Analysts: Kanjorski’s OK of bailout invites
voter ire

U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski’s vote in favor of the federal bailout of Wall Street and other financial institutions is a politically risky move because of the bailout’s unpopularity with voters, local political scientists said Monday.

“The safe (vote) in this area would be voting no,” said David Sosar, Ph.D., assistant professor of political science at King’s College.

Across the country, congressional consideration of the $700 billion bailout brought swift opposition from constituents who flooded congressional offices with phone calls and e-mails in opposition.

Rep. Chris Carney, D-10, who voted against the bailout bill, said his offices received more than 1,000 calls from constituents and only 15 supported it. Mr. Kan- jorski’s office declined to provide its call breakdown.

National polls before the bailout votes showed it was widely unpopular.

By Friday, the day of the House bailout vote, Republican congressional candidate Lou Barletta’s campaign had seized the opportunity to air a new television commercial highlighting Mr. Kanjorski’s vote. The ad ties the vote to contributions he received from Wall Street-based financial companies.

“Kanjorski — millions for him and his friends, taken out of our pockets,” a narrator says in the commercial.

Mr. Kanjorski, D-11, repeatedly and vocally defended his vote, saying the bailout was necessary to save the nation’s economy from collapse. Efforts to reach him Monday were unsuccessful.

Ed Mitchell, a Kanjorski campaign spokesman, defended the congressman for taking a tough stand to save the economy.

“What’s clear is the congressman didn’t take a vote based on the politics of it. He put principle above it. He didn’t weigh the political costs like some other members did,” Mr. Mitchell said.

Mr. Kanjorski seemed to understand the risk.

“I’m a Democrat and I’m in a very, very serious campaign,” he told business leaders Friday. “The easiest thing in the world for me to do today or a week ago is to vote no ... But this is not the time to protect one’s tail, as we’d say in the game. This is the time for good men to stand up and be counted ... This is something that our society absolutely needs.”

Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the Rothenberg Report, a Washington-based newsletter that tracks House elections, said he knew of only one other commercial airing nationwide so far focused on the bailout. Rep. Jim Marshall, a Georgia Democrat, aired an ad explaining his vote in favor.

Many vulnerable Republican congressmen in tough re-election races voted for the bailout while others, Democratic and Republican, also in tough races, voted against it.

In Pennsylvania, Mr. Carney’s Republican challenger, Chris Hackett, who also opposed the bailout, accused Mr. Carney of voting against it for political reasons, a charge Mr. Carney denied.

“I think there’s a sense on the Hill that voting against it might be politically risky, too,” said Mr. Gonzales, whose newsletter is rating Mr. Kanjorski as among the most vulnerable Democrats. “I think anybody who says he knows exactly how it’s going to play out is lying.”

Thomas J. Baldino, Ph.D., a political science professor at Wilkes University, said Mr. Barletta had the easier role because he didn’t have to vote on the bill.

“Kanjorski is paid to be our representative. He’s paid to make those tough choices,” Dr. Baldino said.

Mr. Kanjorski’s campaign is already fighting back by accusing Mr. Barletta of flip-flopping.

Mr. Mitchell pointed to a Sept. 25 Times-Tribune story in which Mr. Barletta said he favored a bailout, then opposed the final version.

In the story, Mr. Barletta said he would favor a bailout if the salaries of executives of bailed out companies were reduced, their bonus packages were frozen until all the bailout money was paid back and an independent commission investigated whether members of Congress who received contributions from the financial services industry failed to properly regulate it.

Mr. Mitchell said some version of everything Mr. Barletta wanted was in the final bill, except for the investigative commission, which the mayor only wanted to target Mr. Kanjorski.

“He put his finger in the wind and he sensed that people were moving against this,” Mr. Mitchell said.

Mr. Barletta said he had his own idea of plan.

“I didn’t say I supported their plan. If somebody asks, ‘Are you for a bailout?’ that doesn’t mean that I’m for any bailout or whatever they decided. I had specific requirements that I support,” Mr. Barletta said. “ I didn’t change my opinion.”