Posted on 05/24/2008 11:26:46 AM PDT by Pinkbell
Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district. Even his Wikipedia entry says that Kanjorski "usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of his district."
“But [in] the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts - and people ate it up.”Never one to stand out in a crowd outside of his own district if he could help it up until now, Rep. Kanjorski's public life may be about to change in a major way very, very quickly, and for a very big reason.
You see, Paul Kanjorski has an honesty problem.
More specifically, Paul Kanjorski's problem is that he was publicly honest about the intentional dishonesty of Congressional Democrats (and Democrat candidates) in the run-up to the 2006 election -- particularly with regard to the War in Iraq.
Watch the video below (a transcript follows):
Transcript:
"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, 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. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
The truth in Mr. Kanjorski's statement is both evident and obvious, and has been (to any who have been paying attention) since the Democrat out-of-Iraq-now campaigns began in early 2006. It has become more obvious with every bill the Democrat-led Congress passed that, rather than ending the war, simply gave the President nearly every single thing he asked for, without putting up any real fight (as opposed to the semifrequent, yet brief, preening-for-the-cameras moments of solely rhetorical dissent).
The impression the Democratic Congress gave during those minor-at-best wars over the continuation of the War was that it was simply incompetent. Reps. Pelosi, Hoyer, et al wanted to end the war as soon as possible -- at least, that's what they kept saying. Unfortunately for those who largely elected them on that basis, the best and brightest Democrats in elective office were simply unable to figure out any way to outsmart and outmaneuver the buffoon in the White House on the issues of wartime budget and policy, instead (inadvertently, I'm sure) ending every fight on the wrong side from their point of view, having yet again given the President every single thing he was asking for.
Now, Rep. Kanjorski has very publicly pulled the curtain back on the Democrat Congress' real intent and objective. "If we won the Congressional elections," he says, "we [implied that we] could stop the war." Yes, they did -- that is why the "Netroots" lined up behind these Democrats with their money and their soapboxes (but more importantly, with their money). That is why the "peace" activist supported them; ending the war NOW was the primary task they took on themselves to carry out, and the promise to do so was the basis on which so many of them were elected or reelected.
Now the mask slips -- and with it comes an admitted level of condescension directed by those Congressional Democrats at those who were gullible enough to support them for something that they themselves knew could not be done.
"Now anybody was a good student of Government," said Kanjorski, "would know that wasn't true [that they "could stop the war"]." Fortunately for those Democrats who campaigned, and were elected, based on their war-ending promises, their hardcore supporters, their activists, and their base of voters, are all made up of people who are, by Mr. Kanjorski's reckoning, very, very poor students of Government.
But all of that was justified to these incumbents and first-time candidates. Taking advantage of poor, uneducated rubes? Abusing trust, and leaving those who offered it stranded along the way? All acceptable -- because, again by Mr. Kanjorski's own description, of "the temptation to want to win back the Congress."
"We sort of stretched the facts," he says. "And people ate it up."
Yes, they did -- and that may well be an apt description of the fate awaiting Rep. Kanjorski himself once his fellow Congressional Democrats find out what secrets he has been publicly admitting.
After all, there is another election coming up in a mere five-plus months -- and they not only need the issue of their continued (purported) attempts to stop the war in order to gain support, but they need the votes of those same poor, poor students of government, who will believe every one of those stretched facts and, in the words of Mr. Kajorski, "eat up" what the Democrats had hoped to offer under the guise of something that was still eminently (and immintently) attainable under a their Congressional (and presidential) leadership.
Now, thanks to Mr. Kanjorski, that cat is out of the bag. He had better hope that those poor students of government are equally poor watchers of YouTube and followers of the news, or else the veneer of the Democrat promises on Iraq will be long gone, courtesy of his honesty problem.
The whole title didn’t quite fit. Here is the whole title:
Congressman admits Democrats “stretched the facts,” misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War
Meanwhile, my Congresscritter, the Dishonorable Paul Hodes (D-NH), has demanded hearings on Bush administration attempts “to manipulate the public with false propaganda on matters of war and our national security”:
Congressman Hodes Calls for Hearing on Bush Administration Manipulation of Iraq War News Analysts
April 24, 2008
Today, Congressman Hodes officially called on Chairman John Tierney of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs to hold a hearing on a recent New York Times story published on Sunday, April 20, 2008 on how Department of Defense officials used undue influence with former military officers serving as “independent” military analysts commenting on developments on the war in Iraq for network news stations. The Department of Defense used these analysts to manipulate public opinion toward supporting the Administration’s policy in the War in Iraq.
A hearing also could examine whether some of these analysts were given military contracts with the Defense Department in exchange for reading Bush Administration talking points on the public airwaves.
April 24, 2008
The Honorable John Tierney
Chairman
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
United States House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tierney:
I respectfully request that the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs hold a hearing on the information contained in an article in the New York Times published on Sunday, April 20, alleging that the Pentagon used undue influence with former military officers serving as “independent” military analysts commenting on developments on the war in Iraq for network news stations.
The report detailed a concerted effort by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield and Department of Defense officials to manipulate network news military analysts to promote Bush Administration spin on the war in Iraq, even though many analysts knew the information not to be accurate. In fact, one analyst referred to the efforts by the Pentagon as “brainwashing.”
It was also noted that an analyst for Fox News TV and Radio was receiving instructions from the Pentagon while working as a lobbyist at Patton Boggs, a firm which helps firms win Pentagon contracts including defense contracts in Iraq. This creates at least the appearance of an improper relationship. The public deserves to know if any contracts were awarded to this analyst’s clients.
Internal Pentagon documents obtained by the New York Times refer to these military analysts as “message force multipliers, surrogates who can be counted on to deliver Administration themes and messages to millions of Americans in the form of their own opinions.”
If these reports are true, it is unacceptable that the Bush Administration would attempt to manipulate the public with false propaganda on matters of war and our national security.
A hearing also could examine whether some of these analysts were given military contracts with the Defense Department in exchange for reading Bush Administration talking points on the public airwaves.
The issue at stake here is the public’s right to the truth about our security, our military, and what their government is doing. I look forward to working with you on this matter of great importance to American taxpayers and to restoring the trust the American people should have in their government. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Hodes
Member of Congress
Cc: The Honorable Henry Waxman, Chairman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
An honest democRat? I guess he will follow Lieberman’s forced egress from the party.
This needs widespread distribution. Sure hope that our Republican candidates take full advantage of this.
Not surprised the DemocRATs lied but am surprised this Dem Rep came out and said they did. PA has some really good women candidates running for the House that we need to get behind. We cannot depend on the NRCC who doesn’t have a clue where to spend money and has wasted millions on special elections that were lost. Besides this NRCC doesn’t usually fund the races of women!
http://peoplewithhart.com/ — former Congresswoman Melissa Hart
http://katsforcongress.com/ — Maria Kats
http://gilhooleyforcongress.com/ - Toni Gilhooley
If we could add these seats in November, it would be great. Support Republican Women for Congress!
LOL! Probably. They won’t want him after he went and said this.
Lou Barletta the mayor of Hazleton Pa. is running against
him.
in the words of jerry seinfeld,
“tell me sumthin i dont know”
Unfortunately for those who largely elected them on that basis, the best and brightest Democrats in elective office were simply unable to figure out any way to outsmart and outmaneuver the buffoon in the White House on the issues
This stands in sharp contrast, to what all the best and brightest really are, if Bush is supposed to be a buffoon.
...and the bottom of the food chain that elected the to office. What remains to be said about them?
Democrats lied to the American people about the war, while the nation was engaged in war. That, in my world is Treason.
So, this guy spent less time grandstanding in front of TV cameras and more time looking after the interests of his district and constituents. Sounds to me like that's what every responsible elected official SHOULD be doing. Why are they making this out to sound like a bad thing?
Sure he's a democrat, btw?
Is this the guy who takes a strong stand against illegal immigration in his town and has taken heat for it?
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.