lupercal wrote:C2W I'm not sure I'm fully following all your points so I'll just pull out a few statements I'd tend to disagree with:
One reported point that I forgot to mention is that evidently the SC Democratic party did not want any investigation.
I can buy the idea of a nationwide pattern of Dem party officials bought or scared off of calling attention to election fraud, even though Dems usually take the hit. Case in point: the DNC's whitewash "investigation" of 2004 fraud in Ohio, even though the Dem candidate, Kerry, went down. But in this case, isn't it Clyburn and SC Dems who are calling for the investigation?
My bad, I mispoke. And was also mistaken. Yes, Clyburn and SC Dem Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler are calling for an investigation. I was misremembering a TPM item in which DSCC chairman Sen. Bob Menendez (D - NJ) -- and I'm very broadly paraphrasing here -- responded to questions on the matter by saying, "Please allow me to drop this issue like a box of rocks before fleeing for the nearest hills."
Or, for those who insist on accuracy:
The chairman of the Senate Democrats' campaign arm would say little about allegations surrounding Alvin Greene's mysterious Senate candidacy in South Carolina, telling reporters today it is a matter for the state party to handle.
Asked by TPM about Greene and the South Carolina Democrats' call for him to step aside at a briefing today, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) put both hands out in protest. He dodged several questions about charges from Rep. James Clyburn and the state party that Greene may not be a legitimate candidate, saying the "appropriate officials" are looking into it. He wouldn't answer a TPM question about whether he supports the state party, which is calling for Greene to step aside despite winning the primary Tuesday night.
The bottom line is that Democrats recognize it's not going to be a competitive race to challenge Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), regardless of the candidate chosen as his rival. Menendez said the party is "not engaged there" and that it is "not a place that I am focused on."
"I will allow the South Carolina Democratic Party and Congressman Clyburn, who I serve with and I know can be tenacious, to continue to pursue it and we will look at," Menendez said.
Portion congruent with issues addressed in my previous post bolded, and
LINK, and, yes, you are totally correct, whereas I was absolutely fucking wrong, mistaken and in error. And witlessly so, to boot.
Because I really, really doubt the SC dems got anything to hide wrt Greene.
So do I, but on the other hand, he was on the ballot for a statewide office, so you'd think they'd have made an effort to find out
something about him, and surely they can't be as clueless as they're letting on here (from the Chris Good blog quoted above):
Democrats aren't sure who is behind any of this, but they think something fishy is going on. Clyburn has suggested there was a conspiracy to plant those three candidates. "Honestly, we have no idea," South Carolina Democratic Party spokeswoman Keiana Page told me when asked whether they have any idea who may be responsible for the alleged planting.They'd have to be brain dead not to have SOME idea of who planted Greene.
I agree. I mean, I think it probably did take them by surprise when it happened, because until then, he was just some guy who paid the ten-grand plus registration fee and disappeared as far as they were concerned.
But I'd also imagine that they looked into it pretty damn fast, as well as thoroughly enough to have a clue or two about what was up within 24 to 48 hours. They're just better off letting an investigation reveal whatever it reveals than they are throwing stones themselves, which would leave them more open to being portrayed as sore-losers/racists/non-respecters-of-the-will-of-the-people than they need to be.
But whoever it was, their goal wasn't electoral, per se, I don't think. They were just being pricks and trying to turn up the heat on the race hatred even higher than it already is.
I have no trouble believing this was a run-of-the-mill dirty trick. "Strategists" like Atwater, Rove, Floyd Brown (the genius behind the Willie Horton ad), etc etc etc have been perfecting this game for decades. Ditto election fraud, long before 100% unverifiable machines appeared in 2004. Scratch any anomalous GOP win in the last 50 years and you'll probably find fraud, for example, George Dukmejian's defeat of Tom Bradley, the popular black mayor of Los Angeles, in the 1982 Calif governor's race --Bradley won the actual election. as pollsters had predicted, but then Dukmejian miraculously pulled ahead when absentee ballots were counted. Uh huh, sure.
You could well be right. Even I wouldn't argue that was anything more than just a feeling. And it's certainly not, like, a firmly held conviction. I don't really know what the what is.
Greene really does look and sound controlled, doesn't he?
From the KO interview I don't think he looks as bad as all that. Totally inadequate, yeah, but not crazy, retarded or drugged. More like he's doing a job and just glad he gets to keep his clothes on doing it. I imagine it has something to do with staying out of jail on that decency charge or maybe debts. Or, as you mentioned, he could be an intel player from way back, or a Manchurian candidate under hypnosis or MK, but to me that seems very unlikely.
Well....That was actually intended as more of a chatty question than it was as an assertion of my opinion. Although I can totally see how it would read like the latter. But as I said, he could just be doing it for the $$$. And, you know, there's a thin-line between MK hypnosis and extreme personal discomfort as far as what can be inferred from a few TV interviews goes. So again, no arguments here with any of the above.
So my conclusion is that he's there to keep Rawl from catching on with coastal SC voters and driving DeMint out of office next fall, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if nothing happens and he's still on the ballot in November.
Not to get all repetitive or anything, but I really just don't see any indication that there was enough of a risk of that happening to merit the investment, let alone to justify doing something so flagrant that it was likely to invite investigation.
Because....I mean, yes, South Carolina did technically have one Democratic Senator as recently as 2005 in the form of Fritz Hollings.
But he was basically an immovable fixture and last-living-Dixiecrat type who'd been in office since 1966, who had a warm working relationship with his SC senatorial colleague Strom Thurmond. And who voted against Thurgood Marshall's confirmation but for those of both Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. To choose an aspect of his record that speaks concisely rather than comprehensively to how far he went in crossing party lines wrt very high-profile and significant issues.
So I just don't see why elaborate defensive maneuvers would have been called for. Rawl was a place-holder, not a serious challenger.