Loading ...Kennedy Conundrum, Part II
I’ve recently come under attack in the blogosphere for the story I wrote earlier this on Melina Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for County Prosecutor, letting her law license lapse for nine months prior to getting ready to run for the office. I’ve been called almost every name in the book. That doesn’t bother me, because I’ve been called worse by women I’ve dated. However, I think it’s important to set a couple items straight. I’ve used some of the text in an earlier post to make this response. Hey, why tamper with genius?
My critics have accused me of fishing for a story. They’re right. It’s what reporters and pundits do. We look for information, do a little checking and if it’s worth reporting, we do. My only agenda is to inform the public and let them make up their own minds.
With respect to the Melina story, when I found out about the information I gave her campaign 24 hours to come up with a response. Instead they just said it didn’t matter and was immaterial. The experience issue is going to dog Melina in this campaign and their response doesn’t help. I don’t think the fact she was pregnant with twins would have totally quashed the question but it would have been better than saying it doesn’t matter. All the Kennedy folks had to say was that she pregnant with twins, and had so many responsibilities that keeping up with the CLE (Continuing Legal Education) requirements would have been too much for her, so she put her priorities in order. She knew she was going to renew her license eventually and that’s what she did. She would have been questioned about the timing, but it would have been a much better response. Maybe they should hire me to run campaign communications.
If Melina was going to let her license lapse, her campaign should have known and been ready to respond. When I called her campaign with the initial information I was asked what rumor mill did I get the information from, and I told them the Indiana Roll of Attorneys. I will go so far as to speculate that her own campaign staff was not aware of this information. That is frightening. For the campaign not to know that crucial information and not have an answer for it when it comes up is ridiculous.
I’m told Melina will make an appearance on another radio talk show today and likely tell why she let her license lapse for nine months. The host is friendly to the Kennedy camp so it’s not like she will get any tough questions. And knowing the host, any intelligent questions for that matter. If I were a strategist for the campaign, I’d do it too.
And I also find it interesting that is labeled as GOP dirty tricks. I argue this is one of those rare instances where the local GOP got it right. They’ve known about this for a while, but never said anything. They just waited for someone in the media to start asking questions. The way the local folks have dropped the ball lately, I was surprised they got this right. Usually when they make a firing squad, they’re in a circle.
If anyone should be upset, it should be Melina at her staff. A campaign with this much at stake can’t afford to make these kinds of stupid mistakes. By saying it doesn’t matter, they just gave the Brizzi folks a campaign commercial. What kind of political strategy is that? I think it’s one that shows these folks may want to do some reorganization now, before it’s too late.
March 31st, 2006 at 7:40 am
Abdul–I agree with you that the issue of her “inactive status” so close to her announcement that she was running for prosecutor is fair for discussion. As you point out, she may well have a sound reason for going inactive. What I do want to correct you on, however, and it is a mistake Howey, Tulley and others have made is to characterize her law license as “lapsing.” It did not lapse. She affirmatively elected “inactive status” and then 9 months later, she affirmatively elected to return to “active” status. A lapse would occur if you failed to keep your CLE up-to-date, or pay your annual fees, and you are suspended from the practice of law until you remedy those issues. The latter involves willful negligence on the part of the attorney. There is nothing inherently wrong with electing “inactive status.” The only reason it is relevant in the context of the prosecutor’s race is because it raises questions about her intentions at a critical time with respect to the practice of law.
The bigger issue that can’t be overlooked is the fact that Kennedy has no previous prosecutorial experience. Democrats can cry and whine all they want about that–but that is entirely relevant, particularly since we are the state’s largest county and many people consider the position to be the most powerful elected position in the state behind Governor. I’ve heard Democrats complain about this as well. “Who the hell is she? We have plenty of seasoned and dedicated criminal lawyers in this county who were reading and willing to run and the Democratic leaders would have no part of them.” This is a common refrain among many Democratic attorneys. The only explanation they’ve been given is that her family has a lot of money, and she will be able to raise the funds she needs to mount a credible campaign on her own without a lot of assistance from the party.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:31 am
Gary, your second paragraph is RIGHT ON THE MONEY. Her experience is her biggest weakness. That being said, I don’t think if she’d been active during those nine months, that it would have made a damn bit of difference. Her greatest weakness is her lack of prosecutorial experience, not her active status. I think it must be an attorney thing… because I don’t see how her status could be used against her.
Abdul, are you hinting that this information was leaked to you? I’m SHOCKED. ;)
March 31st, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Ooops, Carl was busy trying to convince people the Melina Kennedy was unqualified and let a CONFESSED CRIMINAL go free. Check out this from Steve Laudig “In a Superior Court of Marion County last week a defendant was released and charges dismissed even though: a. the victim was shot in the back; b. there was a confession.”
Go fight crime Carl, quit following Melina Kennedy around a parade…
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:40 am
I would be careful being critical about a woman who chooses to have her law license be inactive while she is pregnant with twins. And for those non-parents out there… the issues of having a child don’t end when the child is born. There is some time to get your head above water again.
Concerning the candidates experience, there are many models from around this country where Prosecutors with no prior experience prosecuting criminal cases have been elected and have been very effective (check out LA right now). Locally this includes one Mr. Goldsmith who many would consider to be an effective Prosecutor. The other side of this issue is, if you have “experience” were you any good? Just doing your time in a job doesn’t mean your good at it or would be better than someone else who hasn’t done the job.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:22 pm
80% think you’re a partisan hack Abdul…
April 5th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Did you really get hated on so bad that you had to change your poll Abdul?
April 5th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
No, I figured I’d give them a couple things to really hate me for. Of course there are a couple other stories on the way that will really get their blood boiling. Stay tuned!!!
October 24th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Abdul, I commend you for having the courage to express your convictions regarding Kennedy. Who cares if she had kids? Who cares if her license lapsed? I don’t think much of Kennedy, and regard her as nothing more than an opportunist. And if she were male, I would have the same opinion. Just thought I would mention that to avoid being regarded as a sexist by the politically correct folk and indignant soccer moms out there. And I find Kennedy’s soft stance on crime appalling. Granted Brizzi is not perfect, but I would rather vote for him than for Kennedy