NY-23: Owens Will Vote Yes On House HCR Bill


Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) announc[ed] his support in a press release [--]"This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go," said Owens. "There are still changes I would like to make, including raising the payroll exemption for small businesses, but like I said last week, there is a fundamental need for reform and we must act with a sense of urgency."

< Friday Afternoon Open Thread | Pot Charges Dropped Against Lincecum >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Owens for Pres. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:22:55 PM EST

    I don't know what DeDe would have done, so a big (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    shout-out to the Club for Growth here. And Sarah Palin.


    Oh, and just to put a point on it (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    There are now TWO Republicans left in the New York Congressional delegation. That may change next year (Arcuri had a close race in 2008), but it's pretty remarkable. But I think the important point to make is that you can win almost anywhere in the state by supporting the Democratic agenda.

    Move On... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by magster on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 03:18:26 PM EST
    ...raising $3.5 million to primary filibustering Dem senators and AFL-CIO stating it will withhold support for Blue Dogs who vote against HCR.

    More of this please...

    35 million... (none / 0) (#26)
    by mike in dc on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    ...is probably in the ballpark of what would be needed to compel lockstep voting for cloture and pass the bill with as many votes above 50 as possible.  There's maybe up to 10 Dems in the Senate caucus who might roadblock this thing.  If the unions and a couple other big time fundraisers joined in and upped the ante, you'd start to see some "deathbed conversions" among the ranks of the "AHIP caucus".  

    I've often wondered what I could do (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    with a Bloomberg-size chunk of cash. I figure an investment of $2-4 billion over 3-5 years could have a real impact up and down the ballot.

    I'm remembering a big speech in NC (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 03:22:44 PM EST
    Obama gave last year. In Raleigh. Elizabeth Edwards on stage with him while he declared she would be taking a leadership role in designed a truly good UHC policy. I'm wondering now what that would have looked like, and why she wasn't part of the design team, as promised.

    Ever heard of Rielle Hunter? n/t (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    Eliz didn't sleep with her (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 04:12:19 PM EST
    Why should Reille take opportunities away from Eliz?

    Tell that to Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by Spamlet on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 08:11:59 PM EST
    Elizabeth Edwards deserves her exile. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Addison on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    Yeah, "Eliz" just knew about the affair and stood by as her husband continued to campaign for president with a timebomb in his closet. Campaigned for him even! He could have destroyed our chances in 2008 and she didn't even care about that. She just cared about familial ambition, no matter how screwed up the family had become. It remains horrifying. She is blameworthy, too, for that.

    I haven't followed (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 05:37:21 PM EST
    local elections nationwide, but if NY is emblematic of the country, we're staring an unmitigated disaster in `10.

    After 16 disastrous Republican years (with a brief Clinton respite) the country really was ready for Change. I don't see how any thinking person could look at Tuesday's results and see anything but total disgust and anger by Democratic voters (really non-voters) at the Dem's performance after having attained power.

    Point #1, and the one I feared the most, they stayed home. After years of under-participation, A. A's and young people finally had their hopes raised in `06 and `08, and actually came out and voted. And how were they rewarded by Obama,  Pelosi, and Reid,the Change makers? Everything they cared about was thrown "off the table," before the first shot was even fired, And things went downhill from there.

    Point #2, Does anybody read city newspapers in N.Y. anymore? Using Poughkeepsie as a Red/Blue, in-between, demographic, here's Wednesday's headlines:
    "Republican Landslide".....Orange, Ulster, and Dutchess Counties.

    "Democrats have the voters. Republicans get the votes."

    City after city, and county after county, after slowly, tenuously having shifted Blue, snapped back Red, like a bungee cord with afterburners, after just one heart dropping year of Obama's (and Dem's) "Change."

    Oh, and let's not get crazy over the Owens win. How desperate, or disillusioned, must you be to credit his win to ideology, or issues. Issues had nothing whatsoever to do with it. You don't vote solid, unbroken Red for a hundred years, and suddenly switch parties after one, crummy Obama year. Owens won for the same reason Hillary won in New Hampshire. Locals, of any party, have that unique, American trait; they don't like anyone from the "outside," interlopers, especially from Washington, swooping in and telling them who to vote for. Why was there even any question about that?

    I keep asking the same question: How could the 3 political geniuses in the White House, Emanuel, Axlerod, and Obama morph into blooming idiots in such a short time? Is there really something to that White House "bubble"  mystique?

    Tuesday was a near death experience for Obama; I hope he understands that. My guess is that he does not. Failure is a new experience for him, and like most spoiled brats, he won't blame himself; he'll blame the masses who show disappointment and/or disagreement. His ego, I'm afraid, will win out over his intellect.

    I hope I'm wrong, but I've been hoping since he threw his hat in the ring.

    The only hope for '12?.......a "robust" Primary.

    You assume (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:12:34 AM EST
    After years of under-participation, A. A's and young people finally had their hopes raised in `06 and `08, and actually came out and voted

    They came out to vote for Democratic ideas and the platform - they didn't - they came out for the man, the rallies, the buzz, the need to be in the "cool" crowd, racial pride, etc.  Heck, Obama didn't even mention that he was a Democrat, so why should we assume all the new voters came out for Democratic ideas?

    And there's no way in heck, short of Obama being caught committing murder, that there will be a primary in 2012.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CST on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    In 2006 everyone came out to vote for Obama out of the need to be "cool".  Oh, and in 2004 all the young voters went for Kerry because he is oh so cool.  And the long time 90%+ voting record for Dems by African Americans is out of "racial pride".  Has nothing to do with the Dem economic and social platform and the blatant racism in the Republican party.

    I know you love hating on the "new" dems, but lets get real here.  Your prejudice is blinding you.


    Well (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    Those who said they weren't voting for TEH ONE were ridiculed and in some instances, harassed.

    I know you're young, and may not see it, but yes, many Obama voters did vote for him because it was "cool" ("See, I'm not a racist!  I can vote for a black man") - without knowing anything about his positions or what he stood for.  Even the media played up the "coolness".

    No prejudice here -I think you're love for Obama is blinding you to what the reality was in 2008 and what it is now.


    Way to not address (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CST on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    any of my points.

    But hey, I'm under 30 and voted for Obama, I couldn't possibly have anything usefull to add.  All I care about is being "cool", proving to the world I'm not a racist, and planning my love affair with Obama.


    All true (none / 0) (#35)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    From the moment he entered the Senate, after his notable speech at the DNC convention in 2004, he was the one a handful of long-standing Senators embraced as their hope for a Democratic administration. But, not for the people. For them. So they could have a POTUS who listened to them, who was beholding to them, who would do what they wanted. When that wasn't working well enough with the people, and that darn primary was dragging on and on, they enlisted the help of people with a grudge and got Edwards, Gore, Carter, that gov from NM (I forgot his name), etc. to push the idea that this guy could get Congress to work with him. They stood on stage with him and listened to his phoney promises.

    Since the Dems really don't have anyone to primary in 2012, anyway, the best we can do is keep hammering away on our congressional representation to take responsibility for their own votes and help guide Obama into understanding he is obligated to the people who hired him, too.


    Based on numerous things he has said (none / 0) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 09:05:10 PM EST
    His ego, I'm afraid, will win out over his intellect.

    That seems to be a fairly consistent problem. He mocks when he laughs off the things people are saying about his administration and their handling (or lack of handling) critical situations.


    Turkana has a (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    thought as to why.

    This is the same argument as the WH (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    "The Congressional races are more about national politics and the gubernatorial races are more about local politics."

    I don't buy it.  Deeds and McDonnell had many aspects of their outlook on HCR that were similar.  And Deeds only beat McDonell on the health care issue 51-49. Not exactly a decvisive blow.  


    Your comments are not a refutation (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    of the quote. And if you were paying attention, you would know that one of the reasons Deeds's performance was so terrible was because he knifed the public option in a debate, somewhat depressing Democratic enthusiasm.

    Thanks, I LIVE in Virginia (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    Part of the reason he lost was because he ran a $ucky campaign, although both Obama and Biden were here campaigning for him and attended fundraisers.  He ran with McDonnell's thesis for too long, and people thought he ran a negative campaign - voters were asking "what are your plans?"  

    McDonnell won most of Northern Virginia,a strong Democratic area, including Fairfax County, which hasn't elected a Republican for governor since 1997.

    Turkana seems to keep up the matra that it's really the Congressional races that are more telling of the national mood, even those are definitely more local races, and that gubernatorial races are more about local politics than national issues.  I disagree - not sure what isn't "refuted" or how you can "refute" an opinion.


    You said "I don't buy it" (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    and then went on to write other stuff about Virginia. My point is that you not only didn't refute, you didn't respond. You just left your opinion to dangle.

    I guess I could have responded with (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 02:19:11 PM EST

    you could have, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    but it would merely have solidified the lack of substance your original argument made.

    i too live in va, and may be one of the few people who actually took notice of the campaigns, such as they were. the big difference between the two was the level of banality, deed's was nearly transparent.

    it was the difference in voter demographic on tuesday, that made the difference, which turkana pointed out: the young, AA's and females didn't vote in the numbers seen in nov. 2008, especially the AA population, which is who gave va to obama.

    that few had a clue who deed's is probably didn't help matters any.

    tuesday's vote may have been many things, but a referendum on obama it most surely wasn't.


    Ah, the Nancy Pelosi argument (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    "We won on Tuesday!"

    Or the WH argument:

    "Move along - nothing to see here.  Nothing to do with what's being perceived by voters on national politics - it's just local stuff."

    I think Mark Warner's statement was better:

    "We got walloped."


    Well Nancy did win. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    and as andgarden's link to Turkana suggests, Christie got a big bump from the issue of property taxes.  

    It's impossible to get walloped when you just sent 2 more Dems to the House.


    Too bad (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    the lost everywhere else - from governor's races down to state races (you know - where the party get built?)

    thanks for that (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 02:30:50 PM EST
    disturbing mental image!

    You just left your opinion to dangle.

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    Owens had already made a smart U-turn on the public option about a month ago.  Looks like he might have good political instincts for a rookie.

    Or (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    it could be that the word went out to a rookie that if he expects to keep his seat for more than a year, he better toe the line.

    The difference being? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:51:23 PM EST
    Went out from whom? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    Surely not those feckless Democrats that never, ever apply pressure or enforce party unity.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    Heh, heh (none / 0) (#17)
    by McKinless on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    Pretty smart guy. He campaigned on the issue--and won. NEARLY won a clear majority. Good for him.

    Please, please, please (none / 0) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 04:09:15 PM EST
    Watch this....Obama forcefully explaining exactly what he was going to do for Americans regarding healthcare.

    I guess I can see why he got the votes. Now, we need to hold him to it.

    who really won (none / 0) (#31)
    by drizztdourden on Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 11:16:19 PM EST
    republicans and democrats alike have for some reason chosen to ignor the very obvious...the only reason the republicans meagre winnings came about is...that the black and youth voters stayed home.when they vote...the GOP loses.

    As of 6 am this morning (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:19:08 AM EST
    They still don't know if they have the votes for HCR in the House.

    Latest whip count as of 10 pm Friday night.

    And..... (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:28:21 AM EST
    A fun little poll that should clear up why moderate Dems and Blue Dogs are hesitating.

    Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say lawmakers should continue working on the legislation, a rise of 6 points since August. But only a quarter say those bills should be passed pretty much as is, with a third suggesting that Congress should make major changes. The poll also indicates that one in four say lawmakers should start from scratch and 15 percent want Congress to stop all work on health care reform.

    The survey's release Friday morning comes one day before the full House of Representatives is expected to hold a floor vote on the Democrats health care reform bill.

    "Most of the Democrats interviewed support some form of heath care reform, but the divisions within congressional Democrats are reflected in the party nationwide," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Forty percent of the Democratic rank and file want Congress to approve the proposals that have passed through committee with only minor changes. But an equal number of Democrats nationwide want Congress to make major changes to those proposals before approving them."

    According to the poll, 45 percent support President Barack Obama's proposals to reform health care, with 53 percent opposed to his plans. This is the first time since the president's early September prime time address a joint session of Congress on health care that a majority of people questioned in a CNN survey oppose Obama's proposals.

    "Six in ten independents say they oppose Obama's health care proposals," says Holland. "That's a nine point increase since October."