The Charlottesville Democrats’ race-relations nightmare

| May 3, 2009 | 5 Comments

The Charlottesville Central Party Democrats have a serious race-relations problem.

They readily acknowledge that fact in their September 25, 2007 “Proposal for a Diversity Initiative,”in which they state:

In the 1960s, 70s and 80s the City Democratic Party included a number of African-Americans who were actively involved in the party, often in leadership roles. Since that time, these numbers have dwindled. Several theories have been offered to explain this trend. The bottom line is, fewer and fewer African-Americans are involved in our party, we don’t know why this has occurred, and we feel it’s very important to address the issue, soon.

Their feigned ignorance of the racial schism’s causation is remarkable in light of the well known (by the local black community) and documented history of racial manipulation conducted by the Charlottesville Democrat hierarchy in controlling the number of blacks on City Council (only six black councilors elected in the City’s history, only one black councilor at a time, black councilors elected only if running as a Democrat).

This year is no different. As Holly Edwards holds the “black” seat on City Council, Charlottesville Democrats don’t want or need another black “face” on council in order to appease the black community” they did not “recruit” or “encourage” another black Democrat to seek nomination. Thus, none has. Established in 1970 with Charles Barbour (the first black to serve on Charlottesville City Council) the Charlottesville Democrat’s prima facie “tradition,” a racial-quota “system of patronage” for council, continues in the year 2009.

The C-ville Dems’ local political machine has learned well from their hero and great white forefather, Harry F. Byrd, Sr. His diabolical plan to racially and politically control Virginia elections through control of the “Constitutional” offices is described by Wikipedia as follows:

While he was governor, Byrd built up contacts with the “courthouse cliques” in most of Virginia’s counties. He curried support from the five constitutional officers in those counties (sheriff, Commonwealth’s attorney, clerk of the court, county treasurer, and commissioner of revenue). This formed the basis of the Byrd Organization, which dominated Virginia politics well into the 1960s. They carefully vetted candidates for statewide office, and Byrd only made an endorsement, or “nod,” after consulting with them. Without his “nod,” no one could win statewide office in Virginia.

Does that plan sound familiar? Well, to any seasoned observer of the Charlottesville Central Party Democrats, it should. Every time an “establishment-favored” Democrat announces for office, he or she is flanked by local beneficiaries of the Byrd “system of patronage”, notably, local, white Democrat Constitutional officeholders as well as other party hacks, (i.e. Blake “Francophile” Caravati and Tom “wake me when the meeting’s over” Vandever).

Who was standing by when Julian Talieferro announced for re-election on March 9, 2009: Democrat Constitutional officers Werner David Chapman (Commonwealth’s Attorney), Jennifer Brown (Treasurer) and Raymond Lee Richards (Commissioner of the Revenue).

Who introduced and spoke highly of white candidate for Sheriff, Mike Baird when he announced his candidacy on January 23, 2009: Democrat Constitutional officer Werner David Chapman.

There are three confirmed Democrat candidates for City Sheriff. In the Democrat’s May 9 “Unassembled Caucus”(primary election), Mike Baird will face James Brown III and Phillip U. Brown, both of whom happen to be black.

It doesn’t take a super-genius to predict the outcome of the primary. The Central Party Democrats nearly unanimously will follow marching orders to vote for Baird while the two Browns will split the majority of the black vote and the votes of disaffected Democrats, leaving Mike Baird as the nominee. Charlottesville’s Democrat Machine will once again have their “boy” holding down this all-important Constitutional office.

While Baird (who is running as a teammate of Taliaferro, sharing many of the same “establishment” supporters, similar yard signs, etc.) publicly has been supported by the previously mentioned Constitutional office holders, former elected officials, and current City Councilor, Julian Taliaferro, as of May 1, 2009, neither of the black candidates have had a single endorsement from any member of the local Democrat establishment.

Coincidence? I say not. The City Democrat Machine leaves nothing to chance.

Why is Mike Baird the only white Democrat running for Sheriff: because the Democrat “powers that be” did not want to dilute their own unity behind this favored candidate.

Why was Mike Baird AWOL from the Charlottesville Democrats April 18 breakfast meeting where a forum (debate) for Sheriff candidates was to be held? He has been assured of securing the nomination, and knew that he had an excused absence “pass” from the Central Party Dems. Of course, none of the white local Democrat civil rights cheerleaders objected that the two black candidates for Sheriff had to duke it out in the absence of Baird, potentially harming their own candidacies.

I wonder when Charlottesville’s black community will finally say, “enough,” and start fielding “independent” candidates again (the last being Margaret Cain in 1984).

I wonder when Charlottesville’s non-Central Party Democrats will wrest the reigns from the racial manipulators and corrupt controllers that continue to call the shots here.

I do not wonder, however, why the Charlottesville Democrats have a race-relations nightmare on their hands. The answer is as plain as the night is black.

dems-diversity-initiative

About the Author:

Rob Schilling is founder of The Schilling Show Blog and News; host of WINA's The Schilling Show, heard weekdays from noon to 2 PM; husband; father; and community watchdog.
×

5 Comments on "The Charlottesville Democrats’ race-relations nightmare"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gary says:

    Dear Rob, What happened to the diversity initiative that was supposed
    to kick-off in May, 2008? Did it go “out-of-bounds”? Why aren’t there
    more minorities on City Boards and Commissions? Couldn’t City
    Democratic rules require diversity among their candidates endorsed
    for political office? I believe the Labor Party of the UK had those
    type of rules for its Parliamentary nominating bodies at one time.
    The City of Charlottesville is still in the Byrd era of patronage
    and elective politics. Where are the reformers and reform or-
    ganizations in this town? Riding in the back of the bus?

  2. Sheriff says:

    Throughout this entire process not one person has mentioned Mike Baird is where he is today only because his daddy hired him and promoted him within the Sheriff’s Office. I don’t think flagrant nepotism qualifies a candidate for public office. He won’t be getting my vote, or that of my family and friends hopefully.

Post a Comment