Thursday, October 11, 2007

Congressman Souder Disses Matt Kelty

Sylvia Smith's story about Congressman Souder backing away from his endorsement of Matt Kelty is a big deal. I cannot recall any other time where a Congressman has pulled their support for a candidate after publicly endorsing him - it might've happened before but it has to be rare. Yes I know Mark Souder changes positions with the wind but that's not the story here. Souder came and stood up for Matt Kelty when nobody else would. He talked about how he and Kelty were good friends and that he felt like Kelty was being put through a political witch hunt. But he's singing quite a different tune today:
“As the congressman of this district who basically agrees with the issues Matt has raised, I can’t see myself publicly endorsing (Democrat Tom) Henry, but I am very troubled,” Souder said.

“Obviously I had concerns in the primary,” he said, which were compounded by “the grand jury indictments, the cake, which is a little thing, and some other things that have happened since, and there are many that aren’t public.”

Souder said anyone who would vote – or not vote – for a candidate because of a birthday cake with a questionable joke theme “has a problem.”

But he said of the cake: “There was a vindictiveness to it that was immature. … While this isn’t a major thing, it adds to concerns about judgment.”

Even if Kelty is eventually found not guilty of perjury, Souder said, the fact that the indictment was handed up “suggests that at least a jury of his peers felt there were judgment questions involved here that needed to go to trial. Matt Kelty can ill afford questions about judgment.”

Folks if you can't get longtime friends to stand by their endorsement then there is something very, very wrong. Of course McGauley, Talarico, Hawks and others have been saying the same things for quite some time but they are all RINOs right? What about Souder? We're talking about an uber-partisan congressman that is also a friend of Matt Kelty, yet he's publicly backing away from Matt in a very harsh manner.

We can all read between the lines here, Matt Kelty isn't fit to be mayor and everyone knows it - even his good friends...


bobett said...


Term Limits for the House & Senate.

Vote out the dynasty families in Politics like the Bushes, Clintons & local Henry's.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Just out of curiosity who did you vote for in the 2004 Presidential election?

bobett said...

Who did you vote for?

Phil Marx said...

When Souder endorsed Kelty, this made me lean away from Kelty. Now that Souder is moving away from Kelty, I might reconsider.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the cake, or even with Kelty. I just don't like Souder.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Is that really your response bobett?

Fine, I'll play the game as I am extremely proud to say that I have never voted for George Bush (either of them).

Now the reason I asked was because I find it interesting that you say we should "vote out" the dynasties like the Bush family when I would've been willing to bet a beer that you voted for them.

So I'll ask again, who did you vote for in 2004?

Jeff Pruitt said...

Phil, I get your point but I know you're more rational in your decision making than to vote for whichever candidate Souder doesn't support.

It's just a piece of the decision-making pie...

Anonymous said...

I think in a few more years Souder's endorsement won't mean much anyway because he will lose his seat. Bill Larsen is slowly but steadily drawing more and more support from Republicans who are getting sick of Souder.

Jeff Pruitt said...


It's extremely difficult to oust an incumbent in a primary. I suppose I won't go as far as saying Bill has no chance but I think a Democrat has a better chance than he does...

Anonymous said...


I agree that it is difficult, but Larsen's numbers in the primaries have increased greatly every two years since 2002. And that is without hardcore campaigning. If he was to take in even more money and do even more than he has done in the past I believe he has a decent chance of eventually getting the nomination.

If Democrats really want to get rid of Souder they would be smart to invest money and effort into Larsen instead of trying to win in the general elections.

Phil Marx said...

Dang it Jeff, I was hoping all the politicians who read this would begin to distance themselves from Souder, in order to get that coveted "Phil Marx" vote. But by revealing my rational nature, you've shown my threat to be a mere bluff. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to express my dislike for Souder though.

I agree that beating an incumbant in a primary is very tough. It is the most partisan voters who regularly vote here. About the only thing that would cause them to vote against their man in the primary is if they thought that the other party might defeat him in the general election.

Souder is very weak. He has many detractors from both parties. But it is only the perceived greater weakness of the Democratic candidates that persuades the hard core Republicans to continue supporting him. They (Republicans) own the seat, so it's best not to rock the boat - even if you are not totally happy with the direction it's sailing in.

Yes, Larsen's numbers have steadily improved, but I think there is a limit to this. To win in the primary, he must do two things. First, he has to convince the hard-core Republicans that Souder faces a credible threat in the fall. Second, he has to convince this same group that he is a better alternative to Souder for defending against this threat.

I think Hayhurst's entry in the race last year had the potential to provide the most credible threat that Souder has faced from the Democrats since he took office. But this was not even enough to cause the core to swith to Larsen.

I don't know how well Larsen would do as a Libertarian candidate against Souder, but I think he has proved that he can not defeat Souder in a Republican primary.

Jeff Pruitt said...


Hayhurst did WAY better than Larsen and it was his first try. The party gained a lot of ground in 2006 so I think we're moving in the right direction. I would be willing to wager that a Democrat beats Souder before Larsen does.

Having said that, I wish Bill the best as I can't believe that Mark Souder is the best this district can do. Surely we have other Republicans that could do a better job. Unfortunately, that's not how the party system works - nobody wants to challenge the incumbent...

ROACH said...

said the congressman who believed as gospel the james dobson assertion that the chinese eat fetuses. Republicans eat their young, the chinese- egg foo yung?
Hillary clinton worries about children in china being battered. souder worries that they are stir fried.
mark souder needs to take a wok!
this and too many other gaffes, that he said in all seriousness; to be listed here, but needless to say, this is a case of a religious nutjob calling a kool-aid drinker a heretic.
and since we are discussing absurdities; heres my blog, with a weekends worth of giggles!!