Remember the good old days when elected officials were blindly loyal to party and were not torn with angst over whether to vote with leadership? Well those who want to prosper in the system still do that for the most part, but some curious statements in the Daily Enterprise by our Congressman cause some head scratchin' with the partisan crowd.
Rep. Bill Owens says he may vote for John Boehner for Speaker in January...but he also says he conditionally supports Nancy Pelosi and did not oppose her in conference when she was challenged for the post of minority leader.
Just so you know, Speaker of the House is a constitutional position unlike leadership roles. All members vote on the speaker and the rule of thumb is all the GOP votes Boehner and all the Dems vote for the leader they selected in caucus, in this case Ms. Pelosi.
Obviously Mr. Boehner wins and becomes Speaker.
The ADE suggests Mr. Owens is trynig to have it both ways. Mr. Owens was only recently registered as a Democrat, so he may not be as familiar with protocol as those longer marinated in the party.
An aside....I just heard Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) say on FOX he voted against Ms. Pelosi in conference and will again on January 3.
Owens Wants It Both Ways
28 comments:
Ordinarily I would admire someone for being independent. But in his independence he voted the wrong way on Obamacare and he should not even entertain the idea of voting for Nancy. He could vote for the runner up Dem. So he is a dumb jerk.
Voting for Boehner is treason to the party, period.
Owens, if he does, might as well help get Gingrich in the WH, too.
Owens should be ashamed if he votes for Boehner. If he does, I'll oppose him next year.
DEM principles are as validd as or more valid than many GOP principles; DEMS party values are just as strong as other American values; and loyalty is loyalty to the voters back home, if one knows how to apply them.
With a Boehner vote, Mr. Owens would violate them all.
Funny DF you pushed Owens as an Ind. thinker. Now if he does not vote the party line- a done deal you willl dump him.
The Blue Dogs - aka DINOs - aka Repubs in drag - will vote for Boner. Those Dems, like Owens, that just squeaked by the tsunsmai might just vote for Boner, just so in two years, they can say they voted against her highness. Or, in other words, just "politics as usual." Nothing more, nothing less.
Dan is going to oppose him next year?
You mean you're going to run against him? Or do you mean your going to vote for someone else? Pfttt! Who you going to vote for if not Owens?
What can you expect if you run an "independent" as your choice for democrat candidate?
If you take a girl to the dance that is not your girlfriend don't be surprised when she dances with others instead of just yourself. You can still call her a dirty freaken whore though. But you knew that when you asked her to the dance didn't ya.
First poster hit it on the head.
1008.. You sound a little hateful. Are you against helping poor people. Are you so well to do you despise the poorerest class of people in this country medical attention.. You support a president that was elected by the Supreme Court. This president took us to war killing thousands of American boys and girls. This guy made millions and millions for corporate America at our expense but you dont want to pay for medical plans for everyone.. WoW
"Dem principles are as valid or more valid...blah blah blah". Dannie Francis
Blah blah, blah. Blah blah.
What bs.
Does ya ever get tired?
Dan was not talking about running against anyone. After some of the things he has said, he knows he has been reduced to a clown. What he was saying is he might oppose him with his vote. Which is freaakin impossible, as Owens is a Democrat and Dannie is glued. His body won't let his mind consider voting for anyone who isn't registered Donkey. Don't listen to that man behind the curtain.
Rep. Bill Owens supported Nancy, for Minority Leader and now he supports John for Majority Leader a job Mrs. Pelosi had no chance to win in this Congress. Bill Owens can work with John and Nancy now. Welcome to a Congress where crossing the Aisle is a necessity in order to avoid grid-lock and wasted effort. We can't aford to have people sitting on their hands in Congress for two years period. Think of it this way we don't have to look at 3 months ofhe votedfor Nancy as Majority Leader next election in 2012. What a relief!
Middle-Class Mike
The title of this thread is "Owens Wants it Both Ways".
This explains all my questions about him and Nancy.
No we cannot afford to have people sitting on their hands...we need them to repeal obamacare and repeal whats left of the porkulus package.
...then we need them to sit on their hands.
5:42 you are an idiot. Of course I am angry. The three main problems they needed to address in our healthcare system were not addressed. And in fact the most important...how much we spend on healthcare has been increased under obamacare.
Don't worry, 7:06. The man is living in the past and selective with his memory. A party liner he be.
Are you so well to do you despise the poorerest class of people in this country medical attention..
Don't you mean deprise? And poorerester?
12:48 - Ding, wrong answer: I never ever pushed Owens as an INDY or anything else, you are flat out wrong.
4:23 - I meant exactly what I said, I would oppose him, and that means in a race at the ballot box.
6:07 - Owens only became a legal DEM after the 2008 election. Had there been a DEM primary, and since he was not a registered DEM, he could not have even voted for himself.
I have been a lifelong DEM since I first voted in 1964 while I was a young Marine.
I have not been a supporter of Owens for many reasons. I was aainst Dohney, yes, because I didn't like Doheny's stance on issues, and his past ties to Wall Street.
Now with this story about Owens might possibly support and vote for Boehner as Speaker - that's a bit too much.
We shall see. Anyway, your insults and jabs don't matter or bother me one bit. But, keep trying.
If I do run, it will be about strong DEM principles, my values, and my loyalty to the voters and common sense on tough issues ... DEMS like GOPers do not vote for other party leaders.
Owens would make a huge mistake if does.
This is a purely political move on Owens' part. He barley won reelection here in the 23rd, and the country is leaning towards the right. In an effort to appeal to the more moderate voters who may have voted for the Republicans, Owens is attempting to get a point for himself in the next election. If he can distance himself from Pelosi (which was a major talking point for the Doheny camp) that will help him a great deal 2012. Mark my words. On issues, Owens hardly supports any ideas of Boehner, but is simply doign this to appeal to the voters. Political Science 101.
So Dan, that means you are going to be running of Owens votes for the Boehner guy. I think that's a good thing. I've had many problems with you but I'd like to see you get after it again. It might surprise you but much of what you have to say takes guts and makes sense, to me. What bothers me is your love of government and your way of debating all sides of issues but always ending up supporting any available Donkey. But you can give some government lovers the headache of a lifetime. For that, I interested in your running for office. If I were your advisor, I'd push to to ditch the nice guy crap and go angry. Not crazy, but controlled anger. Go after 'em Dan. The people aren't interested in taking no more sh#t from any government official. You should be able to find something in government that pisses you off. Run like Earl Campbell, low and hard.
I imagine that Owens isn't losing a lot of sleep over a Francis campaign.
I don't know if he would lose any sleep but he would certainly lose the race. He only won by a frogs hair. Danny could be the Hoffman of the right.
I am a strong supporter of government for a simple reason: I know what government can and cannot do, and should do. I always stand for progress, efficiency, effectiveness and common sense in policy formulation. That was my goal for 40 years that I served in uniform and as a DOD/Army civilian ... it served me well and I served the public with dignity and honor and loyalty, and very successful, I might add.
I can take criticism and the heat, and I am not wishy-washy on issues and believe me, there plenty of folks in my party who greatly dislike me for my leadership style.
I am a threat to them in many ways and that is unfortunate. You know the type I mean, don't you.
Yes, I can get mad and angry. That's the easy part, but the hard part is leading and solving the problems. That is harder, but also the more enjoyable and the real purpose of public service: job satisfaction for the people... not being angry and throwing rocks.
This short video illustrates my point Reflection helps clear the air.
So Dan, you are a strong supporter of government because you "know what government can and cannot do". That implies you know its limitations. If true, that would be very nice.
Unfortunately, I don't get that idea at all. There doesn't seem to be limits to what you deem to be appropriate government involvement. And even more disappointingly, despite a record of defending our Constitution on paper, you, like most liberals, have no basic appreciation for power and rights of the individual. You would be much more comfortable in the Canadian or British system, where citizens are subjects. I don't mean this to be nasty, this is simply what I see in your positions in politics. I do understand your point of view. It is very difficult for many not to love government in all its glory, especially when they create so much wealth, solve so many problems, even so many playing fields, and give away so much Free Stuff.
9:27: Absolutely false, entirely in this statement you posted:
[snip] ... and even more disappointingly, despite a record of defending our Constitution on paper, you, like most liberals, have no basic appreciation for power and rights of the individual. You would be much more comfortable in the Canadian or British system, where citizens are subjects."
Don't try and second guess me; you would be wrong most of the time.
Maybe so. I've been wrong a lot in my life. But you always seem to come down on the side of more spending and more government involvement. You have an underlying confidence in the ability of government to get all things done. I have no confidence in them at all.
Have a nice Thanksgiving, Mr Dan.
3:55 - post examples of where I call for more Fed spending or larger or more government (size or involvement) ...
I believe in wise spending when necessary for the public's best interest, reasonable taxes to pay our bills, and not having or causing fraud, waste, or abuse (via contractors mostly). The size of government should one that is effective, efficient, and serves the needs of the public ...
You seem to have a problem with that - I do not. The problem I have is with people like you twisting my words or views to fit your agenda . . . and that I will strongly defend myself against.
Dan, don't be foolish. There hasn't been a issue where you haven't supported more spending and the politicians who advocate the same. I can't single out any issue where that has not been the case. And you may flip around all you want on support of different candidates, but you are a party line thinker every day of your life. As in the cases of Evul and MD99inVTandSanFran, I never understand how this is possible.
And again, resist the temptation to be simplistic. I don't have a problem with government serving needs. I have a problem when this "serving" of yours costs more than it provides and also causes a loss of personal freedoms. The country isn't what it used to be. That concerns me. You seem to think government is always the answer, it isn't. But most seem to agree with you or we wouldn't be headed in the direction we are in.
Post a Comment