Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has represented Pennsylvania’s 11th
Congressional District without much notice or distinction for the
last 24 years. A member of the Financial Services Committee, his
biggest accomplishments in the House have generally involved
securing pork for his district (he requested $12,102,000 in
earmarks in Fiscal Year 2008, according to the nonpartisan watchdog
group Taxpayers for Common Sense) and using the pork barrel
process to funnel millions of dollars into his family’s business.
Given his track record of keeping his constituents happy while
flying under the national media radar, Kanjorski, a 12-term
incumbent who won his last two races by an average of 83.5 percent
of the vote, was expected to cruise to re-election once again in
2008.
Unfortunately for those in Kanjorski’s corner, the Pennsylvania
Democrat’s history of avoiding the national spotlight came to an
end in a big way just weeks ago.
In late May, a video posted on YouTube showed Kanjorski telling a group of
constituents that, out of an overwhelming “temptation to want to
win back the Congress” in 2006, he and his fellow Democrats had
purposely “stretched the facts” about their ability to end the war
in Iraq once in control of the nation’s legislature.
“We really in this last election…I think pushed it as far as
we can,” he said in the video. “[We] didn’t say it, but we implied
it — that if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the
war.”
“Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that
wasn’t true,” he continued. “But you know, the temptation to want
to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts — and
people ate it up.”
Less than a week later, another video of Kanjorski was posted
online. This one featured back-to-back clips of a 2007 floor
speech in which he went on the record vigorously opposing the
counterinsurgency strategy, and accompanying “surge” in troops,
that President Bush and General David Petraeus were advocating in
Iraq, and of a May 2008 interview in which Kanjorski attempted to take credit for “forcing” President
Bush into implementing that “surge” in troops and change in
strategy.
In a failed attempt at damage control, Kanjorski adopted a
policy of angrily
refusing to answer any questions when queried about those
recorded statements — a reaction that, once again, found its way
onto YouTube.
I broke these three stories on my website and on
RedState.com
over the course of the past month. Now, Capitol Hill insiders and
professional Congress-watchers are speculating that the
Pennsylvania Congressman may be talking himself into a much more
competitive race this fall than anybody had previously
expected.
IN A JUNE ARTICLE titled “Kanjorski vs. Kanjorski? GOP Thinks
Incumbent May Be His Own Worst Enemy,” Roll Call writer Shira
Toeplitz had the following to say:
Even with the tide turning blue on a national scale for
House Democrats, Kanjorski keeps getting himself into the news with
his recorded comments about the Iraq War….In a polling memo
released Monday [June 16] by [Kanjorski’s opponent, Hazleton, PA
Mayor Lou] Barletta’s campaign, Barletta led Kanjorski in a ballot
test, 47 percent to 42 percent. The Susquehanna Polling and
Research survey took the opinion of 400 likely general election
voters March 27-29. The poll had a margin of error of 4.9
points.
Further, the March internal referred to by Toeplitz showed Barletta
with a whopping 89 percent name ID within the district. Barletta,
who has spent the last few years as Hazleton mayor building a
conservative record on issues like illegal immigration (he’s been
as staunch an advocate of an “enforcement first” policy as anyone
in the nation), suddenly appears far more poised than previously
dreamed to knock off a Democratic incumbent long thought to be
untouchable.
Ed Mitchell, a spokesperson for Rep. Kanjorski, refused to
comment on the March poll. He did say, however, that the campaign
“would be glad to discuss Mr. Barletta’s strong support for Bush’s
war in Iraq, against the minimum wage being raised, and for
privatization of Social Security.”
Unfortunately for Mitchell and for Kanjorski, it is very likely
that the Barletta campaign would be equally “glad to discuss” Mr.
Kanjorski’s comments about Democrats “stretching the facts”
regarding their ability to end the Iraq war due “to the temptation
to want to win back the Congress” in 2006.
Llikewise, the Barletta campaign would almost certainly be “glad
to discuss” Kanjorski’s assertion that he and his fellow Democrats,
through their staunch opposition to the overwhelmingly successful
2007 change in strategy in Iraq, actually “forced the
President…into the surge.” Incidentally, both Kanjorski gaffes
occurred after the Barletta campaign poll that showed the
challenger up five points on the incumbent.
KANJORSKI HAS NO business being in such a vulnerable position —
especially given that he beat this same opponent by 14 points in a
2002 race for the seat. However, his inability simply to keep quiet
and sit on his substantial monetary lead (he currently has $1.83
million on hand to Barletta’s $154,000) has made what was expected
to be just another overwhelming victory by a Democratic incumbent
into a race in which the GOP has a fighting chance.
Kanjorski’s sudden proclivity for verbally shooting himself in
the foot, combined with the fact that the top of this year’s
Democratic ticket plays very weakly in his district (Barack Obama
lost PA-11 by 42 points to Hillary Clinton in the April 22 primary
election), appears to be transforming Kanjorski from a safe
Democrat incumbent to a prime target for an upset — a rare
occurrence in a year when the electoral map looks as bad for
Republicans as it has in a long time.
