Burnt Orange Report

That's my girl!

Carter has been a friend of my parents for a long time--she used to work with my mom. She's an awesome lady, despite her unfortunate political affiliation. I'm so proud of her on this one.

Amanda you in NB to?

umm yeah she seems like a nice lady, i've seen her in the grocery store a couple times. But don't wet yourself she's still a conservative republican who has more issues with this agency having to determine who's gay than actually being a brave pioneer on gay issues.

I hope Patrick Rose reads this blog. He needs to know how angry people are with him. Though this won't hurt him electorally, its destroyed his credibility with alot of Democrats in this state. Though it is important to tow the conservative line to maintain support at home, Rose should have stood up on this one.

"I can understand Casteel voting against HJR 6," Karl writes. The House Journal shows her voting "aye" on the proposed constitutional amendment.

The anti-gay marriage joint resolution and the child protective service legislation are completely different measures.

The proposed constitutional amendment received less than 30 votes in the House. The BOR gang sems to single out certain of their election-time heros -- in this case Representative Rose, who runs for office as a rural conservative -- but gives a pass to his Democratic colleagues.

Also, under what provision of House Rule 5, Section 11, did Karl gain floor privileges? Is he an assistant sergant, messanger, a member of the Speaker's staff, an invited guest, the son of a House member or an accredited media representative? This deserves a response.

Mistype since it was late at night. Casteel voted for HJR 6; it's been corrected. With that fixed, I think it's quite obvious we know the issues are separate. And the reason why we single out Rose a lot would be because a) he's close to us geographicly b) we've worked or donated to his campaign c) he's fairly new. My point is that Casteel if more than a conservative rural conservative and still voted against the anti-gay families amendement but Rose copped out.

And I wasn't on the House floor, I was watching action on the house floor. Anyone else who read the post figured that out but I changed it. Your accusatory tone could be toned down.

you tell 'er Karl!

Enough with beating up on Rose. Have any of you actually had a paying job on a campaign before? I mean, one that actually won. Lesson #1:

There is a little something called a "safe district". Sounds to me like Carter is in one and Patrick isn't. She isn't going to face some tough primary challenger who will use this vote against her, because, for the most part the Republican party in her area is happy with her.

Rep. Rose however, would have been attacked from all sides in his next race for voting yes to that bill. I think it was much harder for him to vote yes than her. I'm very surprised y'all don't agree.

HJR 6 destroyed Rose's credibility with Democrats? Do y'all not remember tort reform?

As for all the other Democrats who voted for HJR 6, I understand why they did it. I used to work for a Democratic State Rep. who was in a far more conservative district than Rose--but, there is a time when they need to get some backbone and do what they think is right.

It really frustrates me that Democrats are all acting like we couldn't have won HJR 6. It would have only taken 51 no-votes to get it done--if Democrats successfully organized themselves to stand up to redistricting, why couldn't they have done it for the gay community?

Wrong Neesha, they simply needed to keep it from getting 101 Yes votes. They could have all simply been "presnent and not voting" or a mix of that, no votes, or absent. The real blame lies not with those that failed to vote against it or not at all, but rather with those Democrats that voted for it, enabling it to reach the 101 marker. Yes, getting 76 no votes, or 51 no votes, that would have been near impossible, but as we can see here, all we needed was 2 fewer yes votes, and this would have died.

It's not like Strama's district is all that more liberal than Rose's, and he's a first termer that won by a margin about 1/4 - 1/6 that of Rose's this time, and he had the balls and didn't cast a yes vote.

Ki, for one, Rose did vote for both bills, so I think you're mixed up on something. For Casteel to vote with Democrats in an attempt to halt the "no gay foster parents" amendment takes some guts because she could always face a republican challenger (from the right) out of that district, there is no end of Republican local officials, considering they hold almost all the seats in those 4 counties and there are plenty of nuttier right wingers out there. But if she can vote for us on that, and Rose can't, on a vote that is by far, much easier to explain away logically... I don't know what to say.

And on the anti-gay marraige one, there is nothing that could have kept Rose from voting present only on that one. But I guess then he's just really for making an already illegal practive double-secret overkill illegal. And for that, I have little respect.

Karl,

I didn't say it took 'no guts' for her to make that vote. What I meant was it was 'a far less gutsy move' for her to make that vote than for him to. Reason being, she is much safer, which you, I, and the rest of the world knows.

I don't remember anywhere in my post saying he voted yes to either of the bills, if I somehow insinuated that, I didn't mean to. I don't agree with the way he voted, and I don't know if he went with his consience or not. I do know however, he wasn't the only Democratic State Rep. to vote that way, but he seems to be the only one anybody's talking about. Why is that? Is it because he is young, and therefore should logically be more liberal?

Wait, I did mess up. I apologize. I said he voted no to those bills by accident, I meant to say he voted yes on both posts. Sorry, guess I can't walk and chew gum at the same time :)

First, I offer my sincere apologies to Karl for my "accusatory tone (his words)."

I simply found one serious factual error and one major personal exgaggeration in his post and pointed it out. He, graciously, corrected it and acknowledged the errors. That is a sign of a good blogger, and I shall make every attempt in the future to make my critiques "toned down (again, his words)."

Moreover, Karl responded, and I quote: "My point is that Casteel if more than a conservative rural conservative and still voted against the anti-family amendment but Rose copped out."

*That highly cogent exlanation clears up everything!*

Now, if we may discuss House rules once again -- the ones you clearly did not break by not entering the floor without permission as you previously acknowledged that you did not really do ...

I must question in a nice tone why your 4-28-2005/2:51p.m. afternoon post talked about "getting 76 votes" on a bill matters. For a bill to pass to engrossment, pass to third reading, or finally pass (or even to adopt a conference report), the House rules require a majority of those members present and voting, a quorum being present. A quorum is 100, assuming there are no vacancies (which there are not). So 51 is the magical number.

Just something to think about, and keep up the good work.

P.S. I think BOR is great!

Change if to is TLS (guess you don't have a name). simplified version for you is Casteel=quite conservative, Rose=supposedly not so, and thus her voting agianst it and him for it means... now do you get the picture? good.

Sorry, but this was not just any old bill, it was an HJR Constitutional Amendment, meaning it needs 2/3s, not half, so 100 votes to pass out to the Senate. My point, which you must have missed, was that it didn't matter how many no votes were cast and that yes, it would have been near impossible to get a high number (pick an arbitrary one out of the air) of actual no votes. But it didn't matter how many NO votes were cast, simply that we needed to keep 100 YES votes from being cast.

Please read your own posts, realize that everyone makes mistakes and CCCCCCHHHHHHIIIILLLLLLL!!!!!

I PRECISELY noted your (incorrect) post, I sent you an e-mail with my name and phone numbers, and you didn't even begin to explain the strange syntax in your above-referenced post.

Who is hiding?

you, peek-a-boo.

and why is no one talking about bea arthur?

"It's not like Strama's district is all that more liberal than Rose's, and he's a first termer that won by a margin about 1/4 - 1/6 that of Rose's this time, and he had the balls and didn't cast a yes vote."

Karl, I'd like to point out that Mark Strama having "balls" has nothing to do with his courageous vote on HJR 6. Sexist language doesn't suit progressive Democrats.

Also, I love Bea Arthur and I think Carter Casteel is adorable (most of the time).

Well, he certainly doesn't have boobs, so I'm sticking with balls.