Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in | | | | | | Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

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):

More below the fold....


"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.

Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Check out his latest 'Reasonable Profits Board' bill that he recently introduced a bill for.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

...and plays it all over PA-11.

BTW, where exactly was this taped? What was he doing when he made this statement?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

It is one thing when everyone on our side knows what the marxists are up to. Unbelievable that one is caught admitting it on tape.

Enjoyed reading it.

One of the big things that has been bad PR for Democrats going into this election is that "they want to end the war now". Now that we are winning this, and they know it (que Pelosi's Iraq visit and statement this past week), they don't want to scare the voters into believing that they really meant it!

After all, remember the anti-NAFTA talk with a behind the scenes "we don't mean it" to the Canadians?

I am wondering if Kanjorski was volunteered to be the dummy to admit it, as a way of telling the voters, "we really won't pull out" like we said we would.

Maybe I am reading too much into it. However, the con job they have been delivering to the voters has been pretty spectacular to this point. I find it hard to believe they would slip up this bad. Or would they?

I believe your take to be more realistic, but....

I am wondering.....

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("My name is 'Wubbies' - it is not plural nor possessive. Welcome to my World.")

line...the Iraqi's could not befriend our troops because we might leave them to AQ and so it took another year and how many deaths to bring the Iraqi's into the fold? I knew they lied but I am just disgusted as every American ought to be at the danger they put our troops in with their media wing the MSM.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

How are we losing to these guys?

Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!

like these guys except for the war.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

A cornerstone of conservative values (ya right) makes commercials with our political enemy about the fraud that is global warming. Newt anyone?


It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

such a no-name.

There's a real kick-butt SNL skit here.

We need to make hay out of this in every Congressional election. I want to see Nancy Pelosi's tear soaked mascara run down those botoxed cheeks of hers. I want to see Harry Reid go the way of the Puffmeister. I want the Rs to learn from their past mistakes and govern like they have a set.
Tim Schieferecke

In early 2007, on TPMCafe (a liberal blog for Washington liberals), the issue of what to do about Cindy Sheehan came up.

Because Cindy Sheehan, along with the other radicals, were getting antsy about Nancy Pelosi's failure to stop the war; and Cindy Sheehan was thinking of actually running against Pelosi for her San Francisco seat.

And what they decided, as near as I can remember, was this: "Cindy Sheehan helped us win the election. Now we don't need her any more. Get rid of her."

That's as close to the actual phrasing as I can remember.

They said "Get Rid of Her."

I was there and I overheard Nancy Pelosi say,


That made a tingle go up my Stalinist leg!!!"

Cindy left the Democratic Party some months back and became an independent because Pelosi wouldn't bring impeachment charges against Bush (among other offenses). I recall that Cindy's former friends at Kos (where she had been a frequent diarist) then kicked her out (or perhaps Cindy voluntarily left: it was quite a while ago so things may have gone down differently than I remember).

Cindy has been almost invisible during this primary season, at least in terms of interviews or events receiving press coverage. I guess we'll have to see if she has any money and support to mount any kind of credible campaign against the powerful Burton machine in San Francisco, or which Nancy is the heir, or whether she will continue to fade into the woodwork now that her "15 minutes" of exploitable fame has passed. I suspect her electoral chances match those of that proverbial snowball.

And Rightly So!

He definitely sounds and looks like one of the Dem party's dimmer lights (but there are soooooo many). But I could swear Dems running in '06 did not IMPLY they would end the war, they basically overtly PROMISED they would. The amusing thing is that any Dems believe anything their leaders tell them.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

They were careful not to commit to anything where there would be a permanent record; they let innuendo and convenient silences act as reassurance to the netroots that of course the Democrats would end the war once they won. And it worked; they convinced the netroots.

Heck, they convinced me. Although that was due to a different unwarranted assumption on my part: I assumed that since the GOP base was effective in pushing non-fiscal agendas (for good or ill), then the Democratic base would be equally effective. Or, indeed, effective at all.

So, you can imagine: 2007 was a fun year for me.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I just posted the quote and a link to the youtube as a diary on DailyKos. I wonder how they'll take it?

I guess Kanjorski won't be at the next fish fry.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service