Corey Walton is running for national EVP, so I think his record and temperament are fair subjects for discussion.

In this original video, Walton tells CLC supporters not to participate in the “toxic atmosphere” on social media. He says they should not go lower when opponents go low and that they should remain civil.

I want to be clear that the video attached to this post is an edited comparison. It is not the original video. It compares that request for civility with previous clips of Walton calling union figures “cowards,” “liars,” “sellouts,” “punk-ass bitches,” “lazy bastards” and other names.

Profanity by itself is not really my concern. The question is whether civility only becomes important when Walton and his slate are the ones receiving criticism.

Lew Drass

The timeline with Lew Drass is worth looking at.

• In 2022, Walton released an episode “paying homage to my mentor Lew Drass.”
• On May 12, 2025, Walton called Drass a “sellout,” “spineless and gutless” and an “establishment lackey” in Episode 237.
• Drass publicly responded on May 19 in the first episode of his own podcast, DRASSTIC Measures: The Maiden Voyage. He still described Walton as a good advocate, but challenged his truthfulness and what Drass considered hateful rhetoric.
• Drass later went into greater detail and responded to additional allegations in Episode 3: Local Negotiations Part 2 and Lew’s Receipts.
• Walton then doubled down in Episode 239, calling Drass and other retired leaders “buzzards” and saying they would be “crushed.”

This started long before Drass became a candidate. The idea that Walton was simply defending himself from a political opponent does not match the public timeline.

Mike Caref

There was a similar change with Mike Caref.

Earlier episodes presented Caref as “The Expert,” “the honorable Mike Caref,” “The Shepherd” and “THE Mike Caref.” Walton said he loved Caref deeply and publicly supported him.

Once their political alignment ended, the tone changed. Caref later publicly disputed claims about why he left the CLC ticket. He also denied making the commitment that Walton’s side said he had made.

Anyone trying to understand how that relationship fell apart should also read this chronology of emails from the early days of the CLC.

The emails provide more context about the early disagreements within the CLC, how leadership decisions were being made and who was choosing the slate. They also provide context for Caref’s role in bringing many of the original participants together and show that he was not the only person who raised concerns or reconsidered his involvement.

For fairness, I also want to include the response from Henry’s side that a moderator shared.

In Episode 119 of Parcels of Knowledge, James Henry gives his version of what happened between himself and Caref. The relevant discussion begins at approximately 18 minutes.

The same moderator also shared this post from Hope Miles detailing Henry’s accomplishments.

The emails do not automatically make Caref right or everyone else wrong. Henry’s explanation does not automatically settle the disagreement either. Listen to Henry, listen to Caref, read the emails and decide for yourself.

People can disagree with Lew Drass or Mike Caref. That is not the issue. What concerns me is the repeated pattern of strongly praising people while they are aligned with Walton, then personally attacking them once the disagreement becomes political.

The Facebook screenshots

As shown in the screenshot collection added by DM request, the posts being circulated include:

• Grouping “satanists, feminists, anarchists, Hollywood, illegals, media and politicians” together as Trump opponents.
• Comparing Obama campaigning for Hillary Clinton to someone trying to justify Hitler receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
• Calling Obama a “colossal failure” and “a disgrace,” while repeatedly referring to him as “Hussein Obama.”
• Making a remark about Obama’s supposed “Muslim heritage.”
• Using the terms “illegals” and “illegal aliens.”
• Strongly praising Donald Trump and his political agenda.

Supporting Trump or opposing Obama is not disqualifying. Union members and officers have every right to their own political beliefs.

The concern is the language involving feminists, immigrants, Obama’s supposed Muslim heritage and political opponents. It is fair to ask whether someone seeking to represent a diverse national membership still holds those views.

These posts are nearly a decade old, and people can change. If he has changed, that is completely fair. It also makes the questions pretty simple:

1. Are these screenshots authentic?
2. Does Walton still stand by this language?
3. If his views or behavior have changed, what changed?
4. Will the civility standard he asks supporters to follow also apply to him?
5. How will he represent members whose identities or political beliefs are different from his own?

I am not bringing this up to encourage anyone to attack Walton, his family or his private life. This should stay focused on his own words, his public conduct and his fitness to serve as EVP.

Asking a candidate to address his own record is not creating a “toxic atmosphere.” It is accountability.

EDIT/UPDATE: This post has been updated to include additional information, context and direct source links. I added Lew Drass’s responses from the DRASSTIC Measures podcast, James Henry’s account of the Mike Caref dispute, the early CLC email chronology and the Facebook screenshots discussed below.

The Facebook screenshots were added after I received a DM asking that the actual images be included so readers could review them directly instead of relying only on my summary.

View the Facebook screenshot collection here

These are screenshots being circulated as Corey Walton’s Facebook posts from 2016 and 2017. Screenshots alone do not independently prove authenticity or provide every bit of surrounding context. Walton should be given the opportunity to confirm, deny or explain them.

Please review the added material, listen to the different accounts and decide for yourself.

As one candidate for a national position stated, who do you want representing the membership: the individual who is about the business of representing letter carriers on the workroom floor, at the negotiating table, in arbitration, on the frontline fighting OR the individual who travels once in a blue moon and only has done so recently to campaign.

I will fight for you and with you at every step of the way. As your NBA, I will still be on the frontline fighting for the membership. I have flown well over 150,000 miles and lived in a hotel approximately 200 days in the last two years representing the regional membership.

When is the last time either candidate has carried mail? Logged into the MDD scanner? Filed grievances at the Informal and Formal Step A levels? Presented cases in arbitration? I have done each of those things this year. My opponent has not carried mail in over a decade and has not filed grievances this decade.

When is the last time either candidate has negotiated an LMOU? I have in 2025 and greatly expanded Kona's LMOU in benefit of the carriers with zero givebacks to the employer. My opponent has not negotiated an LMOU.

Spending X amount of years in the NBA's office does not mean anything if it only equated to answering phones and filling out spreadsheets.

#nalc #regionone #reed4nba #realexperience

I’m a CCA and have been for about 10 months now. I got this text today prompting me to fill out a survey. I’d like to fill it out if it’s actually from the NALC but I don’t like clicking unsolicited links.

Where are you, James? ::crickets::

Your EVP pick has a history of bigoted rhetoric that he refuses to repudiate and excuses away. He voted for and celebrated the most anti-Union, anti-working class President in recent history. He compared Barack Obama to Hitler.

They say one can judge a person’s character by the company they keep. Where’s your oft-preached about integrity?

For anyone who has or hasn’t watched the recent roundtable discussion. Here are some of my thoughts and opinions on it. Maybe help some who aren’t gonna necessarily wanna watch 3 hours of great discussions by some of our past and future leaders.

Part I - Debate Summary and Candidate Positions
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BZCPz9lqq3fSURG0dFdUJTBFEiigIHgjIOMeApR7soM/edit?usp=drivesdk

Part II - A Route-Protection, Education and Contract-Enforcement Perspective
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoIJ49AaSLIqtBgPB9-4hsIbXOH_6rVPSa4hEsEns7Q/edit?usp=drivesdk

Letter Carrier & Route Protection Guideline
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne00m4MaMxV7Aqu89FJ\_YC-Ui-OcwZQC/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=110693952889201503972&rtpof=true&sd=true

Not impressed.

Does this mean I have BINGO?
They were out before they even got their name in lights.