelve appropriations bills, line by line, the way Congress is supposed to.”
Now, nearly six weeks later— with the CR unsigned and the government shut down, the Republicans have had their time… although in a manner they claim they didn’t want. They have got the six weeks they demanded, the six weeks they said they needed, the six weeks they insisted would restore fiscal sanity. And what have they accomplished? Nothing. Not one appropriations bill has cleared both chambers. Not a single meaningful vote. No real progress toward the return to constitutional governance they promised.
This was supposed to be the reset. Instead, it’s been a rerun.
The Promise of Regular Order
When the continuing resolution was proposed, the message was that this was “just to give us more time to do the job” The GOP would use the time wisely—returning to a disciplined process, restoring transparency, and stopping the endless cycle of massive omnibus bills that fund every wasteful corner of the federal bureaucracy…so they claimed.
Republicans told voters they just needed breathing room to do it right. They’d move the bills, cut the fat, and finally show America what responsible governance looks like.
But after five full weeks of shutdown, the clock has almost run out. The promised productivity has evaporated into the same Washington inertia voters are sick of seeing. The opportunity to lead has been replaced with silence.
Five Weeks, Zero Results
Let’s call it what it is: five weeks of nothing.
No votes on the remaining appropriations bills. No committee markups. No bold debates on spending priorities. Just a Congress on vacation while the fiscal crisis deepens.
The irony? Even as the political class wrings its hands over the shutdown, Republicans have effectively had their six weeks already. They’ve been given nearly six weeks of downtime—a window in which they could have been writing, debating, and passing the bills they said were so important.
If this period was truly about getting back to regular order, it’s been a spectacular failure. Republicans have done everything but legislate.
Democrats Caused the Crisis—Republicans Are Feeding It
It’s important to be clear about where this fiscal disaster began. Democrats built it. The Biden administration and its allies in Congress have driven federal spending into the stratosphere, weaponized agencies against citizens, and treated trillion-dollar deficits like rounding errors.
Democrats want dysfunction. They thrive on omnibus chaos—thousands of pages of pork, earmarks, and bureaucratic bloat rushed through at the eleventh hour with no transparency or accountability. The process itself shields them from responsibility.
But Republicans, who rightly blame Democrats for creating the shutdown crisis, now risk owning its continuation. They asked for six weeks to prove they could do better. They got those six weeks—whether by passage of the CR or the slow, grinding stalemate that followed. Yet they’ve delivered nothing.
The Cost of Doing Nothing
Every day that passes without a single appropriations bill is another victory for the status quo. It’s another day closer to yet another bloated omnibus spending package negotiated in secret and dumped on lawmakers’ desks hours before a vote. It’s another day the federal leviathan grows unchecked.
Republicans claim they want transparency, fiscal restraint, and constitutional government. But those principles mean nothing if the party doesn’t act on them.
The six-week lull was the perfect chance to prove that conservatism isn’t just about opposing Democrats—it’s about governing differently. It was a chance to demonstrate that Republicans could fund essential government functions without caving to the Left’s reckless priorities.
Instead, they’ve handed Democrats the narrative. Now, when the next shutdown looms, it will be the GOP—not Schumer—who look disorganized, distracted, and unwilling to lead.
The Lesson They Refuse to Learn
Conservatives have long argued that returning to regular order is key to fixing Washington’s dysfunction. They’re right. The Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power of the purse. But that power means nothing if Republicans are too divided or complacent to use it.
This six-week stretch was supposed to prove that the party was serious about reform. It could have been a demonstration of competence and courage. Instead, it’s been a masterclass in wasted opportunity.
If Republicans had spent those six weeks pushing their spending bills through the House, they’d be in a position of strength right now—forcing Democrats in the Senate to negotiate and exposing the Left’s fiscal irresponsibility.
Instead, they’ll walk into the next funding deadline empty-handed, waiting for leadership to cobble together another last-minute deal.
Accountability Cuts Both Ways
It’s easy for Republicans to say the Democrats are to blame—and in many ways, they are. But the GOP can’t claim moral or fiscal authority while failing to act. Accountability applies to both sides.
When the government shuts down, the average American won’t parse the procedural history. They’ll remember which party said it needed six weeks—and then did nothing with it.
Republicans had a chance to lead. They had the mandate, the tools, and the time. What they lacked was the will.
The Path Forward
There’s still one way out. The House can start moving appropriations bills—today. They can force debates, draw sharp contrasts with Democratic priorities, and remind the public that fiscal responsibility still has champions in Congress.
But that requires a choice: either use the time they’ve been given—or waste it again.
Because the truth is this: Republicans have had their six weeks. While other people went without paychecks, Congress still got theirs. They should have been working to earn it.
The Democrats will still be to blame for the debt, the inflation, and the reckless spending that brought us here. But if Republicans don’t act now, they’ll be remembered not as the solution—but as the enablers.
In politics, time is the one thing you can’t get back. And for Republicans, the six weeks they begged for have already slipped away—along with their credibility.
Austin
Texas GOP Wants Closed Primaries. New Secretary of State Robert Howden Is Preparing to Fight Them.
Austin, TX – Texas Republicans spent years demanding control of their own primary. Now they have a new Secretary of State, Robert S. Howden, appointed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, and the man taking over the state’s election machinery is inheriting a lawsuit in which his office is expected to defend the very open primary system the GOP wants to dismantle.
The Republican Party of Texas filed the federal lawsuit in September 2025, arguing that Texas’ open primary system violates the party’s First Amendment right of association. Under the current system, Texas voters do not register by party and may choose which party’s primary to vote in during an election cycle. The GOP wants only registered Republicans participating in Republican primaries.
The case is pending in federal court in Amarillo before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
And Robert S. Howden has now inherited it.
Howden Steps Into the Fight
Gov. Abbott appointed Howden as Texas’ 116th secretary of state on July 17, effective July 18. Howden previously served as Abbott’s senior adviser and director of legislative affairs and has worked in the administrations of four Republican governors. As secretary of state, he is Texas’ chief elections officer.
Abbott has been quite clear about where he stands.
At the 2026 Republican Party convention, he said Texas would eventually make clear that “only Republicans vote in Republican primaries.” Abbott has also said lawmakers “can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be,” indicating that he expects the Legislature to address the issue during the 2027 session.
But that doesn’t mean the Secretary of State’s office is supposed to simply surrender in court.
That was the position taken by Howden’s predecessor, Jane Nelson.
Nelson argued that changing Texas’ primary system was a job for the Legislature, not a federal judge. In an October 2025 statement, she said it was her responsibility to defend existing election laws and that she would implement whatever changes the Legislature lawfully enacted.
The Attorney General’s office took the opposite position.
Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the Texas GOP, asking the federal court to strike down portions of the Texas Election Code governing open primaries. According to reporting by The Texas Tribune, Nelson’s lawyers said Paxton’s office gave them less than an hour’s notice before taking the opposing position.
So the Republican Party sued the Republican-controlled state government. The Republican Attorney General joined the plaintiffs. And the Republican Secretary of State fought the lawsuit.
That’s not exactly the tidy party unity politicians like to advertise.
The Real Fight Is Over Who Controls the Nomination
The GOP argues that crossover voting allows Democrats and independents to influence Republican nominations, potentially helping candidates who are less conservative than the party base.
The lawsuit specifically pointed to the 2024 Republican primaries involving former House Speaker Dade Phelan and Rep. Gary VanDeaver. Both won their races by fewer than 800 votes, and the party argued that crossover voters helped determine the outcomes.
The party has already made closing primaries an official priority. Republicans adopted rules supporting closed primaries in 2024 and renewed that push at their 2026 convention.
But changing the system is not as simple as flipping a switch.
Texas has more than 18 million registered voters, and the state’s registration system was never designed around party registration. Moving to closed primaries could require new registration procedures, computer-system changes and a method for existing voters to establish party affiliation.
The GOP wants the courts to clear the way, preferably in time for 2028.
San Angelo, TX – San Angelo’s battle over massive data centers has moved from City Hall chambers to the ballot box, and two council members could soon have to defend their seats before voters angry about how the city has handled the projects. What began as a fight over water, power, development and transparency is now a full-blown political revolt, with recall efforts targeting Council Members Harry Thomas and Joe Self.
And the controversy comes at an interesting moment for Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state regulators to conduct a comprehensive audit of data centers moving through the state’s electric grid interconnection process, saying the review must be completed before any data center project moves forward. ERCOT subsequently told Fox News Digital that Abbott’s directive “effectively pauses all data center projects” while the state reviews their demands on the grid.
That means the questions being shouted at San Angelo City Hall are no longer merely local complaints from residents opposed to a particular development. Texas officials are now asking some of the same questions.
Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT to examine pending data center projects and gather information, including projected annual and peak electricity demand, water consumption, water sources, and whether facilities intend to generate some of their own electricity. ERCOT reported that roughly 90 percent of the 474 gigawatts of large-load interconnection requests currently under review are associated with data centers, more than five times Texas’ record peak electricity demand.
Back in San Angelo, the San Angelo Data Center Citizen Coalition has been pushing its own accountability campaign.
A petition seeking the recall of Council Member Harry Thomas, who represents Single Member District 3, was submitted July 15 with more than the required signatures. The city clerk later certified the petition after determining 53 signatures were sufficient, clearing the way for a recall election.
Following public comment, the City Council voted 6-1 to call the recall election.
Thomas has maintained that he has no intention of resigning.
“I weigh every decision I’ve ever made on behalf of the 100,000 citizens in San Angelo,” Thomas said after the petition was submitted. “Every time I vote, I vote for all the citizens. I have no plans to resign from my position.”
Self is now facing his own recall effort.
The coalition submitted an affidavit seeking Self’s recall and subsequently collected the signatures necessary to move forward. On Aug. 6, Self issued a statement saying he supports residents’ right to seek a recall but rejected what he described as misinformation about his involvement with data centers.
“I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements,” Self said. “I have not benefited financially. I have not voted in favor of a data center.”
Self said the council has instead voted on regulations that would apply if a data center is established in San Angelo.
That distinction between approving a specific project and approving regulations governing potential projects has become one of the central arguments in the political fight. San Angelo officials have considered rules addressing land use, water and wastewater issues as the city confronts proposals for large-scale data center development.
The proposed Skybox project has become particularly contentious. City officials have described it as a potential $7.2 billion investment, while opponents have raised concerns about water consumption, electricity demand, infrastructure, noise and transparency surrounding the development process.
The political consequences are spreading beyond San Angelo.
Residents in Temple and Granbury have also launched recall or charter efforts amid disputes over data center development. In Temple, opponents have cited concerns about land, water consumption and heat generated by facilities. In Granbury, activists gathered signatures seeking recalls involving the mayor and most members of the City Council.
Election
Texas Senate Hopeful James Talarico Shared Pride Event Stage With 11-Year-Old Child Drag Performer
Federal Court Upholds State Limits on Minors at Adult Drag Shows
Taylor, TX – A federal appeals court has just upheld a Florida law restricting minors from attending certain adult live performances, including some drag shows. Within hours of that ruling, renewed attention was focused on Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico after reports resurfaced showing he headlined a 2021 Pride fundraiser featuring an 11-year-old child drag performer promoted as one of the event’s main attractions.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, allowing Florida to enforce its law restricting minors from attending certain adult live performances. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the decision, calling it a victory for protecting children. The ruling does not prohibit drag performances for adults, but it recognizes that states may impose limits when minors are involved.
The timing has drawn renewed scrutiny to Talarico’s record as he campaigns for the U.S. Senate against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
According to promotional materials first highlighted by the Washington Free Beacon, Talarico was a featured speaker during Taylor PRIDE’s June 26, 2021 fundraiser in Taylor, Texas. The event was organized to raise money for “rural LGBTQ communities” and included live music, Drag Story Hour, adult drag performers, and an 11-year-old performer using the stage name “Kween Kee Kee.”
Taylor PRIDE advertised the child as “the absolute cutest & youngest of our drag performers.” Promotional posts stated the child would perform a drag routine and host “Kee Kee Storytime,” where children would participate in Pride-themed craft activities. The event was held at Texas Beer Company.
Photographs published from the event show Talarico addressing attendees from the stage and posing with participants. Additional photographs and video posted publicly show Kween Kee Kee, a local preteen named Keegan, performing in a shimmering blue dress, platinum blonde wig, and theatrical makeup during what organizers described as a Youth Drag Show. One attendee shared video of the child performing the splits before the audience.
The fundraiser also featured several adult drag performers, including Brianna Brinxx, Belladonna Dior, Felecia Enspire, and a performer using the stage name Sedonya Face.
Following criticism from conservative activists who protested the event, Taylor PRIDE defended the festival on social media. The organization rejected claims that the event was sexually explicit or exploitative and encouraged the public to review photographs from the event and decide for themselves.
Talarico’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment from the Washington Free Beacon regarding his participation.
The resurfaced event adds to a broader record that Republicans have highlighted throughout Talarico’s political career. While serving in the Texas House, Talarico opposed legislation restricting drag performances in the presence of children and argued lawmakers should avoid harming what he described as Texas’ drag performers. He has also opposed Republican-backed legislation restricting certain transgender medical treatments for minors and has frequently spoken in support of LGBTQ causes.
More recently, however, Talarico has attempted to present himself as a more moderate statewide candidate. He has described previous remarks, including referring to God as “nonbinary,” as “cringey” and has removed some progressive messaging from campaign materials as he seeks to broaden his appeal beyond Democratic primary voters.
The renewed attention comes as cultural debates surrounding children and drag performances continue playing out both politically and legally. Florida’s appellate court victory represents one of the most significant recent rulings supporting a state’s authority to restrict minors from attending certain adult-oriented live performances, even as litigation over similar laws continues elsewhere.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login