Burnt Orange Report

Guess all of those years as a Democratic Party activist and her service as Vice Chair of the SDEC doesn't count for much these days. Or being a law partner in what is emerging as the state's top institutional contributor to Democratic candidates. Or her nationwide campaigning for the Kerry-Edwards ticket last year. Or being the most effective advocate for children's issues in the House. Or ... well, never mind.

If she's such a good Democrat, why did she vote for a bill that effectively ended the congressional careers of SEVEN Democrats (Bell, Frost, Lampson, Rodriguez, Sandlin, Stenholm and Turner)?

That cancels out any good that she's done in the past in my mind. Sure, she was less arrogant than Ron Wilson throughout the re-redistricting scheme, but she voted wrong on the worst Republican power grab nationally since the 2000 election.

And it doesn't help that she's part of the Craddick leadership team that's been terrible for children, working families and many others throughout the state of Texas over the past three years.

First of all, what is it exactly that makes Luna's efforts to restore CHIP funding "debatable"? Is she simply a turncoat on redistricting, or is she working against Democratic values on other issues too? Inform us, BOR.

Secondly, Byron, if you wish to talk about children and working families, consider this. J.W.'s post raises an interesting question. Why must a vote on redistricting be the sole litmus test determining who is a "DINO"? Democratic Reps. Dan Ellis, Miguel Wise, Allan Ritter, and Robby Cook all dutifully fled to Ardmore. Good, solid Democrats, we called them. Even though they were from conservative rural districts, they stood up to the bully Tom DeLay. But these same 4 Democrats also voted during the regular 2003 session for Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth's horrendous CHIP-cutting HB 2292, a bill Luna opposed. They voted against children and working families, in my opinion.

The Democrats arguably did the right thing in attempting to stop redistricting, and Luna probably did the wrong thing by supporting it. Still, it seems there is some some of double-standard at work here. You demonize a representative who thought it prudent to not oppose redistricting and chose instead to work to restore CHIP funding. Meanwhile, you give a free pass (or use kid gloves) on four Democrats who chose to ignore the interests of many of the state's most vulnerable citizens, simply because they stayed true to the party in an admittedly partisan dispute about political district boundaries. To say one vote on such an issue "cancels out" all the good Luna has done for Texans and for the party is the worst kind of narrow-minded partisanship. Agree to disagree about redistricting.

Or never mind that. Blast Luna all you want. But for chrissakes, let's be consistent.

-Jane

There's no good excuse for her to have voted for that redistricting bill, I think she's gotten a lttle to cozy to craddick and his boys probably wanted to stay in their good graces.

Everyones got there reasons for opposing politicians and they don't have to agree with ms. janes above.

I can understand conservative democrats who vote the way their constituency wants or some cases don't want but those guys are trying to send their party down the drain, and i doubt her folks wanted her to get rid for seven democrats.

I would support Mr. Ortiz or any qualified democrat if they ran against her.

Luna's efforts on CHIP are "debatable" because she asks us to take us at her word that she was the influence behind restoring some CHIP funds. If there is an article that shows definitive proof that she was the moving force behind such restoration, I'd like to see it. What I do know, is that upon reviewing the YCT legislative scorecard for the 2003 session, Luna voted with the YCT position on these three issues:

1) HB 1. Final passage of the general appropriations bill. HB 1 passed 100-45. YCT-YES on passage of HB 1. Historically, YCT has not used the general appropriations bill in our ratings, but in this session the budget was the most important and controversial issue. YCT supports the legislators who passed a balanced budget that cut spending and did not raise taxes when the State of Texas was in a budget shortfall. (RV 303, April 17, 2003, p 1665).

2) HB 1. Floor Amendment no. 16 to the general appropriations bill, by Coleman, would increase funding to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) by $250 millions dollars in the next budget biennium. The Coleman Amendment was tabled 95-50. YCT-YES on motion to table the Coleman Amendment. YCT opposes increases in spending to welfare programs. (RV 229, April 14 2003, p 1424-5).

3) HB 1. Floor Amendment no. 258, by Telford. The Telford Amendment takes all unallocated money and balances in the budget and puts them into retired teacher health insurance fund. The Telford Amendment failed 67-79. YCT-NO on adoption of Telford Amendment. YCT opposes the teacher health insurance fund because teachers are not state employees. The state should not increase spending on an insurance program that does not pertain to state employees. (RV 285, p 1598, April 16, 2003).

So, here's the record of recorded votes. Vilma Luna voted FOR final passage of the 2003 budget bill - which cut thousands of kids off health care. Vilma Luna voted AGAINST the Coleman Amendment that would have increased CHIP funds, and Vilma Luna voted AGAINST the Telford Amendment that would have increased funding for health insurance for retired teachers. In conclusion, Luna's efforts on restoring CHIP funding are clearly debatable at best.

My position is 100% consistent. Other Democrats voted for the budget and against the aforementioned amendments. I strongly disagree with those votes, but I don't find it unforgivable behavior that merits their defeat in a Democratic primary. I do, however find Vilma Luna's vote to not only end the careers of SEVEN Democratic congressmen, but also to chop up my neighborhood in central Austin into three congressional districts, to deprive the state of Texas of decades of seniority in Congress, and to most likely make it impossible for Democrats to regain a majority in Congress until the next redistricting cycle as completely abominable and unforgivable.

Finally, I believe that it's important to send a message to other Democrats in Texas and nationally, that it is unacceptable behavior to collaborate with Republicans on partisan redistricting gerrymandering schemes. Defeating Ron Wilson last year not only gave Democrats one more "real" vote in the legislature, it also sent a message to other Democrats in the House, especially ones who represent Democratic districts that they collaborate with Tom Craddick at their peril. The same message has been sent to Democrats nationwide. Defeating Vilma Luna will also send that message.

Byron --

I'll let you in on a little secret. The votes you cited were House floor amendments on the General Appropriations bill -- votes that are among the most meaningless that legislators cast during the entire session. Your charactization of them as votes on "final passage" is factually inaccurate.

The budget in written in conference committee -- five House members and five senators who draft the Appropriations Act for presentation to both chambers for an up-or-down vote. So her choice was to cast a few procedural votes with the leadership and gain a seat on conference, or tilt at a few windmills and risk the chance of being left off conference.

Dozens, if not hundreds, of amendments and riders are offered to the General Appropriations bill on the House floor. Most are simply accepted by the author, who knows full well that they will be stripped in conference when the REAL budget is written. (I remember when a House member offered an anti-abortion amendment that was accepted by the author and then pouted that he didn't get the record vote he wanted, even though his amendment was accepted!!!)

Maybe you should start a new thread, to wit: should an ideological outsider (a) play the game, gain influence and make a real difference, even if it's just at the margins; or (b) play the role of loyal opposition and fight every fight, even if your cause may be harmed in the long run? There are two schools of thought and both have some merit. Let's see what your readers think.

One more thing ...

I better double check, but I don't think that Ciro Rodriquez and Chris Bell were beaten by Republicans. Ciro lost because Webb County out-voted Bexar, and Bell (who hadn't been on Capitol Hill long enough to find the Members' gym) lost because of his skin pigmentation.

JW - I'll concede that point. I supported Bell and Rodrieguez in their primary elections, both lost to other Democrats, and Democrats retained those seats in November. Still, the redistricting that dramatically reshaped their districts hurt our state's senority in Congress (ok, not that much in Bell's case), but Rodriguez as a former chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus had considerable clout for Texas in Congress.

Still, five Democrats (almost six, but Chet Edwards held on) lost their seats to Republicans as a direct result of the redistricting bill in which Vilma Luna voted for. Five, six, seven... whatever... it was the worst GOP power grab since the 2000 election and Vilma Luna was an enabler of it.

Byron --

It was the worst power grab since the redistricting (sic) of 1993, 1991 and 1981. Reapportionment is a crappy process that leaves everyone feeling screwed. But it can't be the be-all and end-all of all legislative scorecards.

P.S. Interested in my new thread idea?

I didn't see your other post... I can see the legitimate discussion on the question you pose:

(a) play the game, gain influence and make a real difference, even if it's just at the margins; or (b) play the role of loyal opposition and fight every fight, even if your cause may be harmed in the long run?

I'm typically a proponent of the latter approach, because I find that usually - particularly considering the leadership tactics of the modern day Republican Party - those who "play the game" end up doing more to legitimize the opposition (Republicans) than they do in affecting positive legislation. Thus, in my opinion, the negative effects outweigh the positive ones.

And I also disagree with your premise. I would say that approach (a) offers a short term gain (i.e. crumbs of positive legislation), but a long-term loss (enabling and legitimizing a governing party that is not in our best interets). Whereas I would say approach (b) offers short term loss (less pork for your district or positive legislation), but is a long-term gain - as it allows to opposition to point out the abuses of power and corruption of the governing party in order to win elections - the tool that will ultimately change the equation.

sure... why not....

For the record, I didn't have any premise. Just wanted to see what folks thought.

Let's not forget that Vilma's employer at her behest gave thousands to Talmadge Heflin instead of Hubert Vo.

Vilma's vote on redistricting has hurt Texas and hurt America. She cast a mealy mouthed, career ending vote and deserves to be challenged on it. Pussyfooting Democrats like her are what have made the Democrats the minority party today.