It appears some inaccurate information was posted by the Big Cats and other Critters
on the front page of Left in Alabama regarding the goings on at the
Saturday's SDEC meeting in Montgomery.
Party Vice Chair, Nancy Worley, sets the record straight via PM's List.
Xxx, you and others remember well what happened four years ago at the SDEC Meeting when the President's Alabama campaign "operatives" struck every name from the at-large delegate ballot except the few they had handpicked. Many good Democrats were hurt and angered by those actions. Well, they tried to do it again! Staff from Chicago and Washington, DC, flew in very late Friday night to bring a list of a FEW individuals who would be the At-Large Delegates and PLEOs (Party Leaders Elected Officials). Dr. Joe Reed and I (Nancy Worley) stood firm AGAINST THEIR STRIKING ANY NAMES of the 191 people who had qualified by the deadline with the Party to run for these at-large/PLEO spots. While they said they were making sure our delegation met its diversity goals, it was apparent when they read out the few selected names on their list, that they had not researched the diversity of our elected delegates, nor had they consulted with most of the state party's leaders (a requirement in our approved plan). Our Chairman, Executive Director, three of our DNC members, Dr. Reed and I met with the campaign visitors until the "wee hours" to make sure EVERY person's name remained on the ballot. As the Party Vice Chair, I was proud to support real democracy in our Democratic Party -- to give every person who qualified for an at-large/PLEO delegate a chance to run and be voted on by the SDEC members. That was the great triumph of Saturday's SDEC Meeting -- ALL 191 candidates stayed on the ballot, not a single person was removed. Unfortunately, the vote counting with that large number of candidates (and too few counters at first) took a LONG time. Redeye has mentioned below the "SDEC Meeting Report" by Left in Alabama, of which someone sent me a copy this afternoon. The writer(s) obviously didn't understand parts of the meeting, or she/they relied on very bad sources of information or outright lies. While I did not speak with the "cats" throughout the "marathon" meeting, I need to clarify the following incorrect information or misstatements made by them: 1. The "old guard" digging in its heels to oppose diversity is totally false. The delegate plan submitted to the DNC for 2012 was similar to previous plans submitted every four years in which the DNC requires diversity goals. Alabama Democrats ELECTED a very diverse group of delegates -- half male, half female, old, young, black, white, LGBT, Native American, etc. We elected diverse At Large and PLEO delegates Saturday. Not every candidate checks every box which identifies his/her diversity. 2. The "new" voting procedures were almost identical to previous years. According to the DNC Rules, we have no secret ballot votes in the Democratic Party. Usually we stand up for vote counting, but delegate voting has always required paper ballots which are signed by the voter. Saturday's only change was separating each voting category (PLEO, Alternates, At Large Men, At Large Women, At Large Alternates, etc.) on a separate colored ballot sheet and counting each before the next ballot was distributed. This was incredibly time consuming. 3. The so-called "innovation" of one member's requesting that the SDEC remain seated during ballot distribution and counting has been made in the past, but there is no rule mandating this. Over a five hour period, people moved in and out of the room to go to the restroom, make calls, get food, smoke, etc. At the time the request was made, Dr. Reed was returning from the back of the room to the platform, and the only other person(s) standing in the center aisle was the person making the request -- and two or three people distributing ballots. 4. I never heard ANYONE mention bringing in electronic vote scanners or counters prior to this meeting. Jim and I had a discussion on the platform during one of the LONG vote-counting waits about possible machine counts. We both agreed that this might speed up the process but would NOT be possible if the SDEC continues to change the ballot each time one category is counted. That would require the programming of a new vote counter with each change. The "several people" relied on by LIA for information about my veto of machines LIED. 5. Dr. Reed never made a proposal to the body to "scrap" the paper ballot. He did request additional counters and tables on which to count. Many individuals were making a variety of suggestions to speed up the process in order to attend the SOS Rally. I know the Chairman and I both welcome any suggestions to improve this lengthy process in the future. 6. If the "cats" at Left in Alabama believe the delegate selection process was "much improved" over 2008, they should get on their hands and knees to thank Dr. Reed and the Party leadership who spent most of Friday night bringing about fairness and order for Saturday's meeting. There are other misstatements by Left in Alabama, but I conclude with my advice to readers -- "Don't believe every word you read on a blog, in a paper, etc. Personal opinions may cloud the facts." Nancy Thank you to the "old guard" for protecting us from the "new guard".
The Blog of Record cares more about Dogs and Cockfighting than human beings.~RedEye