Yeah, We Get Mail ....

I'm not too big on necessarily re-opening wounds that have begun to heal, but I do have one message to pass along in response to an otherwise well-received post earlier by fellow Houston Dem, Dale Napier. This comes from another good friend from the same club (Meyerland Area Democrats), Deb Kerner. Debby is the now-past President of the club and takes issue with a few points. My thoughts on the battle that rages after this from Debby:

Dale Napier Does NOT Speak for the Meyerland Area Democrats Club

Dale Napier recently posted two notes on the Internet about the Meyerland Area

Democrats Club (MADC). Little of what he wrote is accurate. I was the president of the Meyerland Area Democrats Club until our meeting on Monday, April 18th, when I chose to not run for re-election. I feel that as the president of MADC during the time these events occurred, I must correct what he wrote. Napier is a FORMER vice president of the Club and a FORMER parliamentarian/sergeant at arms; however, he holds NO elected position with the club now and in NO way speaks for the club nor represents it.

One of his notes, in my eyes, is racist and should not be seen as an indication of anything the Meyerland Area Democrats Club believes, says, or does. He says "there is not a damned thing that white Democrats can do to whip black Democrats into a semblance of Party discipline." He also accuses Black Democrats of being "wayward Democrats."

This is Dale's opinion. The Meyerland Area Democrats Club doesn't agree with those racist statements. Dale also says "rather than standing back and badmouthing them, I think it is time we try to re-establish some common ground." MADC has always shared common ground and common beliefs with its African American members and with our state's African American legislators. Even if some of the members of MADC disagree with some of the votes or points of view of some of the African American legislators, the club members respect their right to have an independent opinion. MADC has always tried to work with all groups of people and has tried to make the club open and welcoming to all people.

Dale also said, "the president of Meyerland Democrats hates Al Edwards so he has never been invited to come speak to the club...." First, his statement about my hating Al Edwards is untrue and second, State Representative Edwards has been invited to speak to MADC, as have all other Democratic candidates in our area.

Napier's second posting was more of a direct "Hit (on) the Meyerland (Area) Democrats (Club)." It's similar to what Fox News claims to do. It claims to be fair and balanced; but it is not. Dale's posting was unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate. When Congressman Al Green addressed our club, many members of the club disagreed with him. Only Dale treated him rudely and disrespectfully. Napier's description of our April 18, 2005 meeting was in no way an accurate description of what went on at that meeting.

Perhaps the best way to described Napier's notes is to paraphrase the song, "The Army Goes rolling along": "Over hill over Dale, Napier's notes are untrue tales."

Debby Kerner
Past President,
Meyerland Area Democrats Club

Now, both Dale and Debby are good friends and at the end of the day, we all push the same candidates with varying degrees of enthusiasm. The comment referenced on Dale's part, I don't condemn as harshly as Deb does ... there's a dual meaning to the term in regards to the legislative branch that I think makes it just an unfortunate choice of words. While Dale and I may share our personal distaste for the political actions and statements of a few partisans in our ranks (State Rep. Al Edwards high among them), even our standards for party unity are different, as are the wider worldview that I, Dale, and even Debby cling to. But to each their own.

I've taken more than a few shots from others (either direct or merely alluded to) and I can attest that those who stick their necks out to express a viewpoint tend to have a few axes slung their way ... sometimes justifiably so. I've got a sizable collection from fellow bloggers, members of the area clubs I work with, former statewide candidates, etc. So while I may not necessarily agree in full with those that I may also see fit to offer the occassional guest post to, one positive to take from the experience is that the truth of sunlight is often allowed to come forth.

While we're on this topic, let's go back to a comment left by City Council candidate Sue Lovell in regards to one of my posts that was rather critical of her latest camapaign activities:

Greg,

While you slam Ed Wendt for not calling Jay Aiyer to get his comment, I do not remember you calling me to get my comment before you wrote your article. Is there a different standard for people that write for or have blogs? I do want to make one fact very clear that you did not.....I ENDORSED Ron Green for City Council,I paid for and sent out an endorsement letter for Ron Green and I supported and worked for Ron Green ....

Sue Lovell

First things first ... I'll take Sue at her word on endorsing Ron Green and heretofore stand corrected. A few points that led to this confusion, however, were reports that had Sue introducing Bert Keller to a few clubs/groups around town after the first election as well as some critical comments of Ron Green that made the papers as late as a few days prior to the December runoff (a still active link is available from a late November reference at the Houston Press). If the image left in my mind based on those fragments of information are less than complete, then I'll gladly update the file to note Sue's support of Ron Green last time around.

That aside, however, I find it interesting that of all the points I raise: that Sue's complaint is void of any substantive issue, that attacking a fellow progressive in city elections is uncalled for given the prior point as well as the fact that the lone GOPer in the race is now actively piggy-backing the non-issue, that the current smear has nearly identical parallels to her bogus claim against Ron Green while both were in the hunt ... or that an active campaign worker of Sue's is openly admitting to penning Ed Wendt columns with no attribution so as to give the current bogus claim a modicum of objectivitiy. None of those issues are worth responding to? Wow.

Now, as to my own reporting skills ... I'll state the obvious: I'm not a reporter, nor do I pretend to be one on TV. I write based on what I see, hear, read, and recall. Sometimes those forms of input have faults and when they do, the output is rarely perfect to the extent it relies on such.

Sue asks about different standards for me and Ed Wendt and I have to take serious issue with that ... I mean, you just had a campaign worker write a slam on your opponent under someone else's name and I'M the one committing some heinous act??? I state my full disclosure for anyone to read and judge - I'm supportive of Jay, I've done some work on his behalf, I've gotten paid for such work ... and I'll also add that I'm set to add a very minor amount of cash to the campaign coffers tonight. Did Ed Wendt disclose any similar matters that depict his own apparent closeness to the Sue Lovell campaign? ... or is there a different set of rules that applies to people who actually get paid to write for a living?

There ... that's a lot to sort through for a day. I'm going to go move beyond this by getting my morning started with a few breakfast burritos.