COMMUNICATING CLYBURN’S QUID PRO QUO for CAPTURING SOUTH CAROLINA’S PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY for OBAMA

October 31, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

“Communicating Clyburn’s Quid Pro Quo for Capturing South Carolina’s Presidential Primary for Obama” does not dwell on whether House Majority Whip  Jim Clyburn arranged for the SC Democratic Party to ‘obtain permission’ from the DNC to move the date of their Presidential preferential primary to the head of the line by capitalizing on the state’s racial “diversity.” The documentary record is clear, he did.

This article does not debate whether Mr. Clyburn subsequently unleashed an orchestrated race-baiting campaign  against both Bill and Hillary Clinton to resuscitate Obama’s flailing run at stealing the D Presidential nomination.  Judging only by all of the evidence available in the public record, he did that, too.  (Read here, and here.)

Rather,this article just exposes Clyburn’s real reason why.

Background

A lot of people forget, FL and MI were not the only states that bumped up their Presidential preference primaries in 2008, ahead of the DNC’s schedule.  SC did, too.  Only, unlike FL and MI, Clinton strongholds that were punished for their infraction, SC was actually encouraged to break the rules.

Briefly, the Democratic National Committee’s Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling decided to add one or two early primaries (“pre-window,” or before February 5, 2008) in states with “a significant Hispanic population” (Western state) and “a significant African American population” (Southern state).  http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08/dnccommission.html The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (“RBC”) “developed its recommendations to the full DNC that Nevada be added as an early caucus state after the Iowa caucuses and that South Carolina be added after the New Hampshire primary as an early primary state.”  Id. On August 19, 2006 the full DNC, meeting in Chicago, approved the RBC’s recommendations. Id.

A number of leading observers were quite critical of the Democrats’ changes.  In an August 16 column in The Hill R. Lawrence Butler, an assistant professor of political science at Rowan University, wrote, “The commission’s purpose was not to create a better presidential nomination process; it was an exercise in coalition management.” Id.

David Broeder of the Washington Post does not hide his disdain for these DNC scheduling machinations:

“The Democrats Dysfunctional Calendar”

This way lies madness, and madness is what the Democrats have wrought. When they started tinkering with their rules after the 1968 election disaster, they unleashed a fierce competition among the states to be at the head of the line, where the contests have the greatest impact on weeding the field and crowning the eventual winner.

New Hampshire was already there, thanks to a state law that had given it the first primary since 1952. Iowa jumped in with its caucuses, which launched Jimmy Carter in 1976. And then came the deluge. When state after state moved up primaries from April, May and June into early March, the “front-loading” problem became acute.

What was lost in all this was any sense of public deliberation about the choice of the next president. In the general election, people have two months or more to evaluate two or maybe three candidates. In the early primaries, eight or 10 people may be vying. What is most needed is time — and a place — for them to be carefully examined.

Historically, New Hampshire has fulfilled that responsibility. Voters there — in both parties and especially among the numerous independents who also vote in the primary — take their role seriously. They turn up at town meetings and they ask probing questions. So do the interviewers at local papers and broadcast stations. So do high school students.

New Hampshire voters don’t need — or particularly want — guidance from Iowa, and frequently they ignore the Iowa results. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) But they are stuck with Iowa. Now, thanks to the Democrats, they may be stuck with Nevada as well, and crowded from behind by South Carolina.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083002732.html

In short, despite widespread disapproval, the DNC gave SC the early primary, which enabled Congressman Clyburn to unleash the race-baiting campaign for Obama, without which contrived slings and arrows the nominee wannabe arguably would not have been able to steal the D Presidential nomination.

The Quid Pro Quo

Question:  Assuming Mr. Clyburn’s race-baiting campaign would launch Obama into the WH, had Obama promised Mr. Clyburn something in return?

Answer:  Yes; the appointment of his daughter, Mignon, to a coveted seat on the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

Why the FCC?  Well, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), current Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation said during hearings to consider recommending Ms. Clyburn’s appointment to the “consent” of the full Senate, “[The FCC] is one of the 2 or 3 most important agencies in all of government…  The FCC has this enormous wide ranging authority, and the question is, will it exercise it, will it expand it, will it not exercise it…” (cite infra)

From the FCC web site:

About the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC’s jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

And this:

Strategic Goals

Broadband
All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentive to develop and offer such products and services.

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/

And this.

Broadband

All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentive to develop and offer such products and services.

Description

The term “broadband” refers to advanced communications systems capable of providing high-speed transmission of services such as data, voice, and video over the Internet and other networks. Transmission is provided by a wide range of technologies, including digital subscriber line and fiber optic cable, coaxial cable, wireless technology, and satellite. Broadband platforms make possible the convergence of voice, video, and data services onto a single network.

Impact

Broadband technology is a key driver of economic growth. The ability to share large amounts of information at ever-greater speeds increases productivity, facilitates commerce, and drives innovation. Broadband is changing how we communicate with each other, how and where we work, how we educate our children, and how we entertain ourselves. Broadband is particularly critical in rural areas, where advanced communications can shrink the distances that isolate remote communities.

Objectives

Congress recognized the importance of broadband in Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which directs the FCC to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” The Commission’s goals are to:

  • Broaden the deployment of broadband technologies
  • Define broadband to include any platform capable of transmitting high-bandwidth intensive services
  • Ensure harmonized regulatory treatment of competing broadband services
  • Encourage and facilitate an environment that stimulates investment and innovation in broadband technologies and services.

http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/

In short, the FCC carries out its statutory authority by issuing rules and regulations that determine to what extent it will permit for profit businesses like Verizon Communications, Comcast Corp., and Time Warner Cable, among the top 20 individual contributors to Bridge PAC, Mr. Clyburn’s personal slush fund, or the telecommunication companies aggregating more than $100,000 into his pocket to convert public access to the internet both directly and via mobile phone technology into a pay-for-play scheme prohibitively expensive for optimum use by  the average American.

Five FCC Commissioners direct the buying and selling of communal air space.  Again, from the FCC site:

Organization

The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/

So, what made Obama decide that Jim Clyburn’s daughter, Mignon, was the logical best choice for one of these 5 prized positions on the Commission?  Well, let’s examine her qualifications.  She had only a BS (from one of the undergraduate schools her father lists as his alma mater); a stint as the Publisher of the Coastal Times (what one SC native describes in an email to me, was a flyer distributed to local churches all evidence of which operation ceased to exist when Mignon ceased ‘publishing’); and 11 (eleven) years on the SC Public Service Commission representing the Sixth Congressional District.  http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Mignon_L._Clyburn Of course, since she only ran for a seat on the Commission in the Sixth District, the same District created majority minority that gave its first House seat to her father, Jim; it is impossible to determine how she would have fared on her own.  Yet in 2008, immediately after the November general election, Obama publicly proposed Mignon could be not just an FCC Commissioner but the new Chair of the FCC!  http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064190689&ShowArticle_ID=11011211084177219 and http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc2008119_650156.htm

Well, as with any appointment from the Executive Branch, Ms. Clyburn would have to win the “consent” of the Legislative Branch.  This would require that she survive scrutiny by the Senate Commerce Committee before facing a full Senate vote.  Surely, the Committee would insist notwithstanding her pedigree she was otherwise qualified for this position, especially considering the enormous influence Commission decisions exert on the public conversation, literally, through the products and services of its regulated industries. http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2009/07/30/markup-review-senate-committee-on-commerce-science-and-transportation-july-21st/

Here is the video of the Commerce Committee hearings on Ms. Clyburn’s confirmation.   (This does not embed.  http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/287731-1) As you will see, both the D nominee, Ms. Clyburn; and the R nominee, Meredith Atwell Baker, face confirmation together at this hearing, even seated at the table next to each other, to answer questions.

Here are the ‘credentials of Ms. Baker, then Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications & Information Administration (“NTIA”), taken from the NTIA web site.

Ms. Baker earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Washington & Lee University in 1990 and a law degree from the University of Houston in 1994.  She is a member of the Texas State Bar.

Before joining NTIA, Ms. Baker was Vice President at the firm of Williams Mullen Strategies where she focused on telecommunications, intellectual property, and international trade issues.  Earlier, she held the position as Senior Counsel to Covad Communications from 2000 to 2002, and Director of Congressional Affairs at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) from 1998 to 2000.  Ms. Baker worked at the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit in Houston and later at the law firm of DeLange and Hudspeth, L.L.P.  From 1990 to 1992, she worked in the Legislative Affairs Office of the U.S. Department of State in Washington.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/bios/baker.html

In his opening statement, Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) calls the FCC a “broken agency,”  which has failed to facilitate consumer access to burgeoning communication technology.

Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson (R-TX), the ranking member on the Committee, informs the Committee she met with Ms. Clyburn in her office.  (This begins at around the 9-minute mark.) She describes this nominee has “vast experience” with a “background in print media.  That provides an important perspective to understand the difficulties faced by newspapers and other media outlets in these very difficult economic times.  She also has an impressive public service background which I am hopeful will help guide her through the many important media issues at the FCC.”  She concludes her introduction by telling the Chair she looks forward to confirming Ms. Clyburn “on an expeditious basis.”  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says Ms. Clyburn’s years on the SC Public Service Commission will mean, issues facing her on the FCC will be “nothing new.”  He concludes, “This fine young lady is the right person at the right time for this most important job.  And she is well qualified and I hope she gets confirmed unanimously.” Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) mentions Ms. Clyburn’s experience in “small business.”   (Is he referring to the ‘newsletter’?) He is also impressed with her public service, which demonstrates her “servant heart.”

(For a prototypical exchange between questioners and nominee Clyburn, see 50:56-55:36.)

Okay, both D’s and R’s on the Committee signal Clyburn’s confirmation is a fait accompli.  But is this because of her “vast experience in print media” and her “servant heart” for public service?  Or is this because Baker (R), will not get confirmed without Clyburn (D)?

Word of Ms. Clyburn’s nomination made some people on the political ‘left’ who were concerned with ‘net neutrality’ uneasy.

Is President Obama Putting Net Neutrality At Risk? by Chris Bower

The reason Mignon Clyburn is such a worrying pick is that she is the daughter of South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, who has an anti-Net Neutrality record:

In 2006, Representative Clyburn voted against H. Amdt. 987 to ensure that network neutrality clauses be added to the Title VII of the Communication Act of 1934. The amendment required all broadband service provides to “operate its broadband network in a nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content, applications, and services through, or over, such broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation.”

While Mignon might not have the same views as her father, what we do know about her ranges from unclear to unpromising:

Here’s what we do know.  Clyburn serves on the South Carolina public service commission (which is considered very pro-Bell).  She is virtually unknown by knowledgeable telecom people.  And, she seems to have focused more on energy issues than telecom, if early accounts are to be believed.  Plus, Verizon and the cable trade association are very happy.  All in all, not good.

And check out this creepy comment that appeared below the Washington Post story on Clyburn’s appointment:

At Sprint Nextel, we believe that Mignon Clyburn would bring experience, deep policy understanding and the perspective of a state utility commissioner to the FCC. We have worked with her in South Carolina where she has served on that state’s Public Service Commission and we look forward to working with her again on any number of issues including restoring competition to the failed special access markets that are stifling broadband deployment in our country.

Feel reassured about the new deciding FCC vote on net neutrality and open media yet? This is a dangerous and risky appointment by President Obama that will need extensive clarification in the coming days and weeks leading up to her confirmation hearing. It seems possible that more information will be revealed that will demand a withdrawal of the appointment.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-President-Obama-Putting-by-Chris-Bowers-090504-67.html

Talking Points Memo warned back in May 2009, “Mignon Clyburn Will Kill Net Neutrality.”

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rutabaga_ridgepole/2009/05/mignon-clyburn-will-kill-net-n.php

Senate Commerce Committee members unanimously recommended the full Senate should approve Obama’s pick for the FCC.

One month later, in August 2009, Obama appoints Mark Lloyd as the FCC’s Diversity Adviser.

When asked about Mr. Lloyd’s appointment to the FCC given his past pronouncements on the need to restrict certain political speech on the airwaves, Commissioner Clyburn claims she has heard no such concerns raised about the “gentlemanly” czar.

In January 2010, Commissioner Clyburn attends the Consumer Electronics Show, evidently trying to get up to speed on the technology she regulates.

On September 2, 2010, the FCC announced it would postpone any final decisions on regulating ‘net neutrality’ until after the November mid-term elections. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/FCC-Net-Neutrality-Decision-Is-Delayed-Possibly-Until-November-836417/ The Richmond Tea Party describes this November meeting could be “the day the government seizes control of the internet.”  http://www.richmondteaparty.com/2010/10/november-30th-could-be-the-day-the-government-seizes-control-of-the-internet/

On September 20, 2010, Commissioner Clyburn hired her father’s senior counsel, Dave Grimaldi, as her Chief of Staff and media legal adviser.   Working for Daddy Clyburn, Mr. Grimaldi specialized in technology, telecommunications, foreign affairs and financial regulation. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/personnel-notes/119783-fccs-clyburn-announces-new-chief-of-staff

Conclusion and Recommendations

In the FCC as with so many governmental agencies, it would appear, you are likely to get exactly what you pay for.

Constituents of the Senators on the Commerce Committee holding Ms. Clyburn’s confirmation hearings should submit FOIA requests for these written materials that are presumably part of the record, as these were the stated basis to support her bid for the seat on the FCC:  college transcripts and copies of the Coastal Times. If either of these documents does not exist then, the Senators who recommended her confirmation to their colleagues in the full Senate notwithstanding no documentary evidence exists she is competent for the job, have demonstrated their incompetence for the jobs to which they were elected, too.


ONLY CLYBURN’S PALM GETTING GREASED in the PALMETTO SIXTH

September 27, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

James E. Clyburn (D-SC) is the only Congressman the citizens of the Palmetto State’s Sixth Congressional District have known since a contentious re-apportionment created the oddly shaped majority minority district in 1992.  Here’s how the Congressman describes the Sixth on his Congressional web site.

The Sixth District contains five of the state’s six poorest counties and has the state’s lowest per capita income.  Many of these counties are found along the I-95 corridor, which bisects the Sixth District.  This two hundred mile stretch of interstate has been dubbed the Corridor of Shame, because it is home to inadequate public schools, high unemployment rates, widespread poverty and alarming rates of strokes, diabetes, and prostate cancer.  Textile plants have closed throughout the district due to outsourcing, and tobacco farmers in the eastern portion of the district have seen their livelihood evaporate…

The Sixth Congressional District has suffered from decades of neglect.  However, Congressman Clyburn is providing the leadership and vision to create a better future for all its residents.

http://clyburn.house.gov/district-info.cfm

Well, Mr. Clyburn, may I just point out, if the “Sixth…has suffered from decades of neglect,” the last 2 (two) of those “decades” have been at the hands of your “leadership and vision.”  Indeed, the I-95 corridor, contorted to retain its majority minority status, just became known as  the Corridor of Shame under your watch.

Here’s how it earned that name.

The Charleston Tea Party, which wants to replace Mr. Clyburn with Jim Pratt (R) – “If he has made no improvements in eighteen years why should we believe he will be different in the future?” – posted this Map of the Recession in South Carolina (Post and Courier).  Immediately below that is the map of the Sixth District as it appears on Mr. Clyburn’s House web site.

Did you notice how closely the ‘Corridor of Shame’ overlaps Mr. Clyburn’s Sixth District?  (Did you notice that the video advertising the film “Corridor of Shame” features Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) but not him?)

So, why is the Sixth so poor?  Well, as Mr. Clyburn points out, one reason is that industry is moving away.  This means, unemployment is rising.  Property values are falling.  And funding for schools is in large part determined by property taxes.  So, what is the powerful Majority Whip doing specifically to attract new businesses and try to hang onto the old?  Listen carefully.

Congressman Clyburn has been a vocal advocate of improving these negative statistics by focusing on a brighter future for the Sixth District through transportation and tourism.  He has established and secured funding for the James E. Clyburn Transportation, Research and Conference Center at South Carolina State University.  This facility will enhance transportation infrastructure in South Carolina especially in rural areas.  It will conduct research in alternative fuel sources, and educate transportation innovators of the future.

Get that?  He has “established and secured funding for the James E. Clyburn Transportation, Research and Conference Center at South Carolina State University.”  (In his campaign advertising, Mr. Clyburn claims SCSU is his alma mater.) What he didn’t say is that he began securing funding for transportation related research and programs at the school in 1998.  That’s 12 (twelve) years ago.  So, why the dramatic increase in poverty and unemployment in SC’s Sixth under his watch?

Maybe because the funding for the project stopped in 2006 when most of the 50 (fifty) million dollars spent thus far could not be accounted for.

From The Post and Courier, June 14, 2010.

Transportation center stalled

ORANGEBURG — Twelve years and more than $50 million later, the site of the James E. Clyburn University Transportation Center remains vacant, no transportation research is underway and the center lost its federal designation.

The center, a collection of programs at South Carolina State University, was launched in 1998 as one of dozens of such centers around the country with money from the U.S. Department of Transportation. It was supposed to conduct research and train skilled workers, especially minority workers, in the transportation industry.

But the DOT cut off further funding after 2006. The programs have limped along since then with money left over from the transportation grant and other federal grants.

photo

Diane Knich
The future site of the James E. Clyburn University Transportation Center at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg

A federal audit on one of those grants, the National Summer Transportation Institute, found that the school’s financial records were so messed up that accountants couldn’t tell where millions of dollars went.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/jun/14/transportation-center-stalled/

This past summer, with the actual James E. Clyburn Center building scheduled to break ground, state legislators began asking questions as to what happened to all of that money, some of which was contributed by the state.  University officials just don’t know.  And when asked, the Congressman explained, “He brought tens of millions of dollars to the school for those programs, but that’s where his role stopped.” Rep. Clyburn denies role in lost millions

Clyburn said he and his staff receive many requests for federal funds. They review those requests and decide which ones have merit, he said. Then, if possible, he earmarks federal money to those that do.

After a state institution has been awarded money from a federal agency, “My office, my staff, nobody has anything to do with it,” he said. “The relationship is between the federal agency and the requesting agency.”

In the case of S.C. State University, the money for transportation programs came from the federal Transportation and Energy departments.

Id.

Clearing for the Center building began in August.  http://thetandd.com/news/local/article_7f53e3ac-9ff3-11df-8f95-001cc4c03286.html even though grant funding for the center was not renewed by DOT in 2006, effectively ending further funding for the center. “A federal audit of one grant, for the National Summer Transportation Institute, found financial records were confusing and accountants could not tell where money went.” Id.

But not to worry.

Sure, most of the citizens of the Sixth are in dire financial straits; there are few if any good jobs, property values have plummeted, and the state of the education system documented in the movie has earned the District the moniker, ‘Corridor of Shame.’ But there is still some good economic news coming out of the District:  Representative Clyburn is raking in the dough.  First, there is his annual $174,000 Congressional salary for overseeing this economic disaster zone.  Then, there are these millions in unearned income spread out on OpenSecrets.org culled from the myriad reports compiled by the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), our watchdog agency for contributions to and expenditures by federal officials.  (Keep in mind, these are only preliminary figures from 2010.)

And even using just these few millions his BRIDGE PAC has taken in, Representative Clyburn could still buy enough influence to put a dent in the problems plaguing the Sixth.  Regardless of whether anyone is able to track how the money is spent.

REELING IN the REAL JIM CLYBURN

September 22, 2010

(UPDATE 09.23.10 at end)

© 2010 jbjd

I had wanted to write an article featuring the role played by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-SC) in orchestrating the race-baiting campaign that catapulted Obama post Nevada and New Hampshire away from becoming just another also-ran in the Democratic Party’s primary and caucus contests; and into position to steal the nomination.  If this was that article I had in mind, I would have opened with this video of Mr. Clyburn’s famous annual fish fry, from April 27, 2007.

But this is not that article.  Because before I examined his role in enabling the Obama Presidency and exposed the reasons behind his race-baiting routine, I wanted to introduce the Representative to you through a brief biographical sketch.  But getting a handle on the educational background of James E. Clyburn proved so slippery, I decided to tackle the piece I originally had in mind, at another time.

First I read the Biography on his Congressional web site.  (I always begin my research with .gov sites since I am paying for these, anyway.)  Mr. Clyburn’s official House site contains no reference to the fact he even attended college, let alone that he (09.23.10) obtained a degree.*   http://clyburn.house.gov/clyburn-biography.cfm

However, his 2009 “Clyburn for Congress” campaign web site reports, he was awarded a Bachelor’s Degree in History from South Carolina State University (“SCSU”). http://www.clyburnforcongress.com/about-jim-clyburn.cfm

Only another Congressional listing shows he received a Bachelor of Science degree, and it was from South Carolina State College (“SCSC”). http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/newmemberbio.cgi?lang=&member=SC06&site=congressmerge

Project Vote Smart tells voters the incumbent candidate received a BS in Social Studies from SCSC in 1962 and attended the University of South Carolina Law School from 1972-1974. http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=H3673103

An AP site repeats he earned a Bachelor’s degree from SCSU but calls it a BA and not a BS; and now claims he actually received a JD (Juris Doctor) from USC! http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/pre-election/bios/1414.html?SITE=WSJVTVELN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

(A Bachelor’s from SCSU and a JD from USC?  Well, that would explain this 2007 blurb from The State:

Today, Clyburn will play in the Rudolph Canzater Memorial Classic, a charity event played on five Santee-Cooper courses that honors the memory of his late friend and fellow “golf instigator,” and has raised $370,000 for scholarships to S.C. State and USC, Clyburn’s alma maters.(Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2007/08/05/225365/from-the-archives-clyburn-charts.html?story_link=email_msg#ixzz10Cu5aFIC)

Except that the Clerk of the House, whose web site defines a lawyer as anyone holding a JD, doesn’t list Mr. Clyburn as one of the lawyers in the 111th Congress.   http://clerk.house.gov/library/reference-files/RFD_111_Lawyer_Apr.pdf

And his name is not listed among the distinguished SCSU alumni honorees from 1979-2006.  http://www.scsu.edu/alumnifriends/distinguishedalumni.aspx

Or in USC’s notable alumni.  http://www.mycarolina.org/s/842/twocol.aspx?sid=842&gid=1&pgid=970

But as you will see, while I am completely lost as to who is the real Jim Clyburn – BA or BS; SCSC or SCSU; law school drop-out or JD – I am certain as to the reason he carried out a well-developed plot based in race,  to rig Obama’s nomination…

(Note:  I want to thank FranSC; Dawn; and azgo for their contributions to this series of articles featuring Jim Clyburn.)

*UPDATE 09.23.10: A reader on NoQuarter pointed out, Clyburn’s House web site does mention, he attended SCSU.  GEESH, even I am confused!  (Actually, the excerpt  was in the background material for the article but I ‘lost’ the note during the transcription.) But here’s the thing.  Why do you suppose the Congressperson mentioned on his official House web site he went to school but did not list a degree?  I can only conclude, he did not obtain a degree.  Because I believe the Congressman.  That is, he only claims he is a college graduate on paid campaign advertising but not on his official House web site, where such ‘misstatements’ could trigger an ethics inquiry under the Rules.

 

BS, SCSC

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/newmemberbio.cgi?lang=&member=SC06&site=congressmerge

Campaign literature 2009 “Clyburn for Congress” says SCSU Bachelor’s Degree History.  Says, first won election after “reapportionment.”

 

http://www.clyburnforcongress.com/about-jim-clyburn.cfm


CAROL FOWLER is OUT in SOUTH CAROLINA (and I am still smiling!)

August 14, 2010

What can one say about the ever evolving political miasma that is South Carolina politics?  I wrote Part One of this piece in June, when Alvin Greene, the seemingly challenged challenger for the D slot in the U.S. Senate primary in South Carolina had just won the election.  I updated in Part Two with developments since that time, including today’s news about the candidate’s criminal justice status.

PART ONE

Geesh, the Democrats can be such sore winners!

On Tuesday, June 10, 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!

“New information”?  The deadline for filing his candidacy with the SC Election Commission was March 30, 2010.  Surely nothing that could have occurred between then and June 10, when he won the primary election, could be considered “new.” http://www.scvotes.org/files/2010%20General%20Election%20Calendar.pdf

I wonder whether Ms. Fowler refers to 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.) https://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! http://www.scvotes.org/candidate_information/nomination_by_political_party Yep; Mr. Greene filed the required paperwork with the DPSC and handed over the $10,440 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 by noon on March 30, 4 (four) full months after Mr. Greene’s arrest on criminal obscenity charges, in November. 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

*( 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

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!) https://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.

PART TWO

Well, since I wrote that article in June, there have been 2 (two) major developments in the story.  Most recently, Mr. Greene was indicted for the crime.

What does this mean to his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in November?  In South Carolina, it’s not so easy to get an elected party nominee off the ballot.

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

And being indicted does not legally bar his run for the U.S. Senate.  http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/13/1416934/scs-greene-indicted-on-felony.html

We will have to wait and see what trick Mr. Clyburn has up his sleeve.  (At a minimum, look for another appearance on the Bill Press (Paid Political Advertisement) Show.)

Here’s the other big news since June.  Ms. Fowler announced on July 6 she will not seek a 3rd term as SCDP Chair in the spring of 2011.  http://www.thestate.com/2010/07/06/1365651/sc-democrats-planning-changes.html She maintained, this decision had absolutely nothing to do with the Greene situation.

I cannot imagine her successor will be half as funny.


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

June 11, 2010

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.) https://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!) https://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


%d bloggers like this: