[Editorial]Overheated Competition in GNP Nomination Race

Yesterday, Grand National Party Ethics Committee chairman In Myung-jin announced that an emergency meeting would be held today to discuss the uncontrolled offensives and counteroffensives occurring between the camps of two GNP nomination contenders, Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye. On a KBS radio program, Mr. In said, “Their supporters are using words you would not believe while attacking the other camp with whatever means available, even using a feng shui expert.” GNP lawmaker Jeon Yeo-ok criticized the two camps, describing their fights as a “civil war” or “parricide.”

A loyalty competition among supporters is aggravating the situation. They are finding faults in the other contender’s campaign and exaggerating them in order to drag him or her down. With no magnanimity, they are not interested in a fair nomination race. They want to “impress their boss” in order to secure a position if and when their contender wins the race and becomes President.

Even when shouting the slogans of “democratic competition” and “switching the reins of government,” they are acting only out of self-interest. It is doubtful whether these flatterers and troublemakers are capable of conducting an effective campaign against anti-GNP joint forces to end the leftist government’s reign. It reminds me of the terrible campaign result of Lee Hoe-chang camp five years ago. The “unsightly acts” of the two nomination contenders’ camps will make people turn their backs on the GNP in the presidential election.

The two contenders should distance themselves from these supporters. It is hypocrisy if they pretend to be controlling their supporters but are all the while enjoying the offensive. Nomination Race Committee chairman Park Gwan-yong, who said he came out of retirement to save the party, should determinedly act to make sure they check the excessive loyalty of their supporters.

The GNP should be able to build trust and give hope to the people through a “beautiful nomination race” based on democratic competition. However, the reality is that an argument for “a third nomination contender,” which reminds me of the argument for “replacement of the candidate” in 1997, is arising.