Saturday, May 26, 2007

The REAL Reason the Kelty Loan Issue Is Surfacing Now

It's fairly unusual for a political party to throw its own nominee to the wolves, but that appears to be what is happening here. Matt Kelty has already admitted that it was people within the Republican party that wanted him to clarify the source of the loans. The problem I have with all this is why wasn't it done before the primary election? These loans came about in 2006 and there have been rumblings around town about them for months - so why now? Allen County Republican chair Steve Shine answered that question in today's JG:
Shine said it wasn’t the party’s role to question legitimate candidates about their campaigns during a primary because it could be construed as the party taking a side in the race.

Give me a break. Is he insinuating that the party didn't take Peters' side in the primary? I don't think there's a single voter that believes that. Regardless, why wouldn't the party provide guidance to ALL their candidates so everything is above board? I'll tell you why they didn't, because they've had SO MANY ethical lapses lately that they simply hoped that Nelson Peters would win and the issue would go away.

Only now, after an unwanted Kelty victory, are they coming out to "help" Kelty make sure everything he does is transparent. What's really transparent is that some within the Republican party are attempting to sell Matt Kelty down the river. If they can stir up enough controversy then perhaps they can get him to step down before the July 15 deadline required by election law (IC 3-8-7-28). If so, then a caucus of precinct committeemen get to fill the vacancy - who do you think they would pick?

In my opinion it's quite unprecedented for members of a political party to try and sabotage their own nominee's campaign. I guess they can't get over the fact that voters in this community wanted the party to go in a different direction. Matt Kelty should accept the will of the voters and reject these underhanded attempts by those in his own party hoping to force his withdrawal...


Charlotte A. Weybright said...

Don't forget the party's support (taking sides) in the 2003 prosecutor's race - they sided with Karen Richards over Mike Loomis before the primary.

I believe they also took positions in the second confrontation between Buskirk and Richard prior to the primary. The party's support of Buskirk as opposed to Squadrito also left a bitter taste after the primary.

I do disagree with your statement that "voters in this community wanted the party to go in a different direction." With the appallingly low voter turnout, it is hard to say what the voters wanted. Kelty did a better job of getting his base organized.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Thanks for the history on that Charlotte - I personally think it's a mistake for any party to back candidates in a primary.

As far as the voter turnout goes I guess I take the position that if you don't vote in the primary then you are indifferent towards your party's direction. For those that did care (although it might've been a small number compared to the entire community) they certainly voted for a new direction...