BuffettNews.com

Accused Felon nominated for Senate

Alvin Greene, 32 and unemployed, shocked the Palmetto State's political establishment Tuesday night when he came out of nowhere - he didn't even have campaign signs - to beat well-funded fellow Democrat Vic Rawl, an ex-judge.

But Greene's win - credited to the race's low interest and his higher position on the alphabetized ballot - apparently wasn't the only shocker the Army vet had in store.

Court records show Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina co-ed, a felony. He has yet to enter a plea or be indicted.

Whatever happened to an informed electorate? It took me an hour to review the candidates positions in our recent primary. It isn't like this was for some local office it was state senator. Its not my state so I don't have a say, Jim Demint is probably safe but with the anti-incumbant movement, SC could have a senator having to head home for court hearings.

It's not as if this is anything new. Matthew Lyon ran for office from prison in 1798 and was elected. In fact there's no law that says a felon can't serve in federal office however the house or senate could vote to expel.

I ran accross a piece from 2003 that stated the number of criminals in congress. I'll admit because it's a blog the accuracy of the figures can be questioned but I thought it was something to think about.

In Congress November 2003:
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

I don't think that having "criminals" in congress is a "new" issue. Remember it's politics - poli meaning more than one and tics which are blood sucking creatures. (thank you Kinky)

I think what is more disturbing about the voting public is those that choose to vote for the party vs the candidate. Those that will rely only on extreme right or left wing publications to form their opinions about candidates. Those that believe all the emails they receive from friends. Those that vote for one candidate over the other just because someone close to them told them who to vote for. (and granted some of these aren't "new" either)

The way I look at it perhaps some of the citizens of South Carolina were so sick of the status quo even a person who has been accused but not yet entered a plea or indited for showing obscene photographs to a South Carolina co-ed is better than what they have in Sen Mint.

Maybe they just figured, "Hey, for a change, we know he's a crook *before* we put him in office."

I agree about how poorly-informed the average person is. Sadly, many of them are not only clueless, they are *adamantly* clueless, and will not change their fantasy- or falsehood-based opinions no matter how many facts you put in front of their faces.

I am all about the positive, and about finding the good in people and the stuff we have in common. But it seems to be more of an uphill struggle to *stay* that way every year...

ph4ever wrote: I think what is more disturbing about the voting public is those that choose to vote for the party vs the candidate. Those that will rely only on extreme right or left wing publications to form their opinions about candidates. Those that believe all the emails they receive from friends. Those that vote for one candidate over the other just because someone close to them told them who to vote for. (and granted some of these aren't "new" either)

This is part of the problem, definitely. apathy is part of it too. Attributing this victory to the candidate being at the top of the ballot if accurate indicates a complete breakdown in the electoral process to me. These mid-term primaries get dismal turnout anyway and of that turnout 51% votes for a complete unknown? Why even vote if you don't know the positions of the candidates you are voting for. Take that 5 minutes and head down to the 7-11 purchase a lotto ticket instead.

We are now down to 15-30 second sound bites and if we are lucky enough to get a live debate the candidates prescreen the questions, 60 seconds to respond and 30 second rebuttal. Even in the debates these people can't even answer a yes/no question.

For the record, I don't think things would be much different right now if John McCain had been elected instead of Obama. In fact, I do believe that even more of the liberal agenda would have passed because the maverick (or not the maverick I guess it depends on how the primary turns out) would have attempted to work with the dems in the congress and senate. For the election, I had to write in Alan Keyes because he didn't get enough signatures to appear on the ballot in my state. And yuh, I blame GWB for a lot of this mess too, he turned on the conservative beliefs of the republican party and started spending like a democrat in his second term.

ph4ever wrote:It's not as if this is anything new. Matthew Lyon ran for office from prison in 1798 and was elected. In fact there's no law that says a felon can't serve in federal office however the house or senate could vote to expel.

I ran accross a piece from 2003 that stated the number of criminals in congress. I'll admit because it's a blog the accuracy of the figures can be questioned but I thought it was something to think about.

In Congress November 2003:
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

I don't think that having "criminals" in congress is a "new" issue. Remember it's politics - poli meaning more than one and tics which are blood sucking creatures. (thank you Kinky)

I think what is more disturbing about the voting public is those that choose to vote for the party vs the candidate. Those that will rely only on extreme right or left wing publications to form their opinions about candidates. Those that believe all the emails they receive from friends. Those that vote for one candidate over the other just because someone close to them told them who to vote for. (and granted some of these aren't "new" either)

The way I look at it perhaps some of the citizens of South Carolina were so sick of the status quo even a person who has been accused but not yet entered a plea or indited for showing obscene photographs to a South Carolina co-ed is better than what they have in Sen Mint.

The urban legend email is talked about and generally discredted here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

Much like how society can't really force people to be good parents we also can't force people to be informed voters. Much of this is a product of public education systems that tend to let "good enough" get by.

Politicians are puppets for big corporations, listen to a wise man:

I saw this guy on one of the shows last night. wow, just wow is all I can say. And LOL @ blaming the republicans.

Top Dem wants mystery candidate investigated

I was disturbed that he was able to get 100k votes in a primary and win by a large majority, but now the reaction by the party 'elites' is even more disturbing.

According to Charleston's The Post and Courier, State Sen. Robert Ford speculated that race might have been a factor for some voters who chose Greene, who is black, over Rawl, who is white.

"Vic Rawl had money, but he didn’t have enough. He wasn’t able to identify himself with black voters," said Ford, who is also black. "No white folks have an 'e' on the end of Green. The blacks after they left the plantation couldn’t spell, and they threw an 'e' on the end."

From allheadlinenews.com

Alvin Greene, an Army veteran who has been out of work for the past nine months and is living with his parents...

Greene has insisted that he used his own money to pay the $10,400 filing fee, but admitted in a television interview that he never held a public campaign event. The 32-year-old has no campaign website and received less than the $5,000 worth of donations required to submit a financial report with the Federal Election Commission...

South Carolina has a history of Republicans "planting" blacks in Democratic primaries that have white candidates leading in polls in order to ignite racial tensions. Rod Shealy, a GOP strategist, was convicted in 1990 of enlisting an unemployed black man also faced with felony charges to run against a white incumbent congressman.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018965916

Something smell funny in South Carolina

"The entirety of Jim Clyburn's ire should be focused on Carol Fowler... for epic candidate recruitment failure," the South Carolina Republican Party tweeted.

While the above is true also, I can't help thinking there could be a Forrest Gump moment in November.

Maybe it's a case of someone finally having an "Aha!" moment and then, instead of merely hollering that "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more", actually decided to do something about it. He catches the crest of a wave of public opinion against the political status quo and rides it for 100K votes in the primary.
Hey, stranger things have happened.

As for the felony charge, remember that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

-"BB"-

Greene's opponent didn't spend much money either, and the Democratic primary got little attention because Sen. DeMint was already a prohibitive favorite for re-election. So it's not that big a surprise that a gadfly would get the Dem nod.