A few weeks ago, Mother Jones had a great article out about how xenophobic Congressman Lou Barletta (R. PA-11), who is planning to run against U.S. Senator Bob Casey, Jr. (D. PA), serves as Donald Trump’s “Political Godfather:
His candidacy is significant for reasons beyond the electoral math. Something as monumental and era-defining as the election of President Donald Trump has many authors and origin stories, but you could make a case that the nation’s current arc began in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, in 2006, when Barletta, then the city’s mayor, found himself on the defensive after passing a harsh new city ordinance designed to force undocumented immigrants to flee town. (As the Washington Post noted at the time, “Barletta wore a bulletproof vest [to the vote] because, he says, Hazleton is menaced by a surge in crime committed by illegal immigrants.”)
The so-called Illegal Immigration Relief Act targeted immigrants where they lived by making it a crime to lease housing to anyone without proper papers, and it was one of the first of what would become a nationwide push by conservative municipalities and states to encourage “self-deportation” by making life impossible for immigrants. Looking for help, Barletta placed a call to a young law professor in Kansas City named Kris Kobach. Barletta’s ordinance was going to get thrown out in the courts, but Kobach helped him draft a new one that he believed wouldn’t, and agreed to represent Hazleton in the face of the subsequent legal challenges.
The ordinance was not a win for Hazleton—which spent millions to unsuccessfully defend its ordinance in the courts—but it succeeded on a much larger stage. Kobach’s legislation formed a template that was replicated across the country, and as Kansas’ secretary of state he helped Republican-run states like Arizona draft legislation that would likewise scare immigrants away. By 2011, Barletta was a member of Congress, having unseated an incumbent Democrat in the tea party wave. By 2012, the Republican presidential nominee was being advised by Kobach and speaking openly about nudging immigrants to “self-deport.” And by 2016, the nativist politics that drove Hazelton and Fremont, Nebraska, and other such towns to call in Kobach for help took over the Republican party completely.
And yes, Barletta’s entrance has the potential to make this a high profile race:
So, a 2018 race featuring a conservative Republican who is “Trump’s political godfather” vs. the state’s legacy Democrat — son of a two-term governor, slayer of Rick Santorum, twice-elected U.S. senator — is pretty likely to draw national attention.
The Associated Press on Monday reported that Mr. Barletta told GOP officials and others that he’s in the race. Mr. Barletta hasn’t confirmed that.
But let’s say it’s on. If so, what will be the effect of Mr. Barletta’s alignment with Mr. Trump?
Mr. Trump is self-immolating. By next year, Senate candidates won’t want him stumping for them. He may be suffering the fires of impeachment proceedings.
Even if Mr. Trump is in better shape than that next year, remember, the party in the White House tends to lose seats in Congress in midterm elections? Plus, Mr. Casey is much livelier now than when he entered politics and is highly re-electable. He’s a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-labor Democrat in a state where that’s a pretty good mix.
Then again, what if newly arrived White House chief of staff John Kelly gets Mr. Trump off Twitter and on track and the umpteen probes into Russia, Trump finances and whatnot never pan out? What if by next year the mood of the country has, for the most part, settled down?
Mr. Barletta has been lucky once. After being elected to the House in 2010, his congressional district was gerrymandered into what, for almost any Republican, could be a lifelong seat.
The 11th District runs diagonally from northeast Pennsylvania (one county from the New York border) to south-central Pennsylvania (one county from the Maryland border), conveniently skirting the Democratic cities of Harrisburg and Wilkes-Barre.
Mr. Barletta won in 2010 with 54 percent of the vote. He won his two re-elections with 64 percent and 66 percent.
In that case, one might wonder, why give up a sure thing for an uphill slog against Bob Casey?
The argument is that Mr. Trump still has substantial support among Pennsylvania Republicans and others who voted for him in 2016, at least according to insider polls. “There’s no buyer remorse yet,” one GOP consultant says.
And Pennsylvania political experts G. Terry Madonna and Michael Youn argue that the Casey-Barletta battle would be a huge referendum on Trump:
On the Senate side the seat held by Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey, of Scranton, is widely considered safe. He has won five elections for three different statewide offices. Four of these five victories have come by double digits.
Despite Casey’s electoral strength, the Senate race could become one of the most closely watched in the country — if as expected one of the president’s most ardent Pennsylvania supporters runs against Casey.
U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, of Hazleton, is poised to enter the contest. He represents a district running from Luzerne County into the southcentral part of the state. Barletta co-chaired the Trump campaign in the state, served on the president-elect’s transition team and votes consistently in Congress for the Trump agenda.
Casey has emerged as one of Trump’s harshest critics, with daily critical press statements and a rising national prominence tied to his opposition to Trump.
Conversely, Barletta would be seen as a Trump surrogate, drawing both the president’s support and opposition. Consequently, a Casey-Barletta race would inevitably be seen as a referendum on the Trump presidency in a state that critically aided his victory in 2016.
A Casey win against Barletta would be an ominous portent for Trump looking to 2020, but a Barletta win would auger auspiciously for Trump and his chances to win Pennsylvania a second time.
And just like Trump, Barletta also received the endorsement from this guy:
As I see it, this debate is now unequivocally settled. The events in Charlottesville, Virginia last weekend served as a litmus test of political courage, especially for politicians like Barletta, R-11th District, who in the past has received endorsements from the Ku Klux Klan. (Editor's Note: Barletta rejected the endorsement.)
This was his chance to silence his critics by standing up against hate, even if doing so is risky in the current political climate.
There were Klansmen and Nazis in the streets; participants displayed confederate flags, swastikas, and other symbols of hate out in the open, with pride; and police have charged a white nationalist with murder for plowing his car into a crowd of anti-racist counterprotestors.
All Barletta needed to do was denounce this bigotry. All he needed to do was remind those representing targeted groups that he is their representative, too. All he needed to do was disassociate from white supremacy.
And he failed.
All he gave his constituents was a very vague post on social media that decried the violence, but said absolutely nothing of its detestable source. "I strongly condemn the violence in Charlottesville," he wrote, "My prayers are with the victims, their families, and the police and first responders who are working to keep the members of their community safe."
That’s right, David Duke was a big fan of Barletta before Trump came along. Duke endorsed Barletta back in 2008:
Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke’s favorable comments about Republican congressional candidate has the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee calling for a repudiation of the “endorsement.” But Barletta said he wasn’t aware of Duke’s position and made it clear he did not seek and would not accept an endorsement from Duke. Barletta, the mayor of Hazleton, said the DCCC press release on Duke is another indication the national Democratic Party is concerned about its candidate – U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski – and not willing to discuss the real issues facing the 11th Congressional District and the country. Barletta is unopposed for the Republican nomination this spring in the race for Kanjorski’s seat. Kanjorski, a 12-term Democrat from Nanticoke, is the lone candidate on his party’s ballot. “I certainly don’t follow Mr. Duke’s beliefs,” Barletta said. “This is America and anyone can endorse anybody they want. The DCCC doesn’t want to talk about the issues. Instead, they are focused on sending out press releases trying to smear me.” Ed Mitchell, spokesman for Kanjorski, declined comment and suggested contacting the DCCC. In its release, the DCCC said Duke gave “a glowing endorsement” of Barletta. “It’s been two weeks since this endorsement, and Lou Barletta has yet to repudiate David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan,” said Jennifer Crider, DCCC communications director. This statement appears on the Web site DavidDuke.com: “Getting tough patriots like Lou Barletta elected is absolutely key to staving off four years of sustained attack on our interests. While European Americans United has no connection with Lou, and he would probably disagree with many of our positions, we like him and hope he wins.” A spokeswoman at The Duke Report said Duke is in Austria and unavailable for comment.
Yep, peas in a pod. By the way, Senator Casey has been back in Pennsylvania destroying Trump’s defense of Neo-Nazis:
At an event in Pittsburgh earlier today, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) called President Donald Trump's comments in the wake of violence in Charlottesville, Va., offensive. Trump's latest round of comments, which have angered many over the past 24 hours, equivocated the groups who clashed in Charlottesville over the weekend. On one side were neo-Nazis, white nationalists and the Ku Klux Klan; on the other, those who oppose them.
"We have to not only speak out against that kind of hate speech and that kind of activity, we've got to mobilize against it," Casey said. "There's no equivalence of any kind between what one group was doing there and those who were opposing it. Those who were opposing it had a very important point to make. This is America, and we don't tolerate bigotry and racism in the United States of America. And for the president to excuse that by way of a false-equivalency analysis was particularly offensive to me."
Trump's most recent comments mirror those he first made in response to Charlottesville, on Sat., Aug. 12, after the violence left 3 dead and dozens injured. "I think there is blame on both sides," he said yesterday, adding that there are "very fine people on both sides.”
"I was raised to believe that a fine person is someone who would not cower at racism or appeals to racism, bigotry and the kind of horrific, divisive rhetoric we've heard by those individuals," Casey said. "All you have to do is look at the video of what they were saying as they're marching and what they were doing. Someone was actually killed by an automobile. It's domestic terrorism. It's another reminder that not only do we have this in our society, but now we have to put pressure on the president, the commander and chief of our armed forces, push back against what he's saying. I never though we'd see this."
I can’t emphasize how important it is to not underestimate someone like Barletta. Now Casey has experience unseating polarizing extremists who vote in lockstep with Presidents with tanking approval ratings in midterm elections. Just look at the 2006 U.S. Senate race where Casey crushed Santorum by a whopping 18 points. But of course times have changed and in the era of Trump, anything is possible. Trump is unpopular now but he still has a rabid base but Casey has been very smart to embrace the Resistance early on and to be a proud vocal representative in the fight against Trumpism. Plus, it’s not as if Casey doesn’t already have enough to hit Barletta on. Trumpcare is already a big target on Barletta’s back:
Four of the 20 votes against the resuscitated Obamacare replacement plan came from Pennsylvania Republicans, who in doing so bucked their president and U.S. House leaders because of coverage concerns they've been expressing since March.
Republican U.S. Reps. Charlie Dent, Brian Fitzpatrick, Pat Meehan and Ryan Costello joined the state's Democrats in voting "no." That's more GOP noes than any other state; three Republicans in New Jersey opposed the bill.
Meanwhile, bill supporter U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, a Republican whose district includes part of Carbon County, rejoiced at its passage after fits, starts and fixes. He's been supportive of the health care bill since resolving a concern about whether undocumented immigrants would be able to access tax credits.
Barletta called the bill "a starting point for a better health care plan that will drive down costs, restore choice, continue protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions so that they cannot be denied coverage, and ensure that Americans' hard-earned tax dollars go only to American citizens."
Of course, Barletta will aim to use anti-immigration rhetoric as his key driving force which could issue mixed results. On one hand, Santorum tried to make illegal immigration a key issue in his 2006 but failed to gain momentum:
In the debate now raging over the USA's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, this Pittsburgh suburb of aging strip malls and tidy brick homes seems anything but ground zero.
It has been decades since waves of foreigners came to western Pennsylvania to man the region's mills and factories. In fact, local officials are worried about the lack of newcomers from other countries.
"One of the reasons Pittsburgh isn't growing is that we don't do a good enough job welcoming legal immigrants," says Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., whose father came from Italy as a child.
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates Pennsylvania's illegal immigrant population at no more than 175,000, or 1.4% of the population. The impact is felt less on the state's western side, where jobs are harder to find.
That hasn't stopped illegal immigration from becoming a campaign issue, not only here but in places such as Omaha, Nashville and Salt Lake City. Santorum, running behind Democrat Bob Casey in his race for re-election to a third term, made border security the theme of his first campaign commercials, which began airing last month. At a local fire hall recently, he hosted a community forum under a banner touting "Border Security First."
On the other hand, Tea Party U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R. PA) made his attacks on Sanctuary Cities a talking point in his 2016 re-election campaign:
The always controversial topic of sanctuary cities has come up yet again. This time, it was U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania discussing them during an invitation-only, televised "town hall" with eight constituents Wednesday.
"Sanctuary cities are extremely dangerous," Toomey said. "Philadelphia is one of the most radical sanctuary cities in the country."
Are they really "extremely dangerous?"
PolitiFact Pennsylvania has tackled statements about sanctuary cities before from former Philly GOP chief Joe DeFelice, Braddock Mayor John Fetterman and even Toomey. Remember, sanctuary cities are essentially local jurisdictions that to some extent decline to either communicate with federal immigration officials or honor their detainer requests. This one’s a little different from the previous fact-checks but contains similar characteristics.
We’ll start with Toomey’s explanation for the statement. His staffers said the senator believes sanctuary cities pose "real danger" and gave multiple examples of incidents in which immigrants ICE wanted detained were released and went on to commit violent crimes. These examples included the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco and Marilyn Pharis, a Southern California woman. They said sanctuary policies pose dangers in the same way loaded weapons are dangerous in the hands of a convicted criminal or someone who is mentally ill.
Toomey’s staff had two officials affiliated with law enforcement send emails advocating for the Senator’s claim to PolitiFact Pennsylvania. We also reached out to the Center for Immigration Studies, which has been critical of sanctuary policies and has a motto of "low immigration, pro immigrant." Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, referred to her report tracking 8,000 people released despite ICE detainer requests and found about 25 percent of them went on to commit future crimes.
"These are crimes that would have been prevented, at least in the United States," she said, "if the sanctuary policy had not interfered with ICE doing its job."
Yet despite the anecdotes and Vaughan’s report, no conclusive study has shown higher crime rates as a result of a sanctuary city policy. In 2016, researchers from the University of California-Riverside and Highline College in Washington matched sanctuary cities versus those without any sanctuary policy and found the policies had no statistically significant effect on crime, meaning they didn’t lead to higher or lower crime rates.
"This is something Trump was doing where they’re citing isolated examples of crimes as the norm for sanctuary cities," said Ben Gonzalez-O’Brien, a Highline College professor who worked on the study. "…Blaming it on the policies themselves isn’t really relevant. Sanctuary city policies don’t lead to more crime."
The left-leaning Center for American Progress released a study showing counties with sanctuary policies had lower crimes rates than those that didn’t and also had stronger economies. In 2016, the first full year Philadelphia was a sanctuary city after Mayor Jim Kenney’s executive order, Philadelphia had its lowest property crime rate since 1971 and its lowest violent crime rate since 1979.
"This notion that sanctuary cities are dangerous is really unfounded and politically motivated," said Lena Graber, a staff attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
It should be noted that Toomey outperformed Trump in 2016. Trump barely won Pennsylvania while Toomey defeated Katie McGinty (D. PA) by two points. But the former Club for Growth President who tried to purge the GOP of moderates like Arlen Specter back in 2004 was able to win re-election and outperform Trump by instead tying himself to Obama:
Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey is turning to the target of some of his toughest criticism to help him in his life-or-death re-election bid in Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania: President Barack Obama.
A new Toomey campaign TV ad running Friday shows Mr. Obama praising Toomey for working with Democrats on legislation to expand background checks on firearms purchases.
It shows Mr. Obama speaking outside the White House in 2013 and thanking Toomey for his courage, despite the bill’s failure. The ad is running on cable in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Think about that. Mr. Conservative Purity had to use Obama in a campaign ad to help him win because his fence sitting on Trump while trying to channel Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric attacking sanctuary cities like Philadelphia. So it remains to be seen if Barletta’s long support of discriminate and xenophobia. But if Barletta goes that route, Casey isn’t afraid to fight back against it and stand up immigrants and oppressed. He dug into Trump on Twitter on this:
Beginning with a digital bullhorn blast at 12:05 p.m. — “Twitter: it’s urgent” — Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, directed a cannonade of tweets at President Trump and his administration, describing the plight of a Honduran woman and her son who had sought refuge in the United States from the hit men who shot her cousin to death at home more than a year ago.
For Central American migrants like the Honduran woman and her son, fleeing the violence and lawlessness that have driven tens of thousands of people northward through Mexico to the United States over the last several years, asylum is often claimed and rarely granted. From 2011 to 2016, immigration judges denied from 77 to 83 percent of asylum requests from people from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, the three countries that send the most Central American asylum seekers, according to datacompiled by researchers at Syracuse University.
Many migrants, including the Honduran woman Mr. Casey posted about, do not even make it before an immigration judge. To reach that stage, asylum seekers must first pass an interview, known as a “credible fear” interview, with an asylum officer who determines whether there is a significant possibility that they will ultimately prevail. Some migrants and lawyers who work with them say that since Mr. Trump’s election, some border agents have turned away asylum seekers without so much as an interview, a potential violation of American and international law.
Mr. Casey sought to put the Honduran woman’s case on Mr. Trump’s conscience. Her case, however, unfolded largely under the auspices of the Obama administration.
Casey is on the right side of this issue and he’s always been a wonderful public servant especially when it comes to children. Of course, it remains to be seen how expensive this race can get. So while it’s very tempting to believe doubling down on Trumpism in Pennsylvania would make this a competitive race, fundraising for a major statewide campaign is still a major factor:
Among the first political questions he faces: Can he raise enough money?
Because although Barletta has four terms in the U.S. House and a relationship with the president, he has never had to run in a race as expensive or expansive as the one he is likely to enter.
Last year’s Pennsylvania Senate race set an eye-popping record for a congressional contest, with more than $175 million in campaign spending as the state’s high-priced airwaves were blitzed by Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, Democratic challenger Katie McGinty, and an army of outside groups. The two candidates combined to raise $47 million.
Barletta, who would instantly be the most established name in next year’s Republican primary, has never raised more than roughly $1.3 million in any of his previous runs.
He still has more than $98,000 in campaign debts from an unsuccessful 2002 run for Congress, including part of a $78,000 loan he gave his own campaign that year. He has used $55,250 in campaign contributions collected since 2013 to repay himself, public filings show, a sign of both the slow-going to retire that debt and his relatively easy reelection campaigns. (That practice is allowed, according to independent campaign finance experts).
If he’s going to attract national support, he’ll have to show he can come up with the multiple millions of dollars to give him a chance to compete in a state that requires advertising in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh media markets, Democratic and Republican operatives both said.
His early results, they added, could set the tone for whether more money flows to Barletta, or if donors decide they’re better off investing in other key races.
“For a lot of political organizations, political leaders, and other donors, they look to a candidate’s fund-raising capabilities as a sign of viability,” said Mike Mikus, a top aide to McGinty last year. “The more you raise, the more viable you’re perceived to be.”
Barletta begins the race with about $513,000 in his campaign fund. Meanwhile, one of his rivals for the Republican nomination, Philadelphia-area businessman Jeff Bartos, has compiled $1 million — though half of that amount came from his own pocket in the form of a loan. None of the other seven GOP candidates have raised more than $39,000, except for one, Haverford businessman Paul Addis, who crossed that mark by loaning his campaign $100,000.
Casey had $5.6 million in the bank as of June 30, the date of his most recent campaign filings.
We know Casey can raise money for being a great voice of the Resistance but can Barletta raise off of xenophobia and Trumpism? We’ll find out. Until then, let’s make sure Casey is ready to take down Trump’s “Political Godfather”. Click here to donate and get involved with Casey’s re-election campaign.