Adler vs. Saxton has potential for a great race

Then they are a mix of Kid Rock with Spinal Tap on top. High quality political analysis, MM!

Any Republican who thinks that Saxton, who would barely show his face on the campaign trail last time around, can take this seat for granted is sorely mistaken. The national environment of anti-Republican sentiment is even having an effect on local and state races in N.J. in 2007, as Iraq is one of the top topics heard by state candidates on the campaign trail.

Adler will have funds to support his race, he'll have the backing of a large Democratic infrastructure across South Jersey (if Asselta and McCullough lose in November, there is no Republican infrastructure left, for all intents and purposes), and he'll have the seasoning that he didn't have when he ran for this seat the first time around.

He is a "Complete ass" for opposing treating poor people who earn 80,000 a year the same as seniors who would have their benefits cut? That is how the bill is paid for.  Let's get this straight - the bill CUTS funding for seniors in Medicare so we can allow families earning over 80,000 to pay for health care? The law was supposed to benefit low income families. 80,000 a year is low income? That is crap? That is helping the insurance companies? By trhe way - they are the BIGGEST employer in the State. By why worry about employing people - having it your way, everyone will be on government subsidies soon enough.

Ocean County senior citizens control this district by turning out in percentages north of 90% and voting solidly GOP. Good luck breaking this hold with 40-50% turnout in the Camden and Burlington river towns. Adler has a chance of carrying one town in Ocean - South Toms River, population 2,000.

Though the previous poster's comments about a "waste of a congressional seat" were mistakenly allotted to our superb congressman Rob Andrews, they were surely meant for Jim Saxton, who consistently votes against state interests on stem cells (aligning himself with the fringe right in this regard), receives a 100% rating from Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, and votes against veteran's receiving the same amount of time away from deployment as they are in combat.

To win this seat, Adler must connect Saxton to the multiple failures, domestic and foreign, of the Bush administration, and this shouldn't be hard since Saxton has bought into the neocon fantasy of an endless war in Iraq; he has never even questioned Bush on his failed strategies there and continues to live under the illusion that we are fighting al Queda in Iraq rather than policing a civil war.

I cannot think of a more qualified or intelligent individual than John Adler finally to represent the interests and needs of South Jersey voters.

I could sooner see Dems behind the scenes pushing for an (either a Dem or Rep) Administration to appoint him as head of the EPA and try to compete for the vacated seat. The biggest chance Dems had to unseat him (along with Ferguson and LoBiondo) was in ’06. Now they’re going to have to wait for his retirement or resignation.

 As for the Christian Coalition, that rating cited is not a lifetime rating. I have also seen several years in which the CC endorses particular issues which are considered more in the mainstream. For example, in the ’95 (right after the ‘94 “Republican Revolution”) a key initiative endorsed by the CC was the balanced budget constitutional amendment. While that was considered a GOP issue, many liberal/progressive Dems including Paul Simon, Steny Hoyer, Joe Kennedy, and Tom Harkin also voted for the measure. So for that year they would have received well above a 0% from that group. So my 2 questions concerning this are: (1) in what year(s) did he receive this rating and (2) what issue(s) was this rating based on?

Martin, camdenbeer actually had a decent point I hadnt thought about. Saxton does protect a lot of jobs in the district, and the area would be screwed if Adler won. He may be an intelligent lawyer, but that doesnt help the thousands of people who rely on Lockheed and Fort Dix to pay their bills. Does anyone know what the percentage breakdown was Adler v Saxton in 1990?

Read it and weep (and this is from your right wing Moonie newspaper ;-).

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070919/NATION/109190053/1002

Further, 80K per annum and 4 kids and a mortgage and college costs and sickness/medical bills IS low income if you don't have medical coverage!!!

It's disgusting that you would deny medical care to children just so that insurance companies can make more money, shame on anyone who thinks like that.   The appellation "complete ass" is charitable.

Saxton will vote for a continuation of SCHIP or he'll be out of a job.

Guaranteed.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

The fundamental force that is resisting the SCHIP bill is the Sickness Assurance Industry/Lobby.

BTW Thanks for acknowledging that I was "right" about something! LOL Now I'll return the favor.

You are also right in pointing out that Adler is no saint. I would love to have a Paul Wellstone like candidate running against every Republican in every district in the nation; but I'll take Adler over Saxton.

Let us not let the imperfections of Adler be a justification for settling for the Bushist cronyism of Congressman Saxton. I'd rather have my pocket picked than my brains blown out.

If I have to choose between smokers paying more for tobacco or uninsured kids getting health care; I'll proudly choose the latter every time.

Shame on you and Saxton for worshipping at the alter of kneejerk "conservatism". (Poor Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in his grave.)

As for the 80k worker with four kids and no health insurance.: First of all, you are right in that it is unlikely that there will be too many cases like that......but it's the nature of the beast with health care that a serious illness or a chronic condition can tap out just about anyone. Some families have to carry the Cross of a child with ongoing medical needs that could cost millions of dollars. That's more than insurance companies will pay even if there was coverage. Should that family be reduced to going on some kind of welfare to qualify for charity care?

Why Saxton and you would begrudge a child health care under any circumstances is beyond me.

Please read the folowing article from "The Congressional Quarterly" http://public.cq.com/docs/hb/hbnews110-000002585480.html

A few quotes from it follow:

• In the first half of 2007, the health care sector doled out more than $227 million for lobbying efforts — the first time spending has topped $200 million, according to a tally of semi-annual reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

• What’s behind health care lobbyists’ spending frenzy? Most signs point to legislation in the House and Senate to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, popularly known as “SCHIP.” It’s the first time Congress has had to reauthorize the program and it’s one of the biggest pieces of health care legislation in the last decade.

• Industry groups have been spending freely to get a piece of the action. The health care industry’s lobby spending has risen year-on-year throughout the decade, but the 17 percent jump is the highest since 2000. And health care interest groups comprised five of the ten highest spending organizations on lobbying in the first six months of the year, a notable change from a year ago, when only two such groups cracked the top ten.

Face reality oc. The insurance industry would rather see children go uncovered and die rather than lost them to a government program. Frankly, I believe they feel the same way about the rest of us.

That's why they collectively spend many hundreds of millions of dollars a year to get folks like you to think and believe as you do and to buy politicians with "contributions".

As for Medicare "cuts", I suspect you're talking about Democratic provisions that would allow Medicare Part D to actually NEGOTIATE with drug companies over the cost of drugs as opposed to simply paying the "full retail list price"....which amounts to a blank check.

I'm sure Barry Goldwater would have approved of cutting costs while maintaing the same level of benefit! Then again, Goldwater had some integrity.

OC when it comes to "health care" we're all being ripped off, screwed and tatooed with a big "SUCKER" logo on our asses.

The resistance to SCHIP is all about the people doing the screwing losing some market share to a government program; nothing more.

Everyone of us will get sick and everyone of us will die; there is no uncertainy about that. In the USA of 2107 there will no "Health Insurance Industry" as we know it. You can't sucker all the people all the time.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

Why do you hate children who are of immigrant status Nicky? The bill in question also makes children of legal immigrants wait 5 years to qualify for SCHIP. Why do you and the Democrats hate those children more than African American and Caucasian children?

I wanted to let you know what YOUR potential nominees for President are saying should define "rich" or upper class. According to Joe Biden, $97,000 a year is "rich" and should be taxed more than the rest of America. So between the two of you, middle class American is anyone earning between 80,001 and 96,999 a year. For the record, the SCHIP would allow anyone earning 83,000 a year to apply for federal benefits under the definition of "low income." What a joke.