"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Friday, August 14, 2009

NY-23

Congressional candidate Owens is taking a page out of the Aubertine play book and attempting to run to the right of Scozzafava. But, the Darrel-Lite candidate seems to be unsure of himself.

According to the Watertown Daily Times

"I don't have enough information"

"He considered marriage to be a 'states' rights issue' "

"Mr. Owens offered no opinion"

"He would have to study bills"

It just seems if he wants the job and wants to make public appearances he probably should be ready to address some issues with more specific detail.

This guy is Darrel-Lite for sure.

17 comments:

Dan Francis said...

He's not Darrel-lite. That's an insult to both of them. It may be your view, but I disagree.

Mr. Owens is NOT a Democrat. He says he holds "Democrat Party views and principles," but then he takes off and sounds like a GOPer.

I sat with him for 30 minutes at Blue Mountain Lake before our interviews and I reached that conclusion then - he reinforces it now everytime he is asked for his stand on a critical issues.

If he thinks and/or projects that he can run "against" Obama plans and such to win over GOP and/or Conservative votes, then he is sadly mistaken in my view.

People know phony when they see it. How, I'm not saying he is phony, but he is against the core values, principles and heart of the Democrat Party and he wants to be a DEM?

I have yet to hear him talk about the two wars, detainee issues, lies and deceit in and by government officials, and such -

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

"He considered marriage to be a 'states' rights issue' "

meaning same-sex marriage?
I agree if that's what he means

"He would have to study bills"

who studied the Patriot Act bill? who studied the budgets? there was a lot of squawking about not studying bills recently.....


I just don't want another middleaged whitey lawyer from New Yawk City representing me.

Dan Francis said...

No one running for office should try to "run to the left or right" of their opponent at any time.

Instead, they must hold their ground and run on where they stand ...

They may even agree on some issues with their opponent - nothing wrong with that; but over all, all candidates MUST, in my view:

* Present a clear CHOICE

* Show the clear DIFFERENCES

* Point out CONSEQUENCES of no change or staying the course (status quo)

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

Scared IV? Because your RHINO candidate might get beat?

hermit thrush said...

here's the link to the article, which somehow didn't make its way into iv's post.

that aside, i think this is about right:

It just seems if he wants the job and wants to make public appearances he probably should be ready to address some issues with more specific detail.

more precisely, i guess it's ok for owens to punt on certain issues that he doesn't find all that important. and i suppose there's an argument to be made that the issues profiled in the article really aren't the most important ones we face (not necessarily an argument i'd buy, but you can at least make it).

but if that's the case, well, on which issues does he take a clear stand? it's not nearly enough to keep talking about how important jobs and the economy are without articulating any honest policy positions.

by the same token, what are dede's positions on the issues in the article? her reputation is obviously that of a social liberal, but the public needs to know where she stands on the issues coming up in the context of the campaign.

finally, kudos to hoffman for taking a clear stand on dadt!

Dan Francis said...

Track the 23rd race here:

23rd CD: Hitting Hard for Change

— dmf

Anonymous said...

His Channel 7 interview was just as bad. COuld he ride the fence anymore??? Gay marriage??? Well something but not the word "marriage" , abortion?? well i dont personally agree with it but roe vs wade so it is ok, Gays in the miltary??? I have to talk to some of them but the things now seem ok so maybe we leave it like that. HELLO stand for something!!

Anonymous said...

so don't vote for him then. What happens in the booth stays in the booth.

Dan Francis said...

I'm waiting on the 23rd three-some to discuss this... will they and if so, how will they?

Abu Ghraib Back in the News (sorta)

Read the piece carefully before you jump on my ass, okay? - Then jump if you like,

Be forewarned - that pool is shallow.

— dmf

Anonymous said...

* Marriage IS a state's right, just like issuing driver's license, fishing and hunting licenses, gun permits, and all kinds of other stuff.

Anonymous said...

Give it up Danny. Come talk to the Dems. Not the piv nuts.

Dan Francis said...

Anonymous 9:46: You want me talk to the DEMS - I tired that. Does failed ring a bell with you?

As far as me posting here at IVY and/or leaving, and not expressing my views [from all sides of the argument], who in the hell do you think you are to tell me that?

I don't hide from anything or anyone and especially behind an Anonymous moniker.

Sorry, pal, no can do. But, my advice to you or anyone else who will or will not listen would be try and get to know me more than just from this forum posting trough.

Here free for you.

Print and Save Motto

— dmf

Anonymous said...

What does it say that the Dems would pick a candidate who isn't a registered Democrat? Were all the other registered Dem's that poor a candidate? Unbelievable and gutsy move...relying on faithful Democrats to just vote party line and not look at folks records.

That's ballsy.

Dan Francis said...

From what I've been told after speaking with several other finishers, it came down to who could put the most personal money (if they needed to) up front, or who had the biggest rolodex [contacts to raise the most money] -- money from outside the district [non-voters] apparently did not enter into the equation at all.

If so, that speaks for a very shady process, IMHO, since it does not address the most serious issue on campaign reform, or any other sorely-needed reform.

With that formula, nothing will change -- it never does.

~ dmf

Anonymous said...

Well Danny-boy that seems to say to me that the National Dems are saying that they don't want to fund a loser.

You think they're going to stay out of the race and let Owens do it on his own?

Dan Francis said...

Anonymous 9:52... Fund a loser?

I doubt that, but at the same time, they hope that issues pop out later - for damn sure, the committee didn't listen too closely or didn't want to hear anyting about issues at the Aug 11 mini-convention that picked Owens, the Dem who is not a Dem.

Issues? What issues?

Dan Francis said...

Want an issue, or maybe not?

"Alrighty then" (said with Jim Carrey twang)...

Gays: An Issue or Not???

Live Blogging