Cracker, you’re literally dripping with outrage, an image I could do without.
Yeah, I smacked you around a little, but my reasoning was sound, if snarky. Sound enough, in fact, for you to not even mention it in your “response”. Sucks to lose an argument doesn’t it?
Allow me, if you will, the opportunity to actually address the four main points you brought up in YOUR post.
First and foremost, I’m nobody’s spokesman but my own. Supporters of Mr. Turner haven’t contacted me other than commenting on the previous post. I, like you, have stated quite clearly that I’m not in the bag for anyone at this point either. Further, as an alternate delegate to the Convention on the 28th, I may or may not have any say in the matter, so don’t go distorting reality and handing me the job of Mr. Turner’s spokesman. I’m not looking for a job, and I doubt he would hire me anyway.
As for the MPD situation, I understand why the African American community would be concerned, but is a lawsuit about the residency rules the answer? I don’t think so. The distrust of the MPD by African Americans goes far beyond the tenure of Mr. Godwin. The lack of transparency that has marred Mr. Godwin’s tenure at MPD only compounds the problem. Truth of the matter is there are far better things to sue over.
Much of Memphis and Shelby Co. government is set up specifically to deflect any accountability. This is, perhaps, the biggest problem feeding distrust of local government throughout the system. At the very least, Memphians of all stripes, should organize and lobby the City Council to demand more accountability from the City and MPD in hiring and other issues. Suing over a residency rule is tangential.
You’re right about the “nice guy” thing. As you well know, I wasn’t keyed in to the local political scene until several months before the 2007 re-org., so I can’t really speak to any SCDP chair outside of Mr. Norman, who has had some serious attendance problems. So while a “nice guy” may not be the answer, neither is a polarizing figure that would cause the various and sundry factions within the party to double down on their distrust of each other. I’m not saying that Mr. Bailey is that polarizing figure. In fact, what little contact I’ve had with him has left me with a relatively positive impression.
Truth be told, I don’t think either Mr. Turner, nor Mr. Bailey are particularly polarizing figures. Both men have their plusses and minuses. People can make a determination based on how those plusses and minuses square with their personal values. The polarization seems to be coming more from who the candidate’s supporters are rather than the candidates themselves.
Case in point, Thaddeus Matthews. ThaMatt has been busy stirring up racial derision as he is want to do. Just a few days ago he attacked the head of the local AFSCME for supporting Mr. Turner. So perhaps labor isn’t as united as you seem to think.
All that said, I understand why some labor representatives would be reluctant to support Mr. Turner. In my last post, I didn’t address this reluctance or the potential challenges it may present. I was addressing this particular statement:
Ida Leachman, a longtime labor leader and organizer for the United Furniture Workers, said “We don’t need anyone from Butler Snow or Baker Donaldson as Chair of the Democratic Party” (Baker Donaldson is the firm of former Republican Senator Howard Baker).
Finally, the suggestion that Mr. Bailey would somehow be more likely than Mr. Turner to stand up for labor is nothing more than a guess. To be honest, if Labor wants someone they are sure will be “out on the front lines” for them, I suggest they run their OWN candidate for Chair.
Look, if you want to align yourself with ThaMatt and some the people that seek to divide for their own gain, go right ahead. That’ll do wonders for your credibility. If you want to accuse me of being in the bag for any particular candidate when I have clearly stated that I’m undecided at best, then crank up your reality distortion machine and go for it.
Personally, I think you’re better than that.