Thursday, March 26, 2009

OK, Holt, you got your wish, I'm going all THADDEUS for the next few days.

I try to please my readers, so, have at it. for the next few days, ANONYMOUS POSTING IS ENABLED!!!
We should have a side bet on how many comments it takes for me to get called a racist.....
Let the party begin!!!


Anonymous said...

Sweet! It's like 2005. The days of the early, local, liberal blogsphere at convention time have returned.

Brad Watkins said...

Excellent! Let's hear what people really think.

Anonymous said...

I'm a delegate, I am going to be on the Commitee and I'm voting Van.

I really have nothing against Jay, I just don't think he can do what he says and I believe he will be distracted in less than a year if he runs for office (which reportedly is his plan). We can't stand another 2 years of an absentee chairperson.

Oh yeah - I am sure I am part of that Repulican influence sneaking into our party. In other words, I am from east Shelby County. And I have proudly been a Democrat and working Democratic campaigns since I was a kid.

dwayne said...


I appreciate your viewpoint on this issue which I know is an honest one. I also regard Del Gill’s opinion as honest on this too though we disagree. However, I feel that many who are supportive of the bylaw provision have amazingly converted this year only to help get their candidate elected.

As far as the provision, the only similarity it has to Baker v. Carr is the “One man, one vote” name. Baker v. Carr dealt with fairness and overall census population. If we used that, all districts would have equal membership as does the State Executive Committee. The Del Gill provision deals with voting records and implied rewards and punishments. Now you and I both know that it’s a crock to say that those voting results are as a result of harder working democrats in those districts. I have worked in different parts of town in recent years and trust me, District 85 is a breeze compared to my home District 96.

Del introduced the provision as an amendment at the 2001 Convention when we allowed By Laws amendments to be passed at conventions. As with other such amendments, there was little discussion or reflection on how these amendments would help the Democratic Party and were voted on by delegates who had little knowledge of Party affairs. The “One man, one vote” name sounded good so most voted for it (everyone in my district voted NO).

I readily admit that Del’s intentions are to have unrestricted numbers of DEC members from Districts based on a relatively liberal formula. However, it can be interpreted in different ways, especially since we have awarded and continue to award a larger number of members from higher Democratic voting districts, just with a limit on the numbers.

The issue that is getting us up in arms is the secretive and lop sided manner in which this ruling was made. The State subcommittee decided to rule in favor of the Bailey supporters rather abruptly with only last minute notice to the Shelby County Committee and not allowing any representation from the other side before making their decision. Chairman Forrester fully supported their ruling and threatened to not recognize us if we didn’t comply.

Why was the decision made in such a strange and harsh manner? Was it political rewards to the ones from Shelby County who helped get Chip Forrester elected State Chair? Was it people from hundreds of miles away listening to their Shelby county peers and wanting to dispose of it quickly?

So what to do now? Should we vote in Del’s By Law changes (which is actually against the By Laws which require longer notice), reach a compromise agreement, or simply do nothing and risk the State not certifying us.

I am willing to consider a compromise myself which I understand has been discussed. However, if the Bailey supporters are not willing to compromise, maybe we should just have the Party apparatus de certified. Some may be shocked at this proposition but the Executive Committee has had little power or influence for at least several years. When different factions are so entrenched that it’s all or nothing for them, when we cannot attract the best and the brightest of our Party to participate, when we get so bogged down in minute details that we cannot see the true purpose that we are trying to achieve, and when we leave the shouting matches (aka Exec Comm meetings) feeling drained with no accomplishments, then maybe we should not have an official Party for a few years, let feelings settle, and try it later. There was a young, bright, and enthusiastic individual who was planning to run for an Executive committee seat from my district with my support. When she saw the crap that goes on, she decided it wasn’t for her.

Who knows, we may elect more Democrats officially unorganized rather than officially organized.


Steve Steffens said...

Awesome and on point, Dwayne.

Bailey folks, your response?

vibinc said...

If that's the case Steve, then how many of these anonymous comments are from you? I mean, if you're going all ThaMATT, you gotta push a bunch of stupid comments up there, right?

Brad Watkins said...

Steve you are a racist.

LOL! sorry could not help myself.

Steve Steffens said...

heh, commie bastards!!!!!

We'll see if I have to surreptitiously goose the comments or not..

Anonymous said...

Hey, cracker you racist pig...

Here's how your one man/one vote looks if the range used is 6,000 with no caps instead of the 3,000 with no caps that Del/Eddie/Jay want and as the state party is cramming down the SCDP's throats midway through this convention and chair race - after the delegates were elected and any idiot could see who had the majority.

This would be 2 EC members per house district as required by the state and 1 more for each 6,000 Obama votes in that house district:


I guess Jay and his people don't really want one man one vote unless it works for them. Kinda like he didn't want to work with the party but just wanted to undermine it if he couldn't be the chair.

So much for all that noble democratic theory and disenfrachisement blather.

Steve Steffens said...

OK, since Watkins's doesn't count, whoever had 9 in the racist pool wins!

Well, ANON 5:46, if they all agreed to that, we could all sing KUMBAYA and be done with it, because it would be the same standard.

Except, of course, that the 3000 range is the precedent we set years ago, so why change it now?

When Haslam kills us in the Gov race in 2010, and we use a 6000 standard, we'll be back to a 32-person ExecCom, 2 per district.

So, nice try, come back for more!

Steve Steffens said...

Anon 5:46, under that 6000 standard, how would you see the race shaping up, as there would only be 59 seats, as opposed to the 71 the ExecCom now claims and the 83 that the TNDP requires?

Would Turner win?

I have to say one other thing: say what you want to about brother Gill, he is a freaking GENIUS with numbers, and I trust his calculations.

Anonymous said...

6000 is the one man one vote theory just as much as the 3,000 is - but it keeps the committee a reasonable size, around what it is now (66). What group do you want to be a part of (even if it isn't pathologically disfunctional) that has 83 people trying to get something done?

At 6000 it is 60 members. I think in 2004 it was 44 members or so.

Just like any other scenario, Turner wins - count the districts yourself, I think you know the lay of the land.

Anonymous said...

Number 34 has planned this whole thing.

Blinders Off said...

I am not going to throw a rock and hide behind anonymous. I been a registered Democrat my entire life and I start actively working in the Party since I was 18 years old. I first found LWC site when I start blogging and disenchanted with the Democrat Party after the 2000 and 2004 Presidential election. I am as many others are your invisible foot soldiers during national campaigns. I did not mind working the phones, knocking on doors, and help raise money to help the best person for the party WIN.

This year marks 14 years I have been a resident in Shelby County. Personally, I am sick and damn tired of the freaking fighting within the SCDP. I admit I never came out to a SCDP meeting because when I moved here in 1995 it did not take long to see Memphis had serious problems. I felt as if I was in a Twilight Zone back in time during the Deep South.

Blogging give a person an opportunity to see a person’s character before race. Steve, I knew your race because of your blog name :) and from your blog I discovered, other local bloggers as time went on. What I read from yours and other local blogs I never found you all to be racist, you speak your mind, as we all should. On the other hand, TM started out controversial to build his site, he did get the scoops on what was going on locally. Unfortunately, by being controversial his site attracted too many ignorant comments for my taste.

I understood what he was trying to do when it comes to issues in Memphis, but IMO his approach in getting his message out was and is wrong many times. TM, if you read this I hope you take this constructively and not personally. It is time for Memphis to become organized when it comes to politics…you are a player in the game, stop the division and help get this party on track. I have observed the politics in Memphis for 14 years and I know native-born Memphians and long time residents of Memphis are sick of the dysfunction in the SCDP.

STOP beating the race drum…us verses them; the white man/woman trying to push us out…that shit has to stop. Hell, Barack Obama would not be President if the country voted down racial lines. You all are intelligent enough to work together if you want to…this fighting bullshit is about POWER. To hell with that, Memphis, Shelby County and this country is in freaking trouble…IT IS TIME TO WORK TOGETHER!

The other Steve, Vibnic, is a newcomer in this city and I respect that he has the strength to get involved with SCDP, I want to, but I do not want to waste my strength and time with the dysfunction. Auto stated there is talent and people that would make good political leaders and he is right. Memphis is a diamond in the rough, but it is time to stop electing people based on race and who supports whom. It is time to start electing people based on their competence and ethical behavior in SCDP, local, and state offices.

Otherwise, Memphis will remain in the Twilight Zone.

vibinc said...


Thanks for the kind words, and the thoughtful insight. You're absolutely right, it's time for Democrats to stop exploiting divisions for personal gain and start working to unify the party.

For this to happen, people on and off the Executive Committee have to make a conscious decision that pure unadulterated self-interest is destructive to the party. Working together to strengthen the party ultimately serves the individual interests of all Democrats.

It's sad that people have allowed themselves to get caught up in the pettiness that can cripple an organization. Lord knows I've allowed myself to fall into this trap from time to time in my two and a half years of blogging here in Memphis. Still, going forward, I am making every effort to keep myself out of this unnecessary infighting when possible. Sometimes it's hard, but we all have to work to make this happen.

Memphis Democrats may have to lead our leaders out of the wilderness on this one. In doing so, that may mean that some of them no longer serve on the Executive Committee. If we lead, they will have to follow. If they don't, they'll lose their leadership position. That's accountability, and that's what SCDP needs more than anything else.

Anonymous said...

It is refreshing to read most of the comments here and there is such a response because you have restored anonymous posting - thank you!

Many thoughtful comments here are being made by people who care deeply about the party. Many of us have invested a lot of time, energy and money into the party. To give up now would be too easy and would just fulfill the fondest wishes of a select, but small group.

There is room for compromise to get us through the next few days, then the SCDP must do lots of research and discussion to come up with the bylaws that will work for us and not be subject to change every time someone has an agenda.

The state sent out a set of model bylaws in each county reorganization package. No where does it mention one man one vote. I believe Shelby County has a unique set of bylaws - different from most, if not all of the other counties in TN. In fact, the model bylaws actually suggest using the last gubernatorial PRIMARY, which makes sense. You can find this document on the TNDP site.

The state bylaws don't mention that concept either.

Anonymous said...

Javier Bailey sent out a mailer this week, but there is a problem, he used a picture and misspelled name of one elected official WITHOUT permission! I don't know if the others pictured on the mailer are supporters or not.

At least one does NOT support Bailey.

Anonymous said...