Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TX Dems who voted YES on banning gay foster parents

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rainbow4321 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-05 12:00 AM
Original message
TX Dems who voted YES on banning gay foster parents
Grrrrrr....more TX DINO's on parade. And the TX repubs who voted NO on it.


http://www.burntorangereport.com/


Dems (yes): Robby Cook, Al Edwards, David Farabee, Stephen Frost, Tracy King, Jim McReynolds, Richard Raymond, Patrick Rose, Sylvester Turner.

Cook, Frost and McReynolds represent conservative east Texas districts, so that explains their vote. Rose and Farabee also represent conservative districts, but I'm still pissed off at them regardless. Finally, Al Edwards, Tracy King, Richard Raymond and Sylvester Turner represent safe Democratic districts. Raymond is considering a run for congress, and many progressives who would be likely support him in a primary might think twice about it after this vote

On the Republican side, there were three votes of interest. Todd Baxter (R-Austin), who voted for the Dignity for All Students amendment, voted against the GLBT comunity on this one. Rep. Jim Keffer (R-Eastland) voted, well, you know. Also, Dan Branch (R-Highland Park), who represents much of the Oak Lawn area voted for the amendment. GOP (no): Ray Allen, Carter Casteel, Peggy Hamric, Will Hartnett, Bob Hunter, Delwin Jones, Terry Keel, Brian McCall, Martha Wong.

Some surprises here. Martha Wong does something right, but the damage has already been done. Keel and McCall are relative moderates on some issues, so their votes don't surprise me, but the other votes here do. Also, it should be noted that Pete Laney voted the right way. He represents a conservative west Texas district, so this was a difficult vote for him, and should be applauded for doing the right thing.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-05 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good thing for Laney
That's the most disgusting bill I've ever seen. :mad: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainbow4321 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-05 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. One of them thinks he doesn't have to answer to anyone...
He up and cancelled his news conference after it started to look like he was going to be confronted about his a) walkout on the teacher benefit vote and b) his voting yes on the gay foster parent ban. Geez, guess he figures he can hide behind the repukes forever??


http://www.savetexasreps.com/index.php?p=84


Exactly two weeks after a handful of Democratic state representatives walked out of the Capitol to avoid voting for an amendment that would have restored health benefits for public school teachers and employees, one of the ringleaders has again turned his back – this time on the media organizations he himself invited to a news conference, then abruptly cancelled.

Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) distributed a media advisory last night, letting the press know he and other House Democratic Committee Chairs would “make a statement about the Chair of the Texas Democratic Party and the party’s direction.”

Today, as word spread about Turner’s scheduled news conference, opposition groups weary of his work on behalf of Craddick’s extremist agenda began to mobilize. Some lawmakers rumored to be part of Turner’s cast started making calls to assure other Democrats they either knew nothing about it or had no intention of participating.

Finally, Turner sent out a second media advisory, claiming that the news conference had been cancelled “due to scheduling problems” – in effect, turning his back for the second time in two weeks on those who deserve an explanation for why he seems so willing to place his chairmanship above the interests of his own constituents.


<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC