Our municipal election non-partisan? No way...

Tony provides evidence that the non-partisan status of our municipal elections here in Greensboro is illusory.

Comments

[Tony Wilkins]

Joe, here is my opinion on what I believe to be an unprecedented move by the NCDP:
The only two races really affected by this mailer are the mayoral and the At-Large.
Might Alma Adams be at the core of this move as a favor to Yvonne Johnson? Mathematically, Bill Knight has a very real chance of winning this race and this mailer could be seen as a sign of desperation, or at least a very real concern.
In the At-Large there is also a good chance that Vaughan, Perkins, and Thompson could win. In a city that’s 3:2 Dems this would be the first time in my memory that no Dem would be elected city wide and would be a tremendous embarrassment to the Democratic Party if that result should take place.
More to come. I await comment from the NC GOP after informing them today of this action by the NCDP.

[Joe Guarino]

Tony, when there is a decision by the state party to devote money into a printed piece, and then people are stationed at polling places to distribute state party endorsements, I don't think that happens by itself. I think there had to have been some moves to make that happen.

I doubt they do this in every municipal election in North Carolina. I may be wrong about that, but I just doubt it.

I think back on the way that the city of Greensboro accommodated the Obama campaign last year at the Coliseum and the Depot (and even perhaps at the Farmer's Market); and I think back at the huge get-out-the-vote effort here last year-- and perhaps even at the way our Democratic local board of elections helped the Obama/Hagan effort.

The state GOP party does not have money sitting around to do this type of thing. It barely has had the wherewithal to support its own candidates at the state level.

I think the Alma Adams hypothesis is very interesting. There was clearly some strategizing and motivation behind this move by the state party; and I don't think we will be able to believe what anyone says about it.

[Stormy]

Joe,

This is nothing new in Greensboro. I recall in a general election several years ago, the NCDP ran a full page ad in the News-Record the day before the election. The ad included Dot Kearns and Kris Cooke, who were engaged in a tough race for BOE. As you may recall, in Guilford County, BOE elections are non-partisan. Even so, Kearns and Cooke were included, obviously getting some juice from Democrat voters.

Of course, Kearns is a long-time member of the local DP and knew all of the political tricks, including arranging for members of the black community to be bussed to the voting site and as they exited the bus, being handed a flier which resembled a church bulletin, highlighting Kearns as the candidate of choice.

So, none of this is new to the local DP. It has a lot of experience in influencing non-partisan elections.

[Bill Knight]

Good morning. The recent turn of events in the local election should come as no surprise. I've seen it coming since I ran at-large two years ago. Consider:

Two years ago at a candidate forum in southeast Greensboro the event turned out to include a Democratic precinct meeting. It was not until someone observed that a Republican might be in the room that the forum resumed as a non-partisan event. This year the sponsoring group was careful to label it as non-partisan.

Following the election and after year end election cycle campaign reports were filed with the Board of Elections, Yvonne Johnson's campaign committee made a contribution to the Guilford Democratic Party and later to Bev Perdue's election campaign.

Last fall the mayor appeared on WFMY to announce the first visit of candidate Barack Obama, noting he was the candidate of our party.

Last year the mayor appeared in Raleigh before a rally of union organizers, where she spoke in favor of collective bargaining for state and local employees. (Unions are a backbone of Democratic Party support.)

Presently there are two Democratic controlled PACs in Greensboro weighing in to support Democratic candidates, and now the NC Democratic Party has joined in.

There is no doubt the mayor is running scared. She is entrenched and desperate to retain her grip on power, where she can play to special interests. She has held office for sixteen years, but is about to be ousted by a newcomer who never held an elected office. Add to that the fact that this is an off year election where voter turnout typically is low - not so this year!

The responsible and caring citizens of Greensboro have had it with poor leadership and will express themselves on Tuesday. It's time to retake control of city government and place it back on the right track.

[Bubba]

Thanks for reminding us about those incidents, Bill.

You are the mayoral candidate for Hope and Change in our city.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks for your very interesting comments, Bill. Of course, by this time the idea of non-partisan municipal elections in Greensboro can only be regarded as a charade. It is quite clear that the local and state branches of the Democratic party view control of Greensboro city government to be very important in pursuing its partisan agenda.

For a long time, it was deemed impermissible to approach these elections in a partisan way. And it was represented as unnecessary, because it was represented that municipal issues should not be immune from partisan considerations. This never stopped those in control from governing like liberal Democrats would ordinarily govern.

And in fact, matters of political principle (or lack thereof) and ideological perspective drive what local government does, and how it does it. We have learned that repeatedly over the years.

I wish you luck on Tuesday, Bill; and then hopefully the big mess we have in Greensboro can begin to be cleaned up.

[triadwatch]

I think Bill Knight should have used Congressman Howard Coble in some way or capacity.

[Joe Guarino]

That probably would have been pretty effective, Keith, if Coble would agree to it.

[Stormy]

Kinston learned what this administration does to you if you try to have a non-partisan election, and not allow the Democrats to win and hold office, even if citizens want someone else to serve. Having non-partisan elections is racist according to the DOJ.

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, maybe we should just throw out the non-partisan elections here in Greensboro and Guilford County anyway. The whole thing has turned out to be a fiction.

We have a district system here in Greensboro that virtually assures a certain proportion of minority representation. Minority representation was the DOJ's main concern in Kinston; but many people obviously think Obama and Holder overreached in that case when they acted as they did.

[Roch101]

You guys are nuts. In a city where only 27% of the voters are Republican, you want to have partisan city council elections? Might as well sign your won death warrants.

If Bill Knight wins, it will not be cause every Republican and his brother votes for him. It will be because every Republican and his brother and a majority of unaffiliateds and a chunk of Democrats vote for him.

You guys really know how to get pulled off track by the stuff that has nothing to do with winning or governing.

[Stormy]

Roch, you are confused as usual. I do not, and I do not believe anyone else, prefers local partisan elections. I'd prefer local non-partisan elections for city council, school board, etc.,...if they were really non-partisan. The point that I have been making is that many local non-partisan candidates are promoted by Democrat forces, making it obvious to those non-Republican voters who they should vote for. If the Democrat party runs a full page ad the day before a general election and includes candidates for non-partisan offices, don't you think that pretty much makes it a partisan race...at least for the Democrats?

As regards Bill Knight, it is possible that he could win because he is the best qualified candidate? Or, are you saying that Democrats are so brain-dead that they have to vote for the Democrat candidate, regardless of qualifications? That's Eric Holder and the DOJ's Kinston view. You can't trust voters to select the best qualified candidate in a non-partisan race. You have to put a (D) behind their name, so that the voters will know that is who they should vote for.

By the way, it's "own death warrants", not "won death warrants".

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, there are two problems as I see it. One is that traditionally liberal Democratic forces have several potent institutions fighting for their candidates-- the local and state Democratic parties, and also, of course, the machine.

Meanwhile, more conservative candidates can also tend to be neutralized because there has often been a tendency to refrain from fighting these races in a partisan manner. The pretense of non-partisan races-- and the pressure to keep it non-partisan-- has caused candidates to disarm unilaterally. They fail to give voters a reason to support them, and the collective Democratic machine mows them down.

Meanwhile, voters have little way to know what these candidates are all about. They are an amorphous mass for those who do not read the blogs. Important debates don't take place in a genuine way. Typical Republican/conservative voters often see little reason to turn out during municipal elections, because they do not see they have anything to vote for. Maybe, if we are fortunate, this year will be different.

Perhaps partisan races would cause issues to be discussed more openly and honestly, and give more people a reason to vote.

[Bubba]

"Perhaps partisan races would cause issues to be discussed more openly and honestly, and give more people a reason to vote."

The status quo is well served by registered voter turnouts of less than 10 percent in primaries, and less than 25 percent in general elections.

The "non partisan" partisanship of municipal politics suits them well, particularly in the case of those pseudo "Republican" officeholders who somehow never seem to be visible enough to support party candidates during the partisan elections.

No need to name names. They know who they are, but more importantly, WE know who they are.

[Roch101]

"Meanwhile, more conservative candidates can also tend to be neutralized because there has often been a tendency to refrain from fighting these races in a partisan manner."

You lose me when you depart from the facts, Joe.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, up until this year, the mayoral races and at-large races were not really fought in a partisan manner. Perhaps District 5 and maybe District 3 were fought that way two years ago, in some respects, but that is it. I didn't see it elsewhere.

This year, there has been a bit more of this type of thing in district 4, for the mayoral race, and for one at large candidate on the "conservative" side. But even then, it can be a bit subtle except for those who are really paying attention. District 3 and District 5 at this point fall outside the partisan race descriptor. The races are not shaking out that way. But before this year, there were slim pickings. And this year it became a bit more evident because things have gotten so bad for the city.

Bubba, if the objective of non-partisan races is to drive down voter participation, it seems to serve the purpose, at least by appearances.

[Bubba]

"Bubba, if the objective of non-partisan races is to drive down voter participation, it seems to serve the purpose, at least by appearances."

Obama and Holder appear to agree with that, based upon the interest in making sure the Kinston races are partisan.

[Stormy]

Bubba,

I think that Obama's and Holder's objective in making the Kinston races partisan is to assure the election of Democrats. That is pretty much what the DOJ said. In a non-partisan race, they feel that certain minorities don't possess the requisite insight to select the best city leaders. They might err in electing a Republican, and everyone knows that Republicans don't have their best interests at heart. Republicans = Bad, Democrats = Good. It's all very simple.