Adler will vote NO on healthcare

He's just a coward (0.00 / 0)

It's sad

I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 18:55:44 PM CDT

really really really freaking sad (4.00 / 1)

I am too veklempt to even contemplate how sad it all is.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 19:30:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Time to play hardball. (3.00 / 1)

I also contributed to his campaign last time. Given my financial difficulty, it was the only congressional campaign I donated to, though it was a small amount and he proceeded to waste a large fraction of that sending paper mailings asking for more.

At this point, progressives need to send a message. Adler does hail from a somewhat difficult district. But very rarely does a Representative cast a vote on an issue so important and every vote is needed. When the chips are truly down, Adler is 0 for 1. An batting average of .000. And that's how he'll most likely remain.

I won't be happy that a Republican takes the district in November. It's even possible we'll lose the Democratic Party majority in the House. But for the sake of the future, progressives should not support his reelection. If we want future Democratic legislators to be more conscientious in choosing when to triangulate, we should support a progressive third-party candidacy in this district.

I don't know who may run. But whomever will be recognized as taking votes from Adler's left is who will get my support.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 19:44:25 PM CDT

Open Letter to John Adler (0.00 / 0)

This is the letter I sent to Adler on Health Care after his disappointing interview on Fox "News":

http://www.deciminyan.org/2010...

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

---

by: deciminyan @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 19:55:43 PM CDT

One of two things is going to happen (4.00 / 2)

A) Jon Runyan praises his decision.

or

B) Jon Runyan attacks him for being a Democrat anyway.

........ uh huh.

---

by: JRB @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 20:10:12 PM CDT

If you were thinking B (4.00 / 1)

you would be correct and it was very predictable:

Jon Runyan disputes the notion that Rep. John Adler's opposition to the Democrats' health care reform package means there's little daylight between them.

In his first substantive interview with the media, the former Philadelphia Eagles star outlined what he said were stark contrasts between himself and the Cherry Hill Democratic incumbent.

"He's saying he's worried that there are no cost controls. I'm more worried that it's a government takeover of another program," Runyan said.

Oh and he'll also be attacked for supporting Nancy Pelosi, who clearly has koodies because she is from San Francisco:

The word "Pelosi" was circulating derisively in the crowd before Runyan arrived and he was 15 minutes into his remarks before taking a crack at the poll worn Speaker of the House from San Francisco.

"His first vote as a congressman was to elect Nancy Pelosi speaker of the house," declared Runyan.

---

by: Jason Springer @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 20:15:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

His no vote just doomed him (0.00 / 0)

because no Rightie is going to vote for him and many Lefties like me will never vote for him again. Smart politics pissing on your base.

Dumb Ass

---

by: srlaser @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 20:54:03 PM CDT

I'm disappointed with his vote on Health Care (4.00 / 1)

But to turn your back on him and the great votes on other matters is silly. If you want to empower some neo-con jock who will screw you on everything ... go run away and and give him the Congressional seat!

I want Adler back!

John Adler has done one hell of a job at constituent outreach! He's the real deal on that!

This is what makes politics difficult and complex, a complex issue. He should not be demonized. We have to look at the big picture and keep him in DC. Let's not cut off our noses~ You want Boehner as Speaker? THAT should be a great incentive to support Adler!!

Babs Casbar Siperstein

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 22:39:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree, Babs. (0.00 / 0)

It seems like (and probably is) and dumb stunt for a guy who wet his pants at the sight of the '09 Ocean County vote.

Because Adler isn't a bad guy. And compared with Runyan? Yikes.

Though this is a way to turn off donors, volunteers, foot soldiers, etc.

Things are going to be a lot different when people see the sky isn't falling.

---

by: JRB @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 22:53:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Adler is going to lose anyway (4.00 / 1)

Turnout was never going to be what it was in 2008.  I still cannot understand what John Adler was thinking when he decided to run for a tough House seat instead of being content in a safe State Senate seat.  He went from being a liberal State Senator to a conservative Congressman almost overnight.

Any money or other resources dedicated to his re-election will be wasted.  I would sooner see progressives in South Jersey try to defeat Frank LoBiondo and Chris Smith than save John Adler.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 23:14:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Adler is going to lose anyway (0.00 / 0)

rachael'sdad is right.  I will donate my money this year to whoever is running against Scott Garrett.   Like Adler, that's also probably a losing cause, but at least it will make me feel better.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

---

by: deciminyan @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:59:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Adler can win! (0.00 / 0)

He's done his homework and has done great constituency outreach. He still votes as a common sense social liberal! Don't write him off!

"anyone" against Garrett is a loser. I like the idea of getting a petition to recall him and educating his constituents in the 5th about how much of a wing-nut reactionary he is ... and then find a solid down to earth moderate to run against him!

Babs

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:56:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No he can't, Babs! (0.00 / 0)

You know as well as I do that turnout is the difference between victory and defeat in tough districts like Adler's and while Republican turnout will probably remain constant between 2008, 2009, and 2010, Democratic turnout is going to drop dramatically.

How Adler votes on HCR will not affect his chances of winning or losing one bit, which is the best reason for him to vote for HCR.  If he is going to lose, he should lose being the liberal that he used to be rather than the conservative that he has become.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:56:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If this HRC Bill (0.00 / 0)

fails, he doesn't get my vote in November. If it passes, then I will forgive him.

---

by: srlaser @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 18:39:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would vote for him either way if I was you (0.00 / 0)

As bad as he's been, he's still better than Runyan and voting for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote.

My only point is that I wouldn't dedicate a second of time or donate a penny to his re-election since he is definitely going to lose either way and does not deserve anybody's time or money, but he deserves your vote only because he will be the lesser of two evils, which are unfortunately the choices that we are far too often stuck with in this state and country.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 20:46:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well I won't (0.00 / 0)

If this bill fails ,it means we needed his vote and he betrayed us.

Unforgivable

---

by: srlaser @ Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:23:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Message votes are not wasted (0.00 / 0)

Your vote is an asset. Most of the time, you cast it in a way that has a minuscule chance of determining the outcome and also sends a very quiet (because it is only one vote) message. Voting for a third party candidate forgoes the nigh-on infinitesimal chance of determining the outcome but under some circumstances sends a somewhat louder message.

IMO, it's very bad strategy to make a frequent habit of voting for third party candidates. Partly because part of the message it sends is to other voters, that it's OK to do likewise. But there are times when showing that you care enough to vote but are withholding your vote from your erstwhile party sends a salutary and effective message to that party.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 08:29:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

agree and disagree (0.00 / 0)

I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 to protest Bill Clinton's lobbying for and signing of the DOMA, but I did that with the confidence that there was no way in hell that he was going to lose NJ to Nader.

Despite the fact that I think that Adler is going to lose to Runyan and lose big, I could be wrong, and as angry at Adler as I am for what he has become, I would prefer to see him in that seat than Runyan if for no other reason than if he does survive this election and redistricting gives him a more Democratic district going forward, he could redeem himself for his 1st term bad votes in the decade to come.

He is undoubtably going to need every vote that he can get to win re-election, and while I still would not encourage anyone to contribute a moment of time or a penny to his re-election campaign, I do not think that his situation warrants a message vote.

In hindsight, particularly considering the menace that Nader became in 2000 and 2004, I think that my vote for him in 1996 was childish, pointless, and wasted.  If I had it to do over again, I would not have voted for him.  And when you consider the fact that Bob Torricelli was elected to the Senate in the same year, I think that I should have just spent Election Day in bed.  It was definitely a bad year for the democratic process.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 00:49:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Public Option (4.00 / 1)

I also support a public option that would give consumers more choice when selecting a health care plan; the current bill omits this cost containment measure.

Is he saying that the ONLY reason that he is voting NO is because the bill is lacking the public option?  If that is the case, why did he vote NO on the original House bill?  Other than the absent public option and Stupak anti-abortion language, is there anything significantly different about the bill the House will hopefully pass on Sunday and the bill that they have already passed.

And if there isn't any significant difference between these bills other than the public option and the Stupak anti-abortion language, is the difference between the Hyde language that has prevailed to date and the Stupak language different enough to justify the abandonment of the public option?

Are these the choices that the House is deliberating or has it simply been decided, despite all of the work that has been done by people like Howard Dean and DFA and New Jersey's own, Adam Green, and the PCCC on the Senate side to get 51 Senators on board with the public option and anything else that the House wanted to include in this bill.

Are there really not enough votes in the House for the public option without the Stupakites or is Nancy Pelosi under orders from the Obama Administration to not pursue the public option any further?

John Adler is going to lose in November and when he does, his political career may very well be over unless he is offered a job in the Obama administration or he decides to redeem himself by challenging James Beach for his old Senate seat where he can go back to being the liberal John Adler that we all knew and loved or takes a shot at returning to the House in 2012 either against Justin Murphy or Jon Runyan or even against Rob Andrews if Cherry Hill winds up in the Democrat's district, although I wouldn't imagine that his votes against HCR would really position him well in a contested Democratic Congressional primary election regardless of how checkered Andrews' past is.

Knowing that his political career is most likely coming to an end, one would think that John Adler would want to be on the right side of history.  Obviously, that is not the case.  Maybe there is a K Street or State Street job waiting for him.  Whatever the reason, the fact of the matter is that we might as well begin mourning John Adler's political demise now and use his example as a reason to seriously consider the amount of resources that the progressive community focuses on Congressional and Senatorial elections when the impact that we can have on them is far less than the impact that we can have on state, county, and municipal elections, especially if the only result of redistricting is the creation of 12 incumbent-friendly Congressional districts to replace 13 incumbent-friendly Congressional districts.

2011 could be a watershed year for the progressive community in NJ if it begins to engage the redistricting process and planning for the June 2011 Democratic primary elections RIGHT NOW, not in December 2010 or March 2011 or whenever we generally decide to get over our Holiday hangovers and get back to working on the task at hand.

Or we could do what we do every year and spend all of our time and other resources on the Democratic incumbents (aside from John Adler) who would have won with or without our help and the Democratic challengers who don't have a chance in hell of winning no matter how much we help them.  My guess is that this will be the case, although I hope that I am wrong.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 01:24:26 AM CDT

Yes, it makes no sense (0.00 / 0)

He voted against the House bill, which had a public option.  So he's not voting against this bill because it doesn't have a public option.  It seems to be he's voting against because he believes it will raise costs for small businesses.

If he had decided to vote against it because of a lack of a public option, I would have agreed with him.  But that obviously is not the reason.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:30:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's Why Adler Should Lose (4.00 / 1)

It's hard to write a post about why a Member of Congress from your party (who, frankly, you helped elect) should lose. But that's what I'm doing. Because John Adler should lose.

Here are some facts:
-John Adler will vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker; he will often vote against most Democratic priorities.

-John Runyan will vote against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker; he will also vote against most Democratic priorities.

-John Adler will demand that his party give him support, money, volunteers, and effort, but will try to tear down (and will vote against) his Party's signature legislative agenda.

-John Runyan will not demand that Democrats give him support, money, volunteers, or efforts, and will try to tear down (and will vote against) the Democratic Party's signature legislative agenda.

John Adler is with us on the easy votes and pokes us in the eye on the tough votes. What on Earth is the point of a Congressman like that?

I understand the whole "well his vote for leadership is essential" but I don't really buy that. If the House ends up being 218D-217R with Adler's re-election, does anywhere here think that we'll be able to accomplish ANYTHING in that session of Congress? I mean, let's face it, anything significant that the Democratic majority wanted to do would fail if John Adler was the  controlling vote. He does not support his Party on votes that really matter.

Finally, let's face it: Adler is either an idiot or a coward. If he honestly does not believe that the health care vote will lower costs, protect Americans, expand coverage, end insurance monopolies, contain costs, or cut the deficit, then he's an idiot. If Adler does believe those benefits will occur, but wants to vote against the bill because he's afraid for his political future, he is a coward.

As a rule of thumb, I don't like to support or vote for idiots or cowards.

I hope Runyan wins. He's an empty shirt without a good sense of the Third District, how to run a campaign, or how Government works. But he will be easy to defeat when he runs for re-election. And maybe we'll be able to do it with a real Democrat that time.

So, let's take some short-term pain for the larger good: John Adler does not deserve to be in Congress and he does not deserve our support for re-election.

Elections have consequences.
So do votes in Congress, John: Vote against health care and you've given us every reason to vote against you.  

---

by: JasonCNJ @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:47:19 AM CDT

Short term pain for the greater good! (0.00 / 0)

That's what Adler IS doing! Sorry you cannot see that! I need John's other short term and long term votes... ENDA, DADT, etc. And yes, I need Pelosi as Speaker!!

Babs

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 12:05:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you're both wrong (0.00 / 0)

Unless Rob Andrews and the Norcross machine are looking to buy back their souls that they sold a very long time ago and are willing to redistrict South Jersey in a way that the districts currently represented by Adler, Andrews, and LoBiondo are made as competitive as possible, Jon Runyan is going to win re-election in 2012, regardless of who the Democrats get to run against him.

As long as Andrews is allowed to hoard most of South Jersey's Democrats in his district, the other two South Jersey districts will continue to be Republican (2008 was a fluke due to the massive turnout inspired by Barack Obama that will never be repeated again, not even for his re-election campaign.).  

Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi is not depending on John Adler's vote to remain Speaker after the 2010 elections, because if she is, she might as well give up right now and start clearing out her office, because it is just not going to happen.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 13:31:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]