Friday, October 19, 2007

I am certainly NOT kidding you...

Jennifer I will address your points in the previous post in order:

I agree with you that the Kelty cake issue was blown way out of proportion. This was done by the media not the Henry campaign. The media detest Matt Kelty and have treated him in an extremely unfair manner on several occasions.

The radio ad does NOT defend Matt Kelty in any way shape or form. You should listen to the radio ad again if you think that the ad defends Matt Kelty. All the ad does is attack Henry and offend quite a few "non-Christian" voters.

Here is your most interesting statement "BUT when someone steps up to defend Matt Kelty around issues important to that one part of his constituency who disagree with you, you can't wait to cry foul." You have got to be kidding me. The ad is a negative campaign ad that attacks Henry and does not defend Kelty. I absolutely hate negative campaigning and this is a perfect example of it. Give me a break Jennifer. You seriously should get a good nights sleep and listen to the radio ad again.

Then you go on with another rant that makes little sense to me "Will Mr. Henry tolerate THEIR perspective? Doubtful. Get a grip. Go look at an issue or something. Is any of this part of Mr. Kelty's platform? Has he SAID ANYWHERE that he is going to exclude anyone? Any of YOU EVER go and talk to him about this?" I will address these in order as well:

1. Yes Jennifer I think Tom Henry will tolerate the perspective of Christians...
2. Jennifer I have a grip... I have defended Matt Kelty on many occasions and I imagine I will defend him again in the near future. I would not be surprised if I vote for Kelty in the election; however, that is not a given anymore. I do not blindly support or agree with ANYONE. I judge each issue separately and form an opinion based on a wide variety of things.
3. I have looked at many issues and I am certain that I have a better handle on Matt's campaign issues then you do; especially the economic ones.
4. I doubt that he will exclude anyone.
5. Actually I have talked to Matt about issues similar to this. I have also talked to some of his strongest supporters about this. When he made his statement earlier this year about "strip clubs" I took exception to that and let his campaign know that his stance on strip clubs turned me off. I am pretty Libertarian in my views on strip clubs and I think they should be legal...

I agree that Matt has great stances on economic issues and I support all of those stances...

Tom Henry was defeated in an Election by Tom Didier in a close race. Please enlighten me about the "good reason" he was voted out of office. Did Tom Henry commit a crime that I am unaware of? Did he propose a law that is criminal. Please be more specific.

I am glad that you vote based on your views rather then my views! I may still vote for Kelty; it will depend on what happens between now and the election. I am not a supporter of Tom Henry.
I am CERTAIN there are Libertarians who will vote for Kelty. I am equally certain that several Libertarians who were going to vote for Kelty will change their mind; Kody Tinnel is a good example of this...

Please let me know what "slanderous bloggers" you are referring to... I am certain that you are not referring to either myself or Jeff Pruitt. "Slander" is a fairly serious charge.

You can rest assured that I will vote for the best candidate for each position.

Well that was fun...

Mike Sylvester


Robert Enders said...

Several key things to remember.

Both candidates are Catholic. They presumably have the same religious beliefs. I personally do not care what a politician's beliefs are as much as whether or not he tries to forcibly impose those beliefs on others.

The ad in question was produced and paid for by a PAC, not the Kelty campaign. On the one hand, a PAC can endorse a candidate without his knowledge or consent. On the other hand, it gives him plausible deniability. But sometimes supporters can do really dumb things when they try to help their candidate. Last year, a series of illegal robo-calls were made on Souder's behalf. Souder denounced the calls and did his best to get them stopped.

Kelty has less than three weeks to establish himself as a secular politician.

LP Mike Sylvester said...


Well said.

I will be interested in seeing how Kelty responds to this ad.

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...


I agree with a great many of your points and any number of subjects.

But, you look at the person running for office? Do you look at who support them and their special interest in supporting them?

barranda said...


Your response, I think, is quite appropriate. If I remember correctly, you posted quite some time ago that you thought Matt would be able to separate church and state. I questioned whether you had ever spoken to him [keep in mind that the first time I met with him for lunch he requested that we pray aloud before we ate. I obliged.].

At any rate, Matt's early campaigning began on morals (the strip clubs were certainly a focus then). After HS gained momentum, he latched on to that. He says now that it is passed, he will now support it. However, even this morning I hear his radio add where he speaks with such disdain about the baseball stadium. Obviously he is speaking to his target audience.

I think the AFA ad is one of two things. My first thought is that Matt had nothing to do with the ad. Rather, the AFA wanted to press Matt on this issue, since his campaigning on morals have taken a back seat to other issues that resonate with a larger portion of the population. Perhaps the AFA wants to make sure that Matt will publicly reaffirm his support of their agenda.

On the other hand, the AFA ad could have originated from Matt or someone very close to him. If that is the case, it would seem he is supporting letting other do his dirty work for him.

Ultimately, Robert, Matt's response will be important. If he supports the add, then I would tend to believe that the former theory is true. If he remains silent, then the latter. Of course, neither of those will happen. He will give a very ambiguous response: "TH is a good man and friend. I do not condone any action that might be perceived as an attack on his character." Unless he actually responds to whether he otherwise supports the issue presented in the ad, I would tend to think that answer is an indication of the second theory.

barranda said...


LP Mike Sylvester said...

anon 8:18

You bring up an interesting question.

I tend to NOT look at who supports them UNLESS it is a race in which I am uncertain which candidate is better in my opinion.

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...

Mike Sylvester if you do not look past the person running you base your total opinion on what you read or are told to you by others.

Well that is what got you some of the very things you where ticked off about over the course of the last six months.

I have never heard you address the issue why it took Tom Henry to get into the race. If one is to believe what was printed in the papers that he did not want to run. Now who talked him into it and why?

Why would Matt Kelty knowingly break the finance laws? To get media coverage? Why would Matt allow for photos of a cake get up on his web stite? Why would Kathy Hawks jump ship? Why would Kenny N. act the way he did?

It is when you look past what you agree with a person is when learn the real person or motivations.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

anon 9:34

I have heard several rumors about Tom Henry and why he got into the race. I honestly have no idea why he ran for Mayor. My guess is that the local Democratic Party asked him to run at some point and he grudgingly agrees.

Then you ask several questions:

Why would Matt Kelty knowingly break the finance laws? To get media coverage? I DO NOT THINK HE BROKE ANY CAMPAIGN FIANCNE LAWS.

Why would Matt allow for photos of a cake get up on his web stite?

Why would Kathy Hawks jump ship?


Mike Sylvester

Kody Tinnel said...

Anonymous 8:18,

I believe it is important to look into the special interest groups supporting a candidate. Those are the people that the candidate feels indebted to if he or she wins, so they will generally work in their favor.

It is the same general idea as following the money.

Jennifer Jeffrey, Chair LPAC said...

Ah Mike... I love arguing with you...

No disrespect meant to either of you, for sure.

We'll finish this later~plenty of better things to talk about.

Doug H. Sec, Lib Pty AC said...

To All,

If we Libertarians are arguing amongst ourselves regarding Mr. Kelty IMAGINE what the Republicans are going through internally!?!?!?

We've GOT to invite Richard Dawson to Fort Wayne to moderate a Trivial Pursuit game between the Nelson Peters supporters and the Matt Kelty supporters.

We could sell tickets! :)

And we'd need Steve to keep the two sides apart...


Doug Horner
Candidate, City Council at Large

Search This Blog

Alfie Evans

1. When a doctor says A and a parent says B, I tend to go with what the doctor says. Usually the doctors are right. After reviewing Alfie...

Blog Archive


Brgd. General Anthony Wayne US Continental Army


My blog is worth $11,855.34.
How much is your blog worth?


About Commenting

Keep it clean and relevant to the post. If you have a question that isn't related to a recent post, email me at . You can also email me if you want to make an anonymous comment.


Per the by-laws of the Libertarian Party of Allen County, the Chair is the official spokesperson of LPAC in all public and media matters.

Posts and contributions expressed on this forum, while being libertarian in thought and intent, no official statement of LPAC should be derived or assumed unless specifically stated as such from the Chair, or another Officer of the Party acting in his or her place, and such statements are always subject to review.