Last week, I wrote that both News-Sentinel columnist Kevin Leininger and I thought that Republican mayoral candidate Matt Kelty's martyrdom posturing over his campaign-finance violations was wearing a little thin. That might not be the prevailing opinion out there among the voting pubic.
We've started our endorsement invterviews for the November election, and yesterday I talked to three City Council candidates -- two Republicans and one Democrat. I asked all of them about the "Kelty factor" -- how his legal difficulties might affect the election. I won't say anything to identify them, because that part of the conversation was informal, after the regular Q-and-A stuff. They were a challenger and two incumbents, and all three of them are adept at talking to voters and listening to what they say.
It was their consensus that Kelty is winning the public-relations battle. Even people who might have had misgivings about the way Kelty reported his finances looked at those nine indictments, seven of them felonies, and went, "Wow! Why the overkill?" That sense of disproportionality is voter skepticism just waiting to be turned into cynicism. My guess is that this is still Kelty's election to lose, and unless Tom Henry steps up the pace, he might discover that GOP infighting is not enough.
For what it's worth.
Comments
I agree that Kelty does have a certain anti establishment in your face quality about him. Agreed that unless Henry steps it up he will be outside looking in on election day too.
But I still don't see how all the crazy conspiracy theories and disparaging rank and file republicans is going to win elections, not to mention the hypocrisy of taking the "librul" stance of blaming others and plying victim and not taking personal responsibility for your own actions
Interesting piece. What is wearing a little thin for me is members of the press referring to Kelty's "campaign finance violations" when there has been no determination of any violation. Might I suggest something a little more accurate like campaign finance "troubles", "woes" or even "charges"?
Point taken.
The trouble with Kelty's woes is that the basic facts are clear & undisputed. Kelty admits to at least one version of the money transfers, though characterizing his own actions innocently.
The bother for us voters is that while we gladly accept the published version of universally agreed events as far as they go, many of us can't buy into Kelty's claim of dumbed-down unawareness of the significance of his subsequent representations.
Perhaps the average citizen is just sharper than he is, but most of us have no trouble at all recognizing the problem with re-purposed and misattributed monies being moved into campaign coffers in such circumstances.
I think what the average person on the street MAY BELIEVE. That this is a politicial witch hunt. That Kelty does not fit into the NORM and to them that may be good.
The media helps drive this point home everytime they talk about Kelty. They get the comments in about his legal issues.
Frankly most people, including some of those that still vote, are turned off by political people. They only hear from them when it is election time. Otherwise they are off serving themselves and their special interest friends.