Jeff Van Drew...I can see that slick Norcross owned egomaniac steaming already... Everything went Van Drew's way for this year. Democrats are coming out to the polls and he's popular (why I'll never know). LoBo is gonna smash DK-but I hope DK hangs on anyway. Van Drew is such a mess that he looked his best chance in the eye and blinked...I hope he retires soon, and hope that he never makes it to Washington.

Respectfully, Dino, have you ever actually been in NJ-02 territory from your North Jersey perch? 

After the demolition of the GOP in Bush-friendly districts in Louisiana, Illinois and Mississippi, one wonders what Republican incumbents should be considered "safe" in the country's anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative mood. NJ-02 has a slight Democratic advantage post-5 Feb., and LoBiondo has policy positions -- he unabashedly supports the Iraq War and favors no withdrawal, he's pro-life and anti-stem cell research -- that are at odds with the majority of voters in his district. A strong campaign, with sufficient funds, could give him a serious run for his money. LoBiondo certainly doesn't deserve to be representing NJ-02 in congress.

That said, I say keep Kurkowski at this point and give him a chance to defeat LoBiondo, however uphill that might be.

sounds to me like you are one jealous Democrat. I certainly hope Van Drew doesn't decide to run. I like LoBiondo where he is, but let's be honest here- Every time Van Drew ran after saying he wasn't going to, he beat the incumbent. Look at the landslide he pulled off against Asselta last year...

You're the reason Democrats never have their act together. They can't even support their strongest candidate. Perhaps you had similar aspirations as Van Drew but can't make it in the incredibly Republican climate down there? I don't blame you, it's one of the last strongholds we (the GOP) have in the state.

Why any state senator would want federal aspirations, I don't know. The state senate has a decent amount of control where a new Congressman would have considerably less.

John, You’re confusing your personal feelings, that is, an affinity for LoBiondo, with a credible voting record, something that LoBiondo doesn’t really have. Further, do you work for LoBiondo, and, if so, does that betray a vested interest in keeping a job? That said, I admire LoBiondo’s support for environmental preservation, animal welfare, and American jobs (anti-free trade). And I'd welcome a tour of Capitol Hill, of course, and think highly of bipartisan efforts that solve issues rather than perpetuate them.

But his conservative bent and voting record has resulted in destructive policies that have weakened civil rights, resulted in record federal deficits, and forced the U.S. in a diverting war rather than focusing on Bin Laden. I find it particularly troubling that LoBiondo voted against including contraceptives for insurance programs, voted against a withdrawal deadline multiple times for the ill-conceived Iraq War, voted to make Bush’s deficit-increasing tax cuts for the rich permanent, voted to change the Constitution to ban marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and voted against requiring a FISA warrant for government eavesdropping. Pat Robertson’s radical organization “The Christian Coalition” has rated LoBiondo a 92% for his ultra-conservative positions, and LoBiondo has offered no solution on immigration reform, only throwing red meat to the right with his anti-earned citizenship stance.

Kurkowski would be ten times better than LoBiondo, as he is against the Iraq War, has a better understanding of fiscal policy and would expand access to health care.

I do not work for LoBiondo, but I appreciate that you thought I did by my comments. But there are a few things your saying here that if I comment would be my opinion not LoBiondo's. Now as for The Christian Coalition's rating of LoBiondo that is their poll and they have differenet criteria for their ratings. Now immigration reform no side has a solution for this. As far as I know, shouldn't the people that are working to get in this country legally be allowed to do so without someone cutting in line in front of them. Or a blanket amnesty bill for the people who broke the law in the first place to get in the country. Now LoBiondo came in with the group that brought the Republicans into power for the House and was the group that balanced the budget under the Clinton Administration. LoBoindo was the one voting for the expansion of medicare and Medicaid. Affordable prescription drug plans for seniors. I find it funny that you actually are saying that Kurkowski has a better understanding on these subjects when LoBiondo voted the way the 2nd district felt on these issues. With 7 counties in the district how do you know that Kurkowski has the abilty to handle keeping up in a district that takes over a 3rd of the state. Kurkowski is just someon who has money and doesn't know what to do with it so he runs for office, with no real sense of what the 2nd district is about.

First, I agree with LoBiondo’s stances on expanding Medicare and Medicaid (he recently voted for a Rangel bill to do just that), his work for the environment, his work on animal welfare, and his ability, at times, to be independent of the president, as with his vote in favor of SCHIP.

That does not mean that LoBiondo gets a free ride, though, and I think his moderate position on these issues blunts his very conservative stances on social issues and foreign policy. LoBiondo is in favor of continued U.S. occupation of Iraq, with no timetable nor benchmarks; he hasn’t at all shifted from the Bush-Cheney position there. As someone who is socially progressive, I am taken aback by LoBiondo’s votes against science, that is, expanding embryonic stem cell research, and against women’s rights, that is, for protecting their right to choose. LoBiondo even took the decidedly anti-Constitutional position of changing that document to take away basic rights from gay and lesbian Americans.

One could argue that LoBiondo, rather than being in touch with his district, enjoys the advantages of incumbency, despite breaking his six-term limit pledge -- and that he is part of the culture of Washington rather than South Jersey. I say this because of his connections to Abramoff and the corrupt Republican leadership and his positions on Iraq and social issues that are decidedly antithetical to his constituency’s positions on those issues.

His position on immigration also isn’t helpful and provides no solutions nor any opening for earned citizenship, as I’ve written here: http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5109