Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

So how does a liberal Democrat get elected in a conservative NY district?

By

Simple! as we see here…Just LIE

http://www.gouverneurtimes.com…

It took this NY 23rd liberal in conservative Democrat’s clothing less than an hour to break 4 major campaign promises.

The people of NY 23rd have been had.

I don’t think we’ll see another Democrat after 11/4/2010  for many years to come , if ever.

This is a new low in politics

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. It’s server is probably buried right now as people view the article in total disbelief that this Owens guy is a fraud.

    <

    p>This NY 23 thing has been a disgrace. First we have a RINO repub women that gets an endorsement from the Daily Kos if that tells you anything about her. Then she gets replaced in the eleventh hour of the election by a real conservative after which she endorses her former opponent, a supposed conservative Democrat ( at least that’s what the poor saps in the district thought based on his promises)  Now when this fraud gets to DC he unfurls his true colors as another far left liberal…a new low in dirty politics and madame speaker claims a huge victory for her agenda based on this sleazy hoax…incredible

    • It’s quoted elsewhere, and it’s full of BS like this:

      The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY’s 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against.

      Don’t waste your time.

      • Did you look at it? What ever happened to the rule here that you substantiate what you say with links instead of your subjective undocumented rant ?
        When this story starts showing up all over the place we’ll see what you have to say then.

        • It’s a collection of anti-reform talking points distorting the facts about health-care reform. You can read what appears to be the entire steaming pile here, if you enjoy being lied to. Here’s another sample:

          Both FactCheck.org and the Congressional Budget Office agree that HR 3962 contains potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to Medicare, yet Mr. Owens indicates that he supports this legislation and says that it does not cut Medicare benefits.

          What FactCheck.org actually says is this:

          Last week House Republican Leader John Boehner’s office issued a “Leader Alert” titled “10 Facts Every American Should Know About Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-Page Gov’t Takeover of Health Care.”

          It’s a partisan document containing misleading characterizations of the bill. But the bullet point that bothers us most is #2, which reads:

          MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi’s bill would have a negative impact on seniors’ benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.

          We never have said that seniors would suffer “massive cuts to Medicare benefits” under the pending House or Senate overhaul bills, and in fact have done our best to debunk claims to that effect. The only seniors who might see cuts are those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, about 22 percent of the Medicare population. Currently, many of those seniors receive a bit more in benefits than regular Medicare fee-for-service patients – perhaps a gym membership, a pair of eyeglasses, a reduced premium. But, as we’ve written, Medicare pays the private companies that administer Medicare Advantage about 14 percent more per beneficiary than it does for the rest of Medicare beneficiaries, who wind up subsidizing the program, according to government analysts.

          If current law didn’t change, the value of the additional benefits given under Medicare Advantage would amount to about $85 per senior per month in 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If the Senate bill passed (and the House bill is similar on this point), that would be reduced to about $42 per month. But under no circumstances would any senior receive less in benefits than the other 78 percent of the Medicare population.

          We’re sure seniors who see benefit cuts of any kind won’t be happy about it. But to characterize these as “massive cuts,” and our article (as well as CBO’s analysis) as a “grave warning” is simply rubbish.

          So now you know where that particular ‘fack’ came from.

    • First we have a RINO repub wom[a]n that [sic] gets an endorsement from the Daily Kos if that tells you anything about her.

      First off, Daily Kos doesn’t endorse anyone. It’s a community blog. Markos himself might endorse specific people but it’s not like Blue Mass Group when the three editors endorse someone and one can say that BMG made an endorsement.

      <

      p>Leaving aside the oddness of the claim that Daily Kos has made an endorsement, I’m surprised at how this conservative meme has spread around that any Democrat anywhere endorsed Scozzofava. In fact, all front page writers on Daily Kos were pretty clear about endorsing Owens.

      The logic of this post is this. If we go to Bill Owens’ site (a very strenuous activity we cannot expect of this conservative blogger), we see that Owens opposes the following

      Opposes: Medicare benefit cuts. We can all agree that there are inefficiencies and waste in the system, but any savings should be used to strengthen Medicare.

      Opposes: Taxing health care benefits.

      Opposes: Increasing taxes on the middle class in any way.

      So suppose that the final bill includes one of the three things he opposes. Does his site commit him to voting against the bill? Reading his whole statement, one might conclude that the net good of the bill might outweigh any of the things he opposes.

      <

      p>He would, in fact, be lying if he said “I will oppose this bill if …”, but he didn’t. This seems like the same level of outrage as was supposed to scare the “craqp” out of us a year ago.

    • The GOP would have gotten a candidate that is way further to the left than the Democrat Owens. So ironically, the GOP dodged a bullet.  Enter Hoffman… with a proverbial 10 seconds left before the vote and almost pulls it off against 2 candidates that have been campaigning for months. As we see it ended up Owens 49%, Hoffman 46% and the Rino  woman 6% ( obviously many voters didn’t even know she was out of the race)
      If they’d known that? take her 6% and add it to Hoffmans total and this thing has a conservative winner.
      What’s really troubling here is that Owens campaigned for MONTHS making campaign promises that voters trusted and believed and then as soon as this guy got to DC he flushed his promises down the toilet and dropped to his knees in front of Pelosi.
      Clearly ,the vast majority of people in this 670,000 person conservative district DO NOT support Obamacare. Sadly, once again we see a politician go to Washington that Does Not represent the will of the people that he has just bamboozled.

      <

      p>2010 is coming and IMO it ain’t gonna be pretty for incumbent Democrats  … and they know it..that’s why they can’t pass anything even though with their overwhelming majority, they could do it in a heartbeat. They know America is really pissed off with their dismal performance ( check out Pelosi and Reid’s ‘s approval ratings along with Obama’s which are setting records for the fastest presidential decline)here:

      <

      p>http://www.polltrack.com/post/…

      <

      p> and they can  hear the footsteps

      • It’s possible that Hoffman could have gotten into a close position without Palin (or any national) help.  

        <

        p>Assuming he could still get to a place where he would be tied with Owens and have Scozzafava trailing then it would have been possible for him to win (had Scofazza not felt pressured to drop out).  Even in dropping out, if she had simply not endorsed anyone (as it at first seemed she was going to do) then Hoffman would have been better off.  But after she dropped out Palin’s remarks could have been somewhat insulting for Scozzafava.  Even more insulting would have been hearing Fox News report that she had endorsed Hoffman when she had in fact done no such thing.  Palin and Fox can be blamed for Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens.

        <

        p>And then Palin’s last minute robocalls didn’t help matters either.  She energizes rock ribbed conservatives.  For others she can be a real turn off.  And it appears that she was such a turnoff in NY23.

        <

        p>That 6% for Scozzafava was likely a protest vote.  They weren’t going to vote for Owens and certainly not Hoffman.  They liked Scozzafava and thought she got a raw deal.  It would be hard to get these people to rally around the party after having taunted them as being Republicans In Name Only.  Wouldn’t surprise me if they change their party affiliation over this.

        • The NY voters ( in a long standing Republican district)ASSUMED that they could TRUST the Republican “conservative Brand” when in fact Scofazza is a far left liberal ideologue whose principles and  voting record could not be further from Republican beliefs than imaginable… We  come to find out that she was proposed as a candidate by an 11 member selection committee where she FAILED to receive a majority vote but was nominated by a “weighted ” input from these so called republicans…Bottom Line? This woman is a RINO liberal and was “called out” by conservatives as a fraud . Her endorsement of a liberal Democrat instead of someone more closely consistent with her so called Party speaks volumes.
          The conservative elements of the GOP ( Palin, et al)were quick to say “Who the hell is this woman presenting herself as a Republican ?” Are you kidding? This is a far left ideologue and certainly NOT a Republican…hence her dismissal ( Thank God)
          The Bottom line here is that :
          1. the original “republican candidate was a far left ideologue
          2. The last minute substitute of Hoffman didn’t give him enough time to present his conservative case
          3. The “bait and switch” Owens clearly lied and betrayed his position(s) that he had campaigned on for months to the voters  as evidenced by his renege on his “promises” in Wash an hour after being sworn in.

          <

          p>Bottom line?  the Republican District  that the Pelosi loon touts as “winning” after being Republican since the civil War got bamboozled lied to and screwed … end of story

          <

          p>Anyone got an extra airsick bag?I  think I’m gonna puke.

          • …but I assume the candidates have been laying out their actual positions for weeks if not months.  If Republicans didn’t think this person was conservative enough she should have been challenged in the primary.  Let’s give voters on all sides a little more credit.

        • (quite beautiiful) have you ever lived there ,Patrick?…It’s easy to pontificate and speculate about the people in this part of America from a  a “city boy’s” viewpoint but
          Here it is..these people are very simple , down to earth AMERICANS that aren’t cynical ( yet) and still believe in the American way and believe that their representatives that they send to Washington are honest folks telling them the truth..( that’s why it’s been a Republican region since the civil war)…  

          <

          p>It is abundantly clear that Owens has just compromised their trust.  This election of a liar is a huge disappointment to these honest American people…They won’t forget what’s been done to them on 11/4/2010… I know these people…you can take that to the bank

  3.   This is a front page NEWS headline from the local newspaper.
    Take a look and get the facts and truth if you can handle them.
    I doubt if the Lamestream , State Run media will report on this travesty…they are so in the tank it’s ridiculous.
    Maybe fox or CNN might pick it up being the last of the so called “journalists” that actual report the news without the bias.
    The truth is a terrible thing, isn’t it?

  4. There’s no way to subscribe for delivery, and this looks mainly like an opinion forum trying to pretend it’s a newspaper.  Like, you know, the Drudge Report.  All the commentary linked from the frontpage is reactionary — Oliver North, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, etc.  Oddly enough, of the 124 votes in their online poll on health care, only 2 favor it.  I think this says a lot about the audience the G-Times courts.  Their front page is littered with grammatical, punctuation, and basic copy-editing mistakes.

    <

    p>Listen, these idiots can call their opinion “news”, “commentary”, or “studies in manatee behavior” but that doesn’t mean this is journalism in any recognizable sense of the word.

    • There is a real newspaper in town called the Gouverneur Tribune-Press, which is a weekly paper.  In a village of about 4,300, they have an impressive claimed circulation of 3,700 papers.  Many of those are likely printed for newsstands, and go unsold.

      <

      p>I see no economic sense for a second newspaper in this area, particularly of such poor quality.  

    • Clearly, it is NOT. It is a compilation of news articles ( links to)from all over the world that allows readers to view legitimate news articles , particularly, from Europe which is not in the grasp of partisan Obama adoration and actually presents fact filled objective journalism which has ended here in the US for many years now.
      One need only look at the circulation #s of the likes of the NYT that has devolved into an opinion magazine since its takover and destruction as a business by far left “Pinchy” Saltzburg. His father, “Punchy” , a Marine corp vet and conservative must be spinning in his grave as people are using “the grey old lady” as liners for the bottom of their bird cages.
      It’s pathetic to see that Americans have ZERO confidence in the credibility of our new “State run , in the tank” laughing stock media….pretty sad when you need to get printed news that you can actually believe from Europe in the UK Times or Financial Times.

      • You’re presenting Europe — where papers are openly partisan — as a paragon of fact-filled journalism.  I’m sorry you don’t like facts today, but that doesn’t give you license to pretend they’re not facts.

      • He’ll post his own breaking news in addition to the collection of links that make up the majority of the Drudge Report.

        <

        p>Developing…

  5. I challenge those here to produce evidence here that Owens did not go back on his campaign promises after being elected…  that’s pretty simple and straight forward , isn’t it?
    Regardless of the origins of the story., is it true or not. That’s the issue.

    <

    p>And as to “opinion”? Isn’t that what the State run media that masqurades as objective “journalism” has devolved into?  Take a look at newspaper circ # or the ratings of the likes of MSNBC et al… they’re in the toilet because people don’t believe them anymore. I mean seriously, how the hell do you have over a million people march on Washington and it hardly gets a mention in the in the tank, State run media? What a joke. The American people are waking up to this crap and aren’t buying it anymore
    The times they are a changin folks..get used to it

      • Please provide links to support your position. Something like “Owens maligned by untrue accusations that he switched positions from his campaign promises” from a credible news source will do.
        Trouble is you can’t can you?
        It would be nice if you stayed with Charlies rules here that you back up what you have to say with credible sources. I believe I have.

            • You made a verifiable claim about breaking four promises.  The one link you did provide was broken when I tried it and it has been called into question anyway.  Here’s what I want to see:

              <

              p>1) “Owens said…on this date at this place (preferably with a link) and he now says…”  Very simple format.

              <

              p>Did he say he would vote against the current House bill during the campaign?  If so please cite.

              • that this is a very small local paper that caters to the locals and reports the local/regional news to the Americans and what’s of interest to them. They don’t do primaries and all the posturing corrupt political bullshit  we see here in the big  eastern far left cities. These people never heard of a “primary” They’re old fashioned Americans
                The paper earlier today reported over 15,000 people on line to their site which absolutely buried their server… Here is a copy of the article from another source

                <

                p>http://www.freerepublic.com/fo…

                <

                p>Is it true? or not? If you believe it’s not I would appreciate your documented links and proof of your position….  I’m waiting.
                if you can’t reliably dispute this article your apology for being  WRONG would also be appreciated. I don’t think i’m going to hold my breath waiting for a far left Zealot to admit he was WRONG   not surprising

                • Oops.  he did actually support the Public Option.

                  <

                  p>Good grief.  Have these people even paid attention to the campaign?

                • (NO Gov option) for Months and was EMPHATIC and COMMITTED  about his position   ..then on OCt 30, three days before the election he reveres his position 180 in an oblique statement?..that no one even heard ? ya that sounds fair…plenty of time for the word to spread to the voters to even discover that he ‘s been bullshitting them for 6 months. 6% hadn’t even gotten the word that Dede  wasn’t even running anymore. Pllleeez John , get real..this guy lied to the voters and duped them ..end of story. You can “spin all you want…. this guy is a chameleon far left bullshitter  You know it and so does everyone else with any brains

                • You can spew all the insults you want.  It will never make you credible.  Even your “source” is more honest than you are:

                  <

                  p>

                  UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a ‘litmus test’ for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

                  <

                  p>Thanks for playing.  

                • A candidate supports the public option in his campaign, then votes for it.  That’s not “a lie”, as you put it.

                • Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha…..

                  <

                  p>The man is so hell bent on being fair that he gives JohnD the benefit of the doubt.

                  <

                  p>Try again!

                • So the nominee is chosen in a smoke-filled room and you make this sound like a good thing!?  Apparently the County Chairmen chose her for being electable in a district that is only rated R+2  The Free Republic link worked, but I don’t trust it any farther than I can throw it.  It does appear that Owens position may have evolved some, but so what?  Let’s say you’re completely correct in your accusation; the voters made a decision and Republicans with White House ambitions are most to blame for this fiasco for their party, IMO.

  6. are ready to start the personal attacks and move this thread out of the realm of debate and down a few notches to a lower intellectual level…david, Bob and  charlie , I doubt that you’re very pleased with the intellectual prowess of the likes of “huh” on your blog…  how embarrassing..oh well, nuff said

    • In this thread alone jack12 has insulted me, Christopher, KBusch, logic, and the English language.

      <

      p>In all honesty, he should have been banned when he threatened KBusch.  

  7. I thought this was a rhetorical question, not excuse-making  for the conservative candidate and his supporters based on propaganda about Owens.

Archives