CAROL FOWLER is CRYING “FOUL” in SOUTH CAROLINA (and I can’t stop smiling!)

UPDATED 06.12.10

Geesh, the Democrats can be such sore winners!

On Tuesday, Alvin Greene won the South Carolina Democratic primary contest for U.S. Senate fair and square, earning him the right to face Republican Senator Jim DeMint in the November 2010 election. Yet Carol Fowler, Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party (“SCDP”) immediately asked him to withdraw from the race, predicting that “new information about Mr. Greene has (sic) would certainly have affected the decisions of many of those voters.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/102285-sc-dems-ask-nominee-to-withdraw-after-felony-report

“New information” about Mr. Greene certain to have affected the choice of enough of those voters who voted for him, to change the outcome of the primary election? Whoa, this must be some “new information,” considering he bested his opponent, Vic Rawl, by more than 30,000 votes, 100,362 to 69,853, or 18 percentage points!

Ooh, I wonder whether it was something he blurted out to PubliuSC during their telephone interview while he was still basking in the afterglow of his triumphant win!

Asked about foreign policy, he said he wanted to see one Korea under a single democracy, “like there used to be an East and West Germany.” Could that be the “new information” which made Ms. Fowler want to overturn the results of the election? Nah.

Or his response to the complex question about free trade? (Ha, that was a trick question!. When asked his views on free trade, Mr. Green explained he “would have to “study that more” before he could give “a definite answer.” )

How about his views on labor, when he proclaimed SC should remain a right-to-work state* (“we don’t have unions here in SC and I want to keep it that way”)? Goodness knows, this could have been mind-altering information for some voters. Yyyye…but no.

*The denial of the right to work because of membership or nonmembership in a labor organization is against public policy. http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/right-to-work/south-carolina/

(Here is the tape of that interview, in case those of you who are new here think I am making this up!)

Maybe some newly uncovered information about the candidate’s personal lifestyle put Ms. Fowler off.

Mr. Greene is 32, and still lives at home with his parents. He has no mobile phone or computer. (That could explain why the candidate had no campaign web site.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7818650/Unemployed-military-veteran-Alvin-Greene-wins-South-Carolina-senate-nomination.html

But even Ms. Fowler would concede that in South Carolina, being a little eccentric is more likely to be seen as a virtue than a vice.

So, what was this earth shattering vote changing “new information”? Well, according to the statement posted on the SCDP web site, it’s this: Mr. Greene has pending felony obscenity charges.

June 9, 2010
Today, South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler asked Alvin Greene to withdraw from the race for US Senate. Greene, a resident of Manning S.C., was the apparent winner of the Democratic Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate in yesterday’s primary. Since the election, the Associated Press has revealed that Greene was recently charged with disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity after showing obscene photos to a University of South Carolina student. Fowler released the following statement after her conversation with Greene:

“Today I spoke with Alvin Greene, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the US Senate, and asked him to withdraw from the race. I did not do this lightly, as I believe strongly that the Democratic voters of this state have the right to select our nominee. But this new information about Mr. Greene has would certainly have affected the decisions of many of those voters,” said Fowler.

“We are proud to have nominated a Democratic ticket this year that, with the apparent exception of Mr. Greene, reflects South Carolina’s values. Our candidates want to give this state a new beginning without the drama and irresponsibility of the past 8 years, and the charges against Mr. Greene indicate that he cannot contribute to that new beginning. I hope he will see the wisdom of leaving the race.”
http://www.scdp.org/news/scdemsnews/435/

Yep. Last November, the winner of the 2010 SC Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate was arrested on criminal obscenity charges, accused of showing pornographic images to an 18-year-old female student on a computer at the University of South Carolina campus, before suggesting they go to her room. Greene has been charged with “disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity.” And if convicted, he could face a maximum 5-year prison sentence. Id.

Spending 5 (five) years in prison would certainly cut into his official Senatorial duties. But Mr. Greene will not go gentle into that good night.

“The people have spoken. We need to be pro-South Carolina, not anti-Greene. That percentage of the vote is not luck. Id.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) is furious that Greene refuses to step down. He has called for a probe to look at the possibility that an outside party might have funded his campaign beyond legally permissible limits, and without having disclosed the source of those payments. He also called on the U.S. attorney in the state to investigate Greene’s alleged felony.

I would hope the U.S. attorney down there would look at this,” Clyburn said about Greene’s qualifications for the ballot, also pointing to Greene’s having allegedly tried to pay the fee to run for Senate in cash, despite being unemployed.

I think there’s some federal laws being violated in this race, but I think some shenanigans are going on in South Carolina,” Clyburn explained. “Somebody gave him that $10,000 (sic) and he who took it should be investigated, and he who gave it should be investigated.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/102383-clyburn-says-sc-dem-senate-candidate-is-a-plant-calls-for-federal-probe

There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary,” Clyburn said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press radio show. “I don’t know if he was a Republican plant; he was someone’s plant. Id.

(Note to readers: Bill Press is the ‘reporter’ who asked WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “Is there anything you can say that will make the Birthers go away?” Gibbs answered, “No; the God’s honest truth is, no.” Mr. Press followed up. “Are you gonna try?” Mr. Gibbs now referred the reporter to the President’s “birth certificate” posted on the internet. This time, Mr. Press did not follow up, evidently accepting Mr. Gibbs’ word that the birth certificate is posted on the internet; and that viewing this electronic image posted on the paid political on-line advertising campaign dubbed, “Fight the Smears,” an image visible only through a computer screen proves the President was born in HI. Even so, Mr. Press failed to detect that Mr. Gibbs only said this document proved Mr. Obama is a citizen, and not that he is a Natural Born Citizen. (Then again, in all fairness to Mr. Press, maybe he had no idea there is a Constitutional distinction between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen, that unique status of citizenship required to be President, anyway.) http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/pooh-poohing-pulitzer/)

So far, this situation is a laugh riot, right? But wait…it’s even funner than you know.

Carol Fowler – she’s married to Don Fowler, former Chair of the DNC Services Corporation – and her dupe-in-crime, Senator Clyburn, seemed shocked that this candidate they find to be so inappropriate to the D brand could have won their spot for U.S. Senate on the November ballot, right? But that makes no sense. Know why? (You are going to love this next part.)

Because in SC, in order to vie for a position as the nominee for the party; the candidate must register for the primary directly through the party! Yep; Mr. Greene filed the required paperwork with the DPSC and handed over the $10,400 filing fee directly to them. The SCDP then forwarded his name, along with his filing fee, to election officials at the SC Election Commission (“SCEC”) to get them to print his name next to the D on the primary ballot. And, presumably, as required by state law, someone from the DPSC swore he was or at the time of the election would be eligible for the job!
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t07c011.htm

HA HA HA HA HA! I’ll bet anything Carol Fowler wishes she’d done a better job of vetting this candidate!

You know what this reminds me of? Back in the fall of 2007, then DPSC Treasurer Kathy Hensley tried to deliver Carol Fowler’s list of candidates for the 2008 Presidential Preference primary to the SCEC but they wouldn’t take it. Because for some reason, Ms. Fowler had left out the eligibility Certification. Well, this was no problem for Ms. Hensley. She just whipped out her pen and scribbled out her own Certification, on the spot! (Who said Barack Obama isn’t a Natural Born Citizen!) http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/if-it-looks-like-a-duck/

So far, Mr. Greene is holding his ground, and seems determined to face Mr. DeMint in the fall. But he knows he cannot be successful without Democratic support. With good reason. “I need my state and national party to help me. I don’t have any signs.” Id.

UPDATE 06.12.10

Here is how the candidate filing fee is determined.

Candidates who file with the Republican or Democratic parties must pay a filing fee. The filing fee is one percent of the annual salary of the office multiplied by the number of years in the term of office or $100, whichever is greater. This fee funds the party’s primary.
http://www.scvotes.org/candidate_information/nomination_by_political_party

I mistakenly wrote the filing fee paid by Mr. Greene to the SCDP for that spot on the primary ballot for U.S. Senate was $10,400. This is incorrect; the actual fee was $10,440. http://scvotes.org/files/2010%20Filing%20Fees.pdf

Also, I left out the filing deadline, which was March 30, 2010. This means, the SCDP submited Mr. Greene’s registration form and check to the SCEC by noon on that date. Note this was 4 (four) full months after Mr. Greene’s arrest on criminal obscenity charges, in November.

http://www.scvotes.org/files/2010%20General%20Election%20Calendar.pdf

About these ads

17 Responses to CAROL FOWLER is CRYING “FOUL” in SOUTH CAROLINA (and I can’t stop smiling!)

  1. azgo says:

    jbjd,

    How funny! I just finished reading the article and decided to go up and read the title again, guess what, I then noticed I was still smiling!
    ———-

    “…She just whipped out her pen and scribbled out her own Certification, on the spot! …”

    Can we say, with reason of unanswered question, that the Democratic Party of South Carolina did not investigate the qualifications of their presidential candidates to be placed on the 2008 SC election ballot

    A-N-D

    the Democratic Party of South Carolina is now admitting to not investigating this candidate to be placed on the SC election ballot?

    Talk about “shenanigans”, this information is like a double whammy for the State Attorney General of South Carolina to investigate what in Bertha’s name is going on with the Democratic Party of South Carolina and this state official should investigate now and not allow a ‘strike three’ for the people of South Carolina.

    Great catch and wonderfully written! I’m still smiling!

    azgo: I am so glad you like this! I couldn’t believe it, I was smiling when I wrote this. But I didn’t know if it was really funny or, just my weird sense of humor. Now that you have weighed in and found this funny, too, I feel better. I don’t know how much you know about the D primary but, Mr. C was horrible to the Clintons. He called BC a racist. Piece of work. And now HE is bothered that no one vetted Mr. Greene? ADMINISTRATOR

  2. susiepuma says:

    I love this – like I said before – karma is such a (word omitted by jbjd); if this is payback – I will be watching for the next installment………….

    Hope that nasty piece of work loses her job over this – that would really be a nice payback….

    I am not really that vindictive but ever since 5/31/08 – anything bad that happens to certain dems just makes me so happy happy happy………… am waiting for the rest to get theirs……………

    susiepuma: Welcome. And thank you; I love this, too. With every article I write on this subject, I hope someone loses a job! Glad to help. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. bob strauss says:

    Funny is not a word I would use to describe the fraud and the absolute disregard for the law shown by ms Hensley and Fowler. They just plain didn’t care about breaking the law and putting non vetted Barak Obama on the ballot. It looks like their attempt to get Obama on the ballot by not mentioning eligibility requirements failed, so Hensley sighed, and just wrote it on there?

    The law means nothing to these people, they don’t care one iota about this country or the election laws put in place to keep people like Hensley and Fowler from doing what they have done. They both need to be prosecuted for election fraud.

    jbjd it would be funny if the consequences weren’t so serious. Who is the AG of South Carolina?

    bob strauss: I hear you; the word “funny” can mean absurd and ridiculous, too. AG McMaster has that job; I wrote an open letter to him on this blog, some weeks ago. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/open-letter-ag-mcmaster-sc/ And of course, there are those citizen complaints of election fraud addressed to him… Can you imagine what would happen if hundreds of thousands SCarolinians sent these to Mr. McMaster? Maybe then he would feel to initiate an investigation. ADMINISTRATOR

    • bob strauss says:

      Thanks for staying strong against the usurper and his trouble makers. We will be victorious against these criminals. We have no other choice.

      bob strauss: You are welcome. I agree. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Michelle says:

    “just my weird sense of humor.” After dealing with this group I think the word would be wry sense of humor. I was thinking maybe they don’t know what the word vet means. jbjd-I was bonded many times in my life for handling “cash”, if they don’t know how to vet any local private detective agency could run a criminal background check and many other services and they are really inexpensive. I can’t wait until people start digging into this, I’m curious as to who put him up and why.

    Michelle: At some point, the citizens of SC have to demand AG McMaster address this election fraud. I mean, what else do we need to show him to get him to question SCDP practices sufficient to cause him to exercise his discretion to look into this, and to feel assured, they will ‘cover his back’ when he does? (Maybe people can post the link to this article, on sites to that state, including the press.) ADMINISTRATOR

  5. gregnh says:

    Judging by the interview this guy is less than stellar in the intellect department, but they can’t say that is why they will not support him…..it would be racist ya-now….this is going to be fun to watch, great job jbjd

    gregnh: Thank you; and welcome. I really did not want to focus on Mr. Greene but rather, on the DPSC’s vetting of candidates. He is after the win, the same man he was before registering with the SCDP to get on the ballot. (There are now dozens of videos of interviews with Mr. Greene; I really hate that people have become voyeurs in his exploitation by the media.) I wish the press would now turn their attention to the vetting (or lack thereof) done to get BO on the ballot, both in SC and in the rest of the country.) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. TeakWoodKite says:

    What a post, jbjd! LOL! No, your sense of humor is fine.

    It is now a demon that vexes them so! They just conceded the race to DeMint.

    So now the DNC echo chamber is shooting blanks saying that he’s a Republican plant.

    Now here in CA, the “open primary” proposition passed. To the effect, that the 2 top “vote getters” WILL BE PUT ON THE BALLOT, regardless of party affiliation. Whacky.
    I just love your humor. :)

    TWK: Thank you. Yeah; it’s a great post. I only hope that now the pundits have descended on Mr. Greene, people don’t focus attention on HIM. rather than the D’s who took his money and put his name on the ballot. Because his qualifications for the office of U.S. Senator are not the real story. If people become sidetracked, this lets the DPSC off the hook, AGAIN. (But I have not been overly successful in getting people concerned that the President is Constitutional ineligible for office, to fix their attention on the people who submitted the Certifications of Nomination to state election officials swearing he was eligible to have his name printed on state (Elector) ballots; rather than on him.) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. ImaLindatoo says:

    Oh and we know Fowler and Clyburn are classy, hold up true values-Democratic and American, by example of them screwing Hillary and Bill Clinton and calling them names with FOWLer accusations.

    Oh and what was that ALSO (NOT) classy thing Carol Fowler said about female VP candidate Sarah Palin?
    “McCain has chosen a running mate whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion”.

    ImaLindatoo: Next time, include links! I think those of us who supported HRC in the D primary know more about what occurred throughout the 2008 election cycle than anyone else. Collectively, we recall every slight, every nasty remark, every overtly example of preferential treatment toward BO, to her detriment. But not everyone was as invested in this process during the primary/caucus season as we were. And now that people are watching, let’s take this opportunity to educate those voters ‘late’ to the game, about some of the worst scoundrels of that period! ADMINISTRATOR

    ImaLindatoo: I just got your other comment with those horrid words toward SP…eeewe! But while I think many people followed the general election AFTER primary and know what nasty things the D’s said about SP; those who only entered the fray at that point, may be unfamiliar with vile remarks elected officials and celebrities said about HRC. No problem… ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Dawn says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHA, LOLOLOLOLOL. Delicious.
    Now that McMaster did not win the SC Republican Gubernatorial Primary, possibly NOW he’ll have time to actually READ the complaints we send him rather than pawn them off on his inept staff to shoo us away like annoying no-see-ums.

    Dawn: I know, isn’t is? (I would bet your family and friends got a kick out of this, too.) OMG, what does Mr. McMaster intend to do now? Is he a lame duck? If so, then, he can risk becoming a hero or a fool, with nothing to lose! Let me know, please. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. da verg says:

    too bad they don’t apply this to obama

    da verg: I thought I had indicated quite convincingly that this lack of vetting Mr. Greene also applied to BO. For example, I focused on the conduct of the SCDP and not so much on Mr. Greene; AND I revisited the story about how the SCDP Certified BO was a NBC to get the SCEC to print his name on the Presidential Preference primary ballot, without ascertaining he is a NBC! I mean, what did Kathy Hensley have in her bag that was the basis of her last minute Certification? ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Come here any time, where it’s safe.

  10. Sharon in VA says:

    OMGoodness!! This is delicious lunacy!! I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. I found myself laughing at how SAD this is! And it seems that just like Obama….Greene is saying, “hey the people chose me, I am not stepping down.” I am not in SC..were there OTHER black candidates?….I mean, did they vote for him because he was the first alphabetical name on the ballot?..or because he was black?

    Either way, I hope you are right jd, it should clearly show how someone HUGELY unqualified can get on a ballot and get elected in this Country…this is really sad….and hilarious at the same time.

    Sharon in VA: Welcome. “Delicious lunacy.” I love it!

    Whether Mr. Greene is qualified is a secondary concern. What this shows is, the SCDP is now saying, he is unqualified, specifically citing the arrest last November. But this begs the question: given that Mr. Greene was arrested in November; and that he registered for the primary directly with the SCDP; why didn’t the SCDP know this information BEFORE June, when he won the nomination? And this leads to my points. 1) The SCDP does not vet its candidates. 2) The SCDP lies. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Cabby - AZ says:

    Since you had already done this piece on the dilemma re. Alvin Greene, I was alert to the ticker crawl on Fox the other day concerning this same matter. Then today Fox did something on this story, but, rats – I dozed off and didn’t get to see it, so can’t say how it was. I have to say, however, when the ticker report flashed on the screen, my smile turned to a big grin! Ha! Carry on! The Dems are really in a dilemma in S.C. and it has spread to D.C., too.

    C – AZ: Yes, they are! Imagine, the Chair of a state political party trying to tell a lawfully elected candidate, ‘Step down!’ In SC, it’s not so easy to kick off the ballot the party nominee who was the people’s choice. But as we saw in the national election, the D’s will do just about anything to ensure the selection of their man.

    SC Election Law

    SECTION 7-11-50. Substitution where party nominee dies, becomes disqualified or resigns for legitimate nonpolitical reason.
    If a party nominee who was nominated by a method other than party primary election dies, becomes disqualified after his nomination, or resigns his candidacy for a legitimate nonpolitical reason as defined in this section and sufficient time does not remain to hold a convention to fill the vacancy or to nominate a nominee to enter a special election, the respective state or county party executive committee may nominate a nominee for the office, who must be duly certified by the respective county or state chairman.
    “Legitimate nonpolitical reason” as used in this section is limited to:
    (a) reasons of health, which include any health condition which, in the written opinion of a medical doctor, would be harmful to the health of the candidate if he continued;
    (b) family crises, which include circumstances which would substantially alter the duties and responsibilities of the candidate to the family or to a family business;
    (c) substantial business conflict, which includes the policy of an employer prohibiting employees being candidates for public offices and an employment change which would result in the ineligibility of the candidate or which would impair his capability to carry out properly the functions of the office being sought.
    A candidate who withdraws based upon a legitimate nonpolitical reason which is not covered by the inclusions in (a), (b) or (c) has the strict burden of proof for his reason. A candidate who wishes to withdraw for a legitimate nonpolitical reason shall submit his reason by sworn affidavit.
    This affidavit must be filed with the state party chairman of the nominee’s party and also with the election commission of the county if the office concerned is countywide or less and with the State Election Commission if the office is statewide, multi-county, or for a member of the General Assembly. A substitution of candidates is not authorized, except for death or disqualification, unless the election commission to which the affidavit is submitted approves the affidavit as constituting a legitimate nonpolitical reason for the candidate’s resignation within ten days of the date the affidavit is submitted to the commission.

    SECTION 7-11-55. Substitution of candidates where nominee selected by primary election.
    If a party nominee dies, becomes disqualified after his nomination, or resigns his candidacy for a legitimate nonpolitical reason as defined in Section 7-11-50 and was selected through a party primary election, the vacancy must be filled in a special primary election to be conducted as provided in this section.
    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t07c011.htm

    ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Cabby - AZ says:

    Thanks, jbjd, for posting pertinent sections of SC Election Law. If I were in the position of Mr. Greene and wanted to stay in the race, I would conclude that there is probably no way I could be removed from the running. Just a quick reading gives me the impression that the disqualification would have to occur AFTER the nomination. Ms. Fowler obviously did not vet him or she would have discovered his alleged crimes that normally would have disqualified him with only a cursory review. Is this poetic justice, or what? Now, Mr. Greene may have to withdraw if he can’t get the necessary funds from the Dem. Committee, or can he force them for support?

    C – AZ: You are welcome. But here is the problem. While conviction of a crime could get him disqualified, he hasn’t even been arraigned! As for fiduciary obligations, actual or implied, between a candidate and his or her party – and this is really what we are talking about – I have neither the time nor resources to look into that. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Michelle says:

    jbjd-FYI-just in case you didn’t see this.
    Watchdog Urges Probe Into Whether Greene Was ‘Induced’ to Run for Senate
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/15/clyburn-claims-hacking-greenes-surprise-win-sc-senate-race/

    Michelle: Did you see my message to C – AZ? In order to get Mr. Greene out of the race, they had better come up with something unrelated to politics. This stinks. Next thing you know, CREW will be looking into who induced BO to run, and paid his non-public campaign funds; and who signed off on his eligibility for the SC Presidential Preference primary ballot; and… ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Michelle says:

    jbjd-do you mean this CREW.
    http://www.citizensforethics.org/
    CREW ASKS SOUTH CAROLINA AG TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER ALVIN GREENE WAS INDUCED TO RUN AND FILES COMPLAINT WITH FEC
    15 Jun 2010 // Washington, D.C. – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), took two significant actions against the questionable Democratic candidate for South Carolina Senate, Alvin Greene. In a letter to South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, CREW asked for an investigation into whether Mr. Greene was induced to run for the Senate in violation of South Carolina law. More»

    Michelle: I am not sure what is the question but yes, this organization was asked to investigate. (I did a cursory check of the group, when this was first announced a couple of days ago. Except for the fact, several principals have strong ties to the D’s; and that most of CREW’s investigations historically have been against R’s; I was unable to find a ‘smoking gun’ that would indicate inherent bias. Now that you have submitted this comment, hopefully people can look into both the organization and the background of their principals.) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Yes, I checked back through my replies and now I see where I mentioned CREW but, failed to explain who this was! Bad jbjd! Thank you so much for following up.

  15. [...] BO was qualified to get on the SC Presidential preference primary ballot.)  See, for example, CAROL FOWLER is CRYING “FOWL” in SOUTH CAROLINA (and I can’t stop smiling!); IF IT LOOKS LIKE a DUCK…; and OPEN LETTER to THE HONORABLE HENRY McMASTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL [...]

  16. [...] parties are  not entitled to ‘run’ a candidate who fails to meet ballot eligibility. Not at all!  Failing to meet the state’s standard for ballot eligibility (or, refusing to [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: