Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

S.C. Democrats refuse to oust Alvin Greene as Senate nominee

Members of the South Carolina Democratic Party's executive committee voted overwhelmingly tonight against holding a new Senate primary, upholding last week's controversial win by unemployed veteran Alvin Greene (D) over former state Rep. Vic Rawl (D).

Rawl, who lost to Greene 59 percent to 41 percent, had brought his case before the committee tonight, but the 61 members present rejected his protest by a five-to-one margin. Rawl said in brief remarks after the committee meeting that he would not appeal the decision. Greene did not attend the meeting, which took place in Columbia and lasted for more than five hours.

For the time being, the decision means that Greene remains the party's nominee to face Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) in the fall.

But with several unresolved questions surrounding Greene's candidacy, the next step is unclear: South Carolina legislators and watchdog organizations have called for further investigations into the primary, citing problems with voting machines, a felony obscenity charge facing Greene and the issue of his payment of the $10,440 candidate filing fee despite being unemployed.

-- Felicia Sonmez

By The Fix  |  June 17, 2010; 9:05 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Menendez: "If the allegations are true," Alvin Greene should be replaced
Next: Tim Pawlenty endorses Kasich, Renacci in Ohio

Comments

While I am strongly in favor of allowing Alvin Greene to run as the Democrat's official candidate, I am strongly against having him as a senator for South Carolina. Greene may not be as stupid as he sounds. He may actually be a genius in disguise. But that doesn't change the fact that he SOUNDS like an imbecile. And anybody who says otherwise hasn't watched his interviews. When you READ his words they don't sound half bad, but when you hear him speak? Whole 'nother story.

If he was just a little bit more articulate I think he would have an honest-to-God chance of winning in November. Not only that, but I would vote for him because he really does represent the current state of the State of South Carolina.

Only difference is that most of us don't sound like buffoons.

Posted by: KatAttack | June 20, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

I've never seen such a straightout brazen flaunting of the law before.
You have to have balls to rig these machines.
What are the odds the machines were rig
and balloon boy is a plant?
11 to 1 against?
Who's investigating all this from the Federal side?
That'll be the real tell

Posted by: steve_real | June 20, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I've never seen such a straightout brazen flaunting of the law before.
You have to have balls to rig these machines.
What are the odds the machines were rig
and balloon boys a plant?
11 to 1 against?
Who's investigating all this from the Federal side?
That'll be the real tell

Posted by: steve_real | June 20, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Good for Greene and the SCDP for not succumbing to pressure. He won by a whopping margin. The challenge looked liked sour grapes, or even worse, overt racism. Imagine the coverage if Greene had won the GOP primary in similar circumstances.

Posted by: KPOM1 | June 20, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

It's no mystery -- Greene paid the 10K from money he saved while in the army. He says so in his Youtube interviews AND that he got the idea for running for senate two years ago while stationed in Korea. Just listen to his interviews and skip past the interviewers trying to railroad him, and Greene comes across as an honest and sincere young man, consistent in his statements and beliefs. Eloquent? No. Smart? Remains to be seen. But there's no conspiracy here of Republican dirty tricks or rigged voting machines. The simple fact is Green won fair and square, despite doing very little campaigning. Most voters didn't know who they were voting for and chose the candidate with the better sounding name. The truth is Green can't be any worse than the "knuckleheads" (in his own words) that are already in Washington.

Posted by: algae1 | June 19, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

I don't know why people presume DeMint will win. If the voting irregularities were there in the primaries, they will be there in November. How do we know that Greene is not Obama's plant. The thuggish slams against Rawl by Greene bloggers at the live stream protest as well as the sexual innuendoes toward female bloggers are reminiscent of the pro Obama bloggers who went after Hillary and her supporters in the 08 primary. So, what if maybe Axelrod is just bluffing as to his opinion on Greene and Greene is a plant from Obama. Then DeMint will be super surprised when he loses hugely to Greene. The votes don't count, or at least it seems very unlikely that they matter. They are already fixed, I think.

Posted by: thirdpartyvote | June 18, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we have an adult in the White House? Strange question. For a very long eight years we had an adult in the White House but he was a not very intelligent fraud. Now, we have a very intelligent centrist in the White House who makes more attempts than he should to appease the minority party. They certainly wouldn't do the same if the roles were reversed.

Posted by: doneman2000 | June 18, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

virginiaconservative they can only control them for so long, they rigged two presidential elections in a row. don't get greedy. bush was a mature one now wasn't he? he takes the top prize for most temper tantrums, and several other dubious categories.
It's obvious the law was broken when someone ponied up the money for this guy to be on the ballot. Also, unless I'm mistaken, if the guy is convicted of the felony charge he's not eligible to hold public office.
I'm a democrat, but seems to me if the dems want to have Greene be the guy to run against Demint, they're basically calling the race unwinnable and throwing in the towel. This to me is like hitting a popup fly in baseball and then when you see you're out you don't run the bases. No excuse for that. be nice if the democrats got some backbone and some unity someday, but I don't look for that to happen. We're slow learners apparently. We still take the high rode when IT DOESN'T WORK, our opponents savage us with lies, they win, and we still don't learn. Guess that boils down to we deserve what we get. I embrace a lot of the ideals of democrats, but for the most part they're too much like spineless jellyfish for my liking. Even if the repubs are wrong, at least they stand up for what they believe in and stick together. sickening.

Posted by: red2million | June 18, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

If the republicans can control the voting machines, then why don't we have an adult in the White House?

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | June 18, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse


Many sincere Dems must feel uneasy and even angry seeing their party validating the candidacy of someone who seems so con,troversfial to put it miledly.

But a seat is a seat is a seat is the motto.

No wonder people can't make a Dem out of a Rep anymore. They are starting to look like their clones.

Posted by: foxblues | June 18, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I don't know - I suppose it reminds me of Obama.
Doooooh, I said it! Me racist knuckle dragger. You right, genius. Me tea bagger - you sophisticated scholar.

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | June 18, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

'...step is unclear: South Carolina legislators and watchdog organizations have called for further investigations into the primary, citing problems with voting machines, a felony obscenity charge facing Greene and the issue of his payment of the $10,440 candidate filing fee despite being unemployed.'

Wow! Those SC Dem legislators and watchdoggies think Greene is guilty of the obscenity charge before he's tried! And they think Greene's poverty (unemployment!) disqualified the po' man from winning the primary election! And evidently these SC Dem legislators and watchdoggies are still chewing on those chads from 2004 Florida!

Posted by: DaTourist | June 18, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"In the end it's the software that does the voting. It's been a vulnerability of electronic voting machines from the first time they appeared. He who controls that software can make it vote anyway they want. "

It's a lovely theory, and I'm sure you want it to be true, because the alternative is worse to you, but occam's razor suggest that:

**>The Citizens of South Carolina didn't care who was the nominee as long as they were comfortable with how he/she looked<**

That's the only thing that fits all the facts.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | June 18, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The Comedy Show of the DNC continues... think about it..this guy Green seated next to such ethical stal-worts, such as Barney (Pimp House) Frank, John (my wife is in jail) Conyers, I hate business Waxman & Nancy (I needa brain)Pelosi...yep should be fun to watch.

Posted by: NeoConVeteran | June 18, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

In a head to head matchup this half wit with the two "invountary discharges" sounds far more coherent and thought out than DeMint. Demint just better hope that whichever republicon operatvie rigged the voting machines to tally so many fro greene gets back at them and re-sets them before the general election. Wonder what pubbies will be saying when Greene beats demint by 20%?

In fact, this would be a good race for Democrats to put some money into. Defeating demint with Bubba -- thahs lotssa ways to make shreamp --- would be well worht it. And in SC they are obviously a dranged bunch to start with.

Posted by: John1263 | June 18, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Did he pay the fee or did he submit the signatures necessary to be placed on the ballot?

No one has actually definitively stated that he paid the fee.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | June 18, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

* So an unqualified, unknown black with zero experience and a shady past got nominated.

Gee, what does that remind us of? *

Well, it reminds us of the fact that there are a bunch of jackholes out there.

Of course, that's just your post doing that, not the situation in the article...

Posted by: ixijimixi | June 18, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Don't FEC rules require disclosure of campaign donations? HOw long is it before we find out the two real questions here -- who paid him to run? and how did the republcons rig the machines? the second question is of far greater importance since if that goes undiscovered the republicons will repeat this crime in ever polling station across the length and bredth of the country this November.

Posted by: John1263 | June 18, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"So an unqualified, unknown black with zero experience and a shady past got nominated.

Gee, what does that remind us of?

Evidently even the SC dems caught the irony of that one.

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | June 18, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse"

Why don't you tell us who that reminds you of? Really, do tell. Show us the teabagger point of view.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 18, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Greene should be required to sign a
sworn affidavit, subject to further perjury
charges, detailing where the $10,400 came from.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey, I am all for it. Soon as barry fesses up to where his cash came from.....

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | June 18, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Three cheers for Mr. Green. Perhaps he'll be the next "Mr. Smith". He couldn't be any worse than DeMentia. Maybe the common man will recognize this and vote him in.

Posted by: jackburris1 | June 18, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

So an unqualified, unknown black with zero experience and a shady past got nominated.

Gee, what does that remind us of?

Evidently even the SC dems caught the irony of that one.

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | June 18, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Greene should change parties and run as a libertarian.

Posted by: dc1020008 | June 18, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

This has to be an unprecendant amount of speculation over this man's victory. Why is it that the demonkrats always look for a boogie man when they don't get their way? Is it simply an excuse for failing to support their candidates or is it simply an excuse for not supporting a minority?

Posted by: IQ168 | June 18, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

SC Democrats did the right thing considering the reasons some Democrats gave to the media for voting for Greene.

Several said they voted for Greene because his name came first on the ballot.

Two said they voted for Greene because he had the same first name as they did.

One voted for Greene because he had the same name as her boyfriend.

Several said they voted for Greene because his last name ended in an "e" which indicated to them that he was black.

In the end voters end up with the representatives they deserve.

Posted by: NewEra | June 18, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Far as I can tell Greene won fair and square.. in fact it wasn't even close. Now they can investigate all they want but what they will find is what we already know.. between 2 unknown candidates Black voters will vote for the Black candidate.. Ipso facto.. Greene won!!!

Posted by: sovine08

And between two unknown candidates how would they know he was a black candidate. Greene and Rawls can qualify as black names. Unless you never heard of Lou Rawls.

Primaries don't draw the general electorate. It was a 24% turnout which means it's going to be the people that are interested in the politics. Those people aren't walking into polling booths with no idea who the US Senate candidates are.

Greene came up with $10K that he didn't have. What else would an employed man do with $10K who was living with his father who had open heart surgery two years ago and was on dialysis.

Spent no money; he traveled the state but no one really remembers him.

His podunk town didn't even know who he was or that he was running.

He got 60% of the vote and not a single contribution.

Three weeks before the election Rawls was polling at 43% and everyone else 7%. Which suggests in the last 3 weeks Greene captures all the undecideds plus some.

If he didn't come up with the $10K; someone else did and they didn't come up with any more money for him to campaign. So you think someone might put down $10K betting on this guy "winning" and he didn't campaign and whoever backed him couldn't do anything about campaigning?

In the end it's the software that does the voting. It's been a vulnerability of electronic voting machines from the first time they appeared. He who controls that software can make it vote anyway they want.

At the end of February. Obama had higher approval than DeMint. Perhaps you also think that DeMint's people thought that signaled an obvious win for DeMint?

Posted by: James10 | June 18, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

In this particular case, the democrats are caught between a rock and hard place.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. They have opted for the most pragmatic solution.


Do nothing!

No matter what option was chosen, they have no chance of winning the election, so they have opted for the highest of two very low roads and can at least put on the mask of party unity, loyalty, or whatever you wish to calle.

Posted by: chamateddy | June 18, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Is it true that Alvin Greene is actually Pres Bo's brother from Kenya??? Just wondering....

Posted by: yokohlman | June 18, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Is it true that Alvin Greene is actually Pres Bo's brother from Kenya??? Just wondering....

Posted by: yokohlman | June 18, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Is it true that Alvin Greene is actually Pres Bo's brother from Kenya??? Just wondering....

Posted by: yokohlman | June 18, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"Now they can investigate all they want but what they will find is what we already know.. between 2 unknown candidates Black voters will vote for the Black candidate.."

If both candidates were "unknown," how did the black voters know that Greene was black and Rawl was not? The theory about Greene being more of a "black" last name has been debunked.

The "first name on the ballot" theory is more reasonable, but of course that would undercut your "black voters are racist" theory.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 18, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Far as I can tell Greene won fair and square.. in fact it wasn't even close. Now they can investigate all they want but what they will find is what we already know.. between 2 unknown candidates Black voters will vote for the Black candidate.. Ipso facto.. Greene won!!!

Posted by: sovine08 | June 18, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I think Alvin Green is a good Representative of the people of South Carolina. Not too bright, kind of "pervy" and he just LOVES Jesus. Frankly I think he's right up there with Jim DeMint. I hope he wins, he can't be much worse than what they already have in DC. Thank God I live in Michigan.

Posted by: bproulx45 | June 18, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Rawl needed a primary to put this name and recognition on the ballot. If Greene had not been on the ballot, the democrats would not have had Rawl on the ballot. So, it's just common sense, from a political standpoint, to put an unknown on the ballot to get D's to look and pull the lever...or touch....or whatever they do in S.C. This former D, now unaffiliated (independent), thinks that to believe this is a Republican dirty trick is laughable. The D's put this one up and it backfired because Rawl did not campaign. Always run scared if you run for office. Rawl was too arrogant when he assumed a little name recognition might carry him. And, did it occur to anyone that name recognition might have been a negative because people want to throw the bums out? And, Rawl is one of the bums. S.C. needs to go back to paper ballot if there's any questions about their machines being hacked. Then, their machines that were bought from LA are pieces of junk.

Posted by: paulosfm1 | June 18, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else think it's weird that so much attention is being paid to this, when none is being paid to the allegations of voter fraud in the Arkansas run-off election?

Posted by: dkp01 | June 18, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The margin of victory for Greene was about 30,000 votes. All this talk of hackable voting machines and suchlike is all very well, but where is the evidence--actual factual evidence, not supposition--that tens of thousands of votes were manipulated? If any such evidence exists, it certainly has not gotten any airtime to date.

I think the whole dispute comes of one very simple cause: the Democratic party in South Carolina thought they had an anointed candidate, and suddenly they have found out that the voters have washed the anointing oil out of their boy's hair.

Posted by: RobertBethune | June 18, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

The Greene candidacy has all the signs of being one of the notorious dirty tricks campaigns that the Republicans have been famous for ever since the days of "Tricky Dick" Nixon. Or was it the Tooth Fairy who paid Greene's filing fee?

Of course, the joke could always be on the Republicans - suppose Greene wins in November. But then the joke would also be on South Carolina, Congress and the entire nation.

Posted by: algasema1 | June 18, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

As Christine Jorgensen's housemate and confidante during the terminal six month's of her life I need correct jlhare1 June 18, 2010 3:33 AM story as it relates not to Christine Jorgensen but the late Dawn Langley Simmons (nee Gordon Langley Hall), a British born author whose tumultuous life included a sex-change operation and an interracial marriage that scandalized her adopted hometown, Charleston, S.C., where she died at her daughter's home 2000-09-18. She was 77… please be guided accordingly—thank you...

Posted by: brendalana | June 18, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

Nobody who does a rational analysis of all the facts in this story can possibly come to the conclusion that South Carolinians legitimately voted in Alvin Greene as the Democratic nominee. The election was an open primary statewide - the only statewide poll showed DeMint at 50%, Vic Rawl at 43% and All Other Candidates 7%. And that was 3 weeks before the election. The people who hacked into the voting machine software in South Carolina and flipped the votes from Rawl to Greene are laughing their butts off right now.

Posted by: deanorff | June 18, 2010 5:37 AM | Report abuse

Good God. Let me get this straight. The chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party said 2 days ago that they will Not Support or even meet to Talk with Alvin Greene because they find his felony obscenity charge "distasteful"...yet the executive committee wants to keep Greene on the ballot as the Democratic nominee?..and the committee vote wasn't even close -- 50-11 (?!)
Does the committee know about the SC Index poll in May that showed Vic Rawl behind DeMint by only 50%-43% ? Is the SC Dem committee aware of the 7 Republicans who were Convicted of Election Fraud in Kentucky just 3 months ago? Is the committee saying "we give up - we don't care who our nominee is?" Even if the Dems endorse an independent 3rd candidate, accused felon Alvin Greene will be perceived by S.C. public as the face of the Democratic party, further damaging the image of African-Americans in that state.
....Well,Greene's next court appearance is July 12. Are the SC Dems going to wait till he's indicted - then make a move? Or will some conservative SC judge drop the charges against Greene to insure he stays on the ballot and gives Jim DeMint a cakewalk to another term?
Either way, I think maybe the best thing is for the South Carolina Democratic Party to just shut down their offices and retire from politics.

Posted by: deanorff | June 18, 2010 4:43 AM | Report abuse

Never know about South Carolinians. Years ago, people in Charleston were in something of an uproar. Christine Jorgensen, a transgendered person, appeared to be dating her chauffeur. As my cousin, who lived in Charleston at the time explained it, "They didn't care that she was dating a black man, and they didn't mind that she was dating a man who worked for her, but when they found out that she was dating a Baptist, that set them off." With mental processes like that, South Carolina is in play in November. It wouldn't take a lot for Greene to show that he's got a better grip on reality than DeMint.

Posted by: jlhare1 | June 18, 2010 3:33 AM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-heDWycOuYM

For those who still think Palin belongs anywhere around, from a citiEn in the Gulf.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 18, 2010 3:23 AM | Report abuse

If it can't be spun as Bad New For Democrats / Republican Resurgence do you really expect to see it mentioned here?

Barton was without question the story if the day. The guy got threatened with immediate removal from his committee. But it doesn't mesh with RepRes so it's circled wagons.

Hey how 'bout that Dan Coats. LOVE the SUIT.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 18, 2010 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Much has been made about Mr. Greene's filing fee. If you think about it a little Mr. Greene is most likely telling the truth about saving it up from his Army pay.

Think about this for a minute all Mr. Green had to do was have an IRA, a ROTH IRA, or another form of a retirement fund Some courts do consider retirement fund as an asset when one is seeking indigent status for representation.

It is also possible the father or brother gifted him the cash after filing as an indigent to add to what little saving Mr. Greene saved from the Army. Since the amount is under $13,000 no IRS filing would be required and it would not be a campaign contribution as Mr. Greene was not a candidate at the time of the gift.


Posted by: thatsmessedup | June 18, 2010 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Chris?? Hello?? Chris?? Are you there???


The news today in Washington DC, your kind of town, was Joe Barton not the pathetic Alvin Greene.

How could you have missed it?

I bet even Chuck Todd could have helped you with that but I bet he would have also been scared to bring up the topic and deal with it with the honestly it deserves.

How many Republicans and Republican organizations have come out for BP not the citizens of the Gulf? I will only give you one hint: Bachmann, Michelle. The rest is up to you.

Posted by: BobSanderson | June 18, 2010 1:34 AM | Report abuse

The worst part for Republicans: Barton knew he was going off-message.

A copy of Barton’s now-infamous opening statement showed that he had every intention to say what he said.

“I’m only speaking for myself — I’m not speaking for anybody else — but I apologize,” Barton said in prepared remarks. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or corporation that does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.”

That’s two apologies.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38700_Page2.html#ixzz0rArJ3Hwo

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 18, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

“People are calling for his head,” one GOP member of the Energy and Commerce Committee told POLITICO at midday.

Republican Rep. Jeff Miller, whose Florida Panhandle district borders the Gulf, made that call public shortly thereafter.

“I condemn Mr. Barton’s statement,” Miller said. “Mr. Barton’s remarks are out of touch with this tragedy, and I feel his comments call into question his judgment and ability to serve in ... leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He should step down as ranking member of the committee.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38700.html#ixzz0rAqkyX68

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 18, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

In the blink of an eye, Texas Rep. Joe Barton handed Democrats just what they wanted: a Republican villain in the oil spill crisis.

“I apologize,” he told BP CEO Tony Hayward — coloring himself “ashamed” that the White House would engage in a “shakedown” to get BP to set up a $20 billion escrow fund to pay damage claims for Gulf Coast businesses and residents.

It would have been bad enough for the GOP if a backbencher had accidentally strayed wildly off message, but Barton, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is the face of the party on energy policy — and his comments were intentional. So rather than talking about BP’s culpability and the Obama administration’s response, Washington was fixated on a Texas Republican’s seemingly tone-deaf comments.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38700.html#ixzz0rAplC0gp

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 18, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations, you have damaged Greene your Democrat candidate beyond all repair. Not that Greene was going to win, mind you.

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 17, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

They're finally selling campaign t shirts on ebay now.

Posted by: atlpaul | June 17, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

'The Fix's headlines wind up in my feed. Had to stop by to confirm: no headline about Barton today. Not politically significant, eh? Greene is going to matter more in the fall?

Hilarious.

Probably time to edit my feed.'

Yeah, hilarious isn't it, how he manages to ignore the prevailing story of the whole day, to the whole country, while he focuses on some backwater issue that no one gives a flying f(ck about?

But that's the beltway hack for you. Always compliant to the 'republican rising' narrative.

Posted by: drindl | June 17, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

The Fix's headlines wind up in my feed. Had to stop by to confirm: no headline about Barton today. Not politically significant, eh? Greene is going to matter more in the fall?

Hilarious.

Probably time to edit my feed.

Posted by: nodebris | June 17, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, there we have it. Any investigation of this "election" will come to nothing. Proves that both parties in South Carolina are as corrupt as one another. Entirely. Completely. Indefinately.

Posted by: cms1 | June 17, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Again, another article that doesn't mention the other, real candidate in the race. Tom Clements has been nominated by the Green Party and will be on the ballot in November. Take a look at his website http://www.ClementsForSenate.com

The press didn't report at ALL about Greene until he won the election. Will they learn from that mistake and tell the voters of South Carolina about Clements?!

Posted by: greggjocoy | June 17, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Greene is a pervert.

Posted by: thirdpartyvote | June 17, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"...and the issue of his payment of the $10,440 candidate filing fee despite being unemployed."

------------------------------

What does Greene being unemployed have anything to do with how much money he has in the bank?

That comment made no sense Chris.

Posted by: Digital_Voter | June 17, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, query, leichtman. I actually find this felony charge a lot more interesting than his nomination.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 17, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

A sensible decision by the South Carolina Democrats. To appear to override the will of the voters would undermine confidence in the party's commitment to fair play.

Posted by: junomoneta88 | June 17, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Why do we cars?
Simple it smells similar to the phone jamming
scheme in the 2002 New Hampshire race.
Simple sollution, make Greene sign an affidavit
subject to criminal prosecution for perjury,telling us if
he received an illegal campaign contribution.
Nothing more, nothing less. You have a problem with that?

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 17, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

First Mr. Greene is innocent until proven guilty, second although SC prevents convicted felons from serving in state office, the State can not remove him from the ballot for a federal office if he is convicted, the US constitution will not permit that.

Mr. Green claims he paid for the filing fee out of his own pocket, he has a right to do that, without an admission by Mr. Green to the otherwise there is no evidenc to investigate how he paid for the filing fee.

Also if Mr. Greene's nomination is voided because of problems with the ES&S voting machines would that not mean that all the other races would be voided, especially as Mr. Greene receive 59% of the vote, all candidates who received less than 59% would be at least as suspect as Mr. Greene's if not more.

Posted by: WashingtonTimesisBetter | June 17, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

It was/is a widely held belief that who ever went up against DeMint in the fall was going to get trounced. By keeping the questionable Mr. Greene on the ballot the Democratic establishment has an excuse not to waste money on a losing race.

Posted by: thecorinthian | June 17, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

OK, SINCE HE CANT WIN ANYWAY WHY DO YOU CARE?
Is it a way to ignore the November storm clouds?
Does it even bother you all that 65% of the US doesn't want the health care bill or the illegal aliens flooding the US?
No, just keep the cool aid coming, Obama is the man, YEAH!
You do realize that only the fellow travelers and blogsters are reading all this?
The WP is irrelevant now, you do realize that don't you?
Herblock and Company are just fond memories of you old communists.
Whistle baby whistle...no american troops near Baghdad

Posted by: Saladin3 | June 17, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

OK, SINCE HE CANT WIN ANYWAY WHY DO YOU CARE?
Is it a way to ignore the November storm clouds?
Does it even bother you all that 65% of the US doesn't want the health care bill or the illegal aliens flooding the US?
No, just keep the cool aid coming, Obama is the man, YEAH!
You do realize that only the fellow travelers and blogsters are reading all this?
The WP is irrelevant now, you do realize that don't you?
Herblock and Company are just fond memories of you old communists.
Whistle baby whistle...no american troops near Baghdad

Posted by: Saladin3 | June 17, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, am Shocked- 'Cause Democrats Love to Examine Voting Machines in Search of Honesty- Speaking of Honesty:

Didn't Obama look us in the eye from the Oval Office and say he took control of the situation right away? Oh, right- he's a lawyer and his lips were moving!

Politico-
May 30, 2010
Categories: Environment
Powell chides Obama on Gulf leadership

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday that President Barack Obama has moved too slowly in asserting leadership over the Gulf spill response - and the time has come for a "comprehensive and total attack" on the problem.

Wapo-
After delays, U.S. begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill

By Juliet Eilperin and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 14, 2010
Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills.


"We'll let BP decide on what expertise they do need," State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19. "We are keeping an eye on what supplies we do need. And as we see that our supplies are running low, it may be at that point in time to accept offers from particular governments."

That time has come.

In the past week, the United States submitted its second request to the European Union for any specialized equipment to contain the oil now seeping onto the Gulf of Mexico's marshes and beaches, and it accepted Canada's offer of 9,842 feet of boom. The government is soliciting additional boom and skimmers from nearly two dozen countries and international organizations.

In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway.

But some lawmakers and outside experts are questioning whether the administration has been too slow to capitalize on these offers, lulled by BP's estimates on the oil flow rate and on its capacity to cope with the aftermath of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig.

Posted by: thecannula | June 17, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Alvin Greene's effort to pick up an 18-year-old by tricking her into looking at pornography on a computer monitor is twofold:


* Obscenity is grounds for criminal statutes unlike most other speech, and

* She did not view the pornography consensually.

The situation was roughly equivalent to Greene exposing himself to her, also not a crime if there is consent.

Greene is lucky the coed was 18 at the time. If she had been 16 or 17, like some college students, he would have been distributing pornography to a minor.

Incidentally, the incident was allegedly recorded by a security camera.


Posted by: query0 | June 17, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

It's likely charged as distribution of porn
Greene should be required to sign a
sworn affidavit, subject to further perjury
charges, detailing where the $10,400 came from.
My guess is that if someone illegally contributed
more than $2400 he would drop out of the race in a nano second.If it was truly his money, which is very unlikely, that would put an end to the controversy.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 17, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

I think it's horrible. The SCDP had a chance to throw some light on a very troubling issue and failed. Why wouldn't they even vote to examine the machines? The expert testimony was very compelling, and there's lots of other examples where touchscreens have failed to record votes properly. Plus, these machines are easy to hack, and an error can easily propagate throughout the whole system.

I'm disgusted.

Posted by: michele3d | June 17, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I also agree with the decision. Get on with life. I'm still curious, but you have to put up or shut up.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 17, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Can someone explain to me how showing pornography to an adult woman is a freakin FELONY?? Misdemeanor, perhaps. Civil matter, perhaps. Felony? Is this just a weird South Carolina thing?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 17, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

They made the right decision. I'm still curious about the 10.4K fee and its provenance.

Posted by: BobSanderson | June 17, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

South Carolina uses the (unreliable) ES&S iVotronic, which top election officials in Ohio and Colorado declared is unfit for elections. For details, see this 2008 AP article: http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2008/jan/07/s_c_use_voting_machines_banned_other_sta26854/ . This article explains that the ban was based on a study that found that these ES&S e-voting machines, "lack the fundamental technical controls necessary to guarantee a trustworthy election under operational conditions."

Here is a list of some ES&S voting system failures: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7899 . (Scroll down to the heading, "A (Very) Brief History of Recent ES&S Failure.") It was compiled by independent investigative journalist and Commonweal Institute Fellow, Brad Friedman. VotersUnite!, a national nonpartisan organization dedicated to fair and accurate elections, also has a partial list of failures caused by ES&S voting machines here: http://www.votersunite.org/info/ES&Sinthenews.pdf . These webpages provide just a small part of the evidence that strongly suggests that the ES&S voting results in the South Carolina U.S. Senate primary race are unreliable.

Posted by: AliceK36 | June 17, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company