SCDP Purity Test

I’ve been thinking about this post over at LWC a bit, and while I understand this wasn’t the intent, it kind of comes off as character assassination.

For the record, I haven’t made a solid decision on which candidate I support either. In talking to both men, I feel that they have good intentions. How those intentions play out in reality is another story, but the inability of Jay Bailey to return an email with 7 piddlin’ questions is telling.

Hell, even if he didn’t get the questions, which I cannot guarantee, I emailed Upton asking him to follow up and I haven’t received a response from him either. This is twice that I haven’t seen any follow through from Mr. Bailey. Jolly good show guys, that’s confidence inspiring.

So, back to the character assassination…but first…

I am 100% with labor. I personally support EFCA, and don’t much care for the right to work laws that hamper organizing efforts here in the south. So before anyone goes all “Dumb as a box of hammers” on me let’s get that out in the open.

The idea that Mr. Brown puts forward on your blog is addition through subtraction. The notion that someone’s job excludes them from serving the Democratic Party is a purity test that goes too far.

Are you guys serious about this? Are you really going to hold someone’s job over their heads and “disqualify” them from working for the SCDP? Are you really going to exclude anyone from certain law firms from being Chair of the SCDP? Really?

When did we become the party of exclusion? I thought that was the Republicans!

Ok, fine. If someone’s job is the standard by which we are to select the next chair of the SCDP, let’s take a little looksee under the hood of Mr. Bailey’s gig…but first…

Anyone remember the ’06 reorg? Anyone remember the multiple packets of papers we got describing Mr. Bailey’s run ins with the Tennessee Bar? Y’all remember that?

Yeah, lots of trees wasted for some personal vendetta that probably lost him the Chair to Norman who has been a disaster. Norman’s leadership has been so bad it seems intentional, but that’s another story for another post.

Here’s another question…

Should the chair of the SCDP be calling the largely Democratic Memphis City Council racist? That’s essentially what he did just 4 short days ago. As a part of his representation of a lawsuit against the city for trying to hire more qualified cops of ANY COLOR Mr. Bailey alleged that the whole loosening of restrictions was a plot to hire more white people. Are you kidding me? We’re going through a crime wave so hot that it makes a summer heat wave look like a cold spell and people are seriously using race as a wedge to keep qualified cops off the streets?

That’s awesome. That’s good stuff man.

Personally, I don’t hold Mr. Bailey’s past or present against him, because I believe in people’s ability to transform and reform themselves, but this lawsuit is the pinnacle of ridiculous.

The point is, that by the standard put forth in your piece, we should be looking for another candidate, because neither of them are pure or good enough to run the SCDP.

In closing, all I’m asking for is a little intellectual honesty here. I understand Labor’s reluctance to endorse someone they feel may be working against their interests, but THEY SHOULD UNDERSTAND that someone’s job does not necessarily define the person.

0 thoughts

  1. not to mention…. since the 2007 reorganization and election of SCDP Chairman, Mr. Bailey has been publicly censured by the Board of Professional Responsibility for FOUR (4) additional violations of rules of professional conduct.

Leave a Reply