More on the hot mess

I have friends on both sides here, and I trust that we will still be friends afterwards.

The Bailey folks claim that, for the last four years, the SCDP has done little or nothing under first Matt Kuhn (helluva nice guy, I like him, but the whole situation engulfed him) and then under Keith Norman (a nice guy, he has done less than nothing except when forced to at gunpoint). Well, actually, they're right. I sat there and watched a bunch of folks who have never been in a campaign before run a hell of an operation at Eastgate Shopping Center last year, with NO HELP from the SCDP or TNDP. Pros, they were not; effective, they were all that and more.

Would it have helped to have had a strong leader? You're damned right it would have.

I understand the Bailey camp's frustration; however, while David Cocke, in hindsight, clearly would have been a better choice four years ago (yes, I know, a helluva lot of good that does NOW) is Jay Bailey the answer now?

If we're going to take the MSDIA coalition to task for producing ineffective leaders for the last four years, and we should, then we have to ask of the Bailey crew: Jay Bailey? Really?

We all do crazy things when we're young, but he has had problem after problem with the Bar Association, something that the Republicans would love to hit Democrats over the head with if Bailey wins.

Does Jay know politics? Well, yes, he's been in it since birth, since his father, Walter served over 30 years on the Shelby County Commission. Is he willing to stand up for Democratic causes? Yes, I believe he would. Is he likely to embarrass the Party with a screw-up down the line? Sadly, I believe the answer to that is yes.

OK, so how about that Van Turner? He's a nice, clean-cut guy, no problem with him, right? RIGHT? Look, we've already discussed that he works for an anti-union law firm, and if we're going to bash Nikki Tinker for that, as we did and should have, we can't let Turner off the hook here, either.

Also, let us remember that Turner also serves as the current parliamentarian for the SCDP, so all this madness over the number of ExecCom seats happened under his watch. One can only presume that if he sat there and allowed this to happen, we can presume one of two things: either he had no clue what was going on, or he knew and let it happen because it was to his benefit. Neither answer speaks well of his potential as Chair of the SCDP.

So, Cracker, you're for Bailey, then, right? RIGHT? As Lee Corso of ESPN would say, not so fast, my friends.

We are at the end of a process that has produced two candidates that I am convinced will do NOTHING to solve the current problems of the Party. I cannot, in good conscience, support either candidate. I propose something that will blow everyone's head off, but bring everything to a head and make the ultimate decision on the direction of the Party.

David vs. Desi for all the marbles. Now, and for ever more, let's REALLY settle the family business once and for all on Saturday afternoon. Let them debate, let them yell, let them throw punches if they want, but have them get this out of their system, and then let everyone vote.

Winner wins and leads, the other shuts up and supports for the next two years. Simple as that.

Who's with me????