Misleading talking point that Owens "ran against the health care bill" spreads from right-wing blogs to Fox

Aren't the right-wing blogs and Fox really the same thing? You can say whatever you want and you can cry freedom of speech when someone tells you to stop lying.

One-trick ponies.

Perfect setup for future untrue flip-flop charges.

Know who DID run against the Health Care bill? CREIGH DEEDS. Result? Democrats in VA who turned out for Obama twelve months ago stayed home in droves.

Progressive Democrats get the people to the polls. Owens, I suspect, is a fairly conservative Democrat who won because his opponent was a drooling idiot. Deeds ran against a better candidate, and dashed so far to the right that Democrats simply had no reason to vote for him.

The republican party,and republican party media's favorite talking point on healthcare reform is tort reform.A government(run,controled)health care system is the ultimate tort reform.How many people have sued the government for damages and won???

The republican party,and republican party media's favorite talking point on healthcare reform is tort reform.A government(run,controled)health care system is the ultimate tort reform.How many people have sued the government for damages and won???

Before this, maybe some of Hannity's drooling followers MAY have thought he some slight, tiny bit of sense.

But, with the passing of the health care bill, I'd say Hannity's call was just a bit off-base.

As of tonight, I woul pay to see Kantor reporting to his constituents, quite possibly a cheering crowd that he failed to stop a Health Care Bill

Writing a right-wing blog is the scribbling equivalent of moral suicide.

Have they not looked at a poll in the last year - there has not been a single point this entire year in which the pollers who identified as a democrat did not have a majority in support of the public option. Most of the polls dems are polling between 70 and 80 percent support. The country as a whole is closer obviously but even then, the majority still supports a public option.

Why would the democrats who voted for the bill be ousted by their constituents? Its the polar opposite - the dems who didnt vote for healthcare reform could be ousted b/c they are choosing to vote against their owm majority within the party.

There is no way that one can claim that the new york district was not a message if they continue to claim NJ and Penn were. These two states constantly fluctuate between parties for the gobernor's seat but that district has been red for over 120 years. That is a statement to me if you consider the history - i just think perhaps the candidate was not too well suited for the position though. It seemed like he decided to do this on a whim and was completely unprepared to campaign or to win as Im sure he never expected to. He didnt live in the district and knew little about any of the actual issues. To analyze penn and NJ you can also look to both candidates that lost - neither was considered a frontrunner. Neither was considered popular. I live in NJ and I got a very distinct sense that people here did not like the way he governed at all in his short time in office. I think congressional elections can be a referendum but local elections are far more often than not about the actual candidates running. I say this also about myself - I did not like corzine so I didnt vote for him. If corzine was running for the NJ senate in the general election, i WOULD most certainly have voted for him as I think we NEED more dems in congress.

The dems do not have an overwhelming majority. Leibermann who is considered a democrat is not at all a democrat. Baucus really doesn't stand consistent with any democratic policies. He is constantly voting against his own party. Ben nelson was ranked as being more conservative than five republicans in the senate by national journal/ Mary Landrieu is more conservative than about a quarter of the senate republicans. The blue dogs are often trying to hide behind some group to conceal their loyalties to the insurance industry. I would say there are about 54 or so that are actually democrats in the senate. That is a majority but not a big one.

The dems dont support the public option because of the NJ and Penn's governor's races? Why does no one here think the question is ridiculous for so many reasons? Mainly, the dems were trying to garner support for this months before this recent election. Two, the public option couldn't even gain support in the finance committee which was controlled by the democrats. That was months ago. When was there universal support in the dems in congress. Three, do they even know what senator leibermann who holds democratic positions said this week? Could a person who works in the media actually not know this?

Also, do they really think the democratic voters will not vote back into office dems just because they supported the democratic plan? That is the equivalent of them saying republican voters would not vote back in their reps because they voted for Bush tax cuts. The actual democratic voters support this reform far more than the people representing them in congress or in the white house for that matter. For all the talk that obama is a nazi socialist communist, the obvious fact that he has not really flung his support towards the more left of the democrats in congress should at some point realize how foolish these bogus claims sounds to reasonably intelligent people. We have gotten massive bailouts but no oversight or regulation of wall street. We have gotten escalation of a war but no declaration that dont ask dont tell would be repealed. All Ive heard about environmental reform is that we should temper our expectations. Either, This is the most conservative radical ever or obama is trying to keep his hand close to the vest until after the election. It just absolutely hillarious now for a liberal to hear that obama is some radical these days - so far the only thing that is liberal about obama is his campaign.