Skip

Ladies & Gentlemen. Mr. Al Green!
June 15, 2010 3:26 PM   Subscribe

Vic Rawl has filed a protest against the man who beat him in the South Carolina Democratic primary for the US Senate. The official reason is election irregularities, however at the core of the protest is the fact that the winner Alvin Greene is a complete unknown with no prior experience. He won the primary despite the fact that he has no campaign headquarters or material and in fact did not seem to campaign at all. Also curious is the pending criminal case in which he is accused of showing a pornographic website to a college student. Mr. Greene does not come across particularly well in interviews and CNN interviewer Don Lemon even went so far as to question his mental health and called it one of the most bizarre interviews he's ever had. So is this Republican tampering as many observers are accusing? (FiveThirtyEight weighs in) Did South Carolina voters give him the (59%-41%) victory because they thought he was Al Green, soul music's most insinuating singer? Or perhaps these are the wrong questions and we should be focusing on Alvin Greene's platform: jobs, better education for children and justice.
posted by jeremias (115 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
Jon Stewart weighs in on the fraud allegations.
posted by shii at 3:29 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


No comment.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 3:34 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Still no solid facts indicating wrongdoing. Lots of accusations, but very little in the way of facts.

It looks screwy. That's clear. But how it happened is still a complete blank.

The $10K filing fee after submitting an affidavit of indigence does require some explanation.

The FEC typically takes years to resolve a case (I've received their bulletins for over 15 years and the FEC generally takes forever and does nothing that could influence elections.

So there's definitely a hamburger in front of us, but where is the beef?
posted by warbaby at 3:38 PM on June 15, 2010


Vote Ralph!
posted by welovelife at 3:39 PM on June 15, 2010


The election results are weird, but nothing legally prevents voters from voting in a whimsical or possibly ill-advised manner. Legally we must presume that if the voters elected a man who is a complete unknown with no prior political experience, then that is what they want. Perhaps they feel it is a good time for an experiment, to see if political experience really has makes for better senators.
posted by grizzled at 3:41 PM on June 15, 2010


he won because he was first on the ballot. The real question is WTF did Vic Rawls spend his $100k on? No one else knew who he was either. How hard would it have been to send mailers to everyone who voted in the last democratic primary?

Sorry you ran a campaign so crappy that no one even heard of you dude, but that doesn't change the fact that this guy won due to pure alphabetical advantage.
posted by delmoi at 3:41 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Previously.
posted by ND¢ at 3:42 PM on June 15, 2010


If everything is legal, let him run. This whining and feces-slinging by the established Democrats is kind of sad. The guy maybe "shouldn't" have won but he did.
posted by melt away at 3:43 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


An interview with a fellow soldier who thinks this is legit.
posted by availablelight at 3:44 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Who would vote for Al Green over Lou Rawls?
posted by TG_Plackenfatz at 3:44 PM on June 15, 2010 [17 favorites]




The election results are weird, but nothing legally prevents voters from voting in a whimsical or possibly ill-advised manner.

There's also nothing legally preventing large numbers of Republican voters from voting in the Democratic primary, in South Carolina. Given how the Republican candidate has spent the last two years repeatedly breaking his own records for Most Retarded Thing Ever Said While Standing Upright, you can see how the party might want to be up against a ringer.
posted by kafziel at 3:45 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hey this is South Carolina. If he's first on the ballot on November, who the fuck says he won't be elected?
posted by Danf at 3:47 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Here's suggestion that the machines were to blame

But seriously, this is all futile. Even if footage of Jim DeMint reaching into one of these voting machines to change all of the votes surfaces, I can assure you the collective ignorance of the massive conservative population in SC will either:

a) Assert Hollywood created the footage with "that CG stuff that they used in the movie with the blue people", and it's all a hoax created by the "librul msm".
b) Thank Jim DeMint for doing everything he can to keep "them damn libruls" out of congress.

Never underestimate their stubborn stupidity and blind faithfulness. After all, how do you think Garth Brooks sold 100 million+ albums? Do you really think everything he released didn't suck?
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 3:48 PM on June 15, 2010


According to Rasmussen, 21 percent of South Carolina voters prefer an unemployed, probably mentally incapacitated sex pervert who was involuntarily discharged from the Army to Republican incumbent senator Jim DeMint.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 3:48 PM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


Who would vote for Al Green over Lou Rawls?

Anyone with ears and a beating heart. (Sorry, Lou, you were* a talented guy, but way outclassed by the Reverend.)

*Also would be disqualified on account of zombieness.
posted by maudlin at 3:48 PM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


Thousands and thousands of people had no idea what the hell was going on, but showed up at the polling place and ticked a box anyway.

"His name came first" must decide an awful lot of obscure low-money state and local elections. Just think: your local judge probably got in the same way Greene did.
posted by zjacreman at 3:52 PM on June 15, 2010


Do you really think everything he released didn't suck?

Yes?
posted by desjardins at 3:53 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Sorry you ran a campaign so crappy that no one even heard of you dude, but that doesn't change the fact that this guy won due to pure alphabetical advantage.

Except it doesn't work that way:

State Rep. Bakari Sellers, D-Denmark, suggested Greene might have benefited from being listed first on Tuesday's ballot, but Fowler said the party's two relatively little-known Senate candidates in 2008 polled at nearly 50-50.

I can see gaining *maybe* a few points off being listed first, but 59-41? No way.
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:53 PM on June 15, 2010


The Columbia SC alt weekly had an informative and thoughtful analysis a week ago; it's still probably the best thing I've read about the race.

Yeah, I want to know where Greene got his filing fee. I think his reluctance to talk about that hints heavily towards him being encouraged by at least a few Republicans to enter the race. He's obviously not very bright, which would make that a pretty despicable thing to do, if that's what happened. It certainly seems possible.

As far as all the accusations of vote fraud, I'm more inclined to believe that Rawl's campaign (which even Nate Silver's pal, the campaign manager, says was mostly robocalls and emails - surely the best way to miss poor voters in SC) just fucked up big time, and Greene got luckier than whoever put up his filing fee could have possibly dreamed he did. But I'll be watching to see what the analysis shows. The main question about any irregularities like voter totals not adding up, etc., would be, "How different is this from any other statewide SC election?"
posted by mediareport at 3:54 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Thousands and thousands of people had no idea what the hell was going on, but showed up at the polling place and ticked a box anyway.
Reminds me of this.
posted by sanko at 3:55 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I think his reluctance to talk about that hints heavily towards him being encouraged by at least a few Republicans to enter the race.

How has he been reluctant to talk about it? He said he saved it from his Army pay.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:55 PM on June 15, 2010


(I'm also kind of curious how showing a porno video to a college student who is presumably over 18 can possibly be a felony, but hey, he is black in the South.)
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:55 PM on June 15, 2010 [6 favorites]


Keith Olberman acted like a pompus ass and a racist during that interview. Does it occur to anyone that maybe Alvin Green may have a different communication style than the personality type that we are used to associating with politicians? I work with a guy who is absolutely excellent at what he does, is a good family man, and fine human being, but he talks just like this and it took me a while to get used to it. But he thinks just fine, and by slowing my usual chat style down a few mph, we have had some productive conversations. Give Alvin Green a chance. Just because he isn't the usual fast-talking BSer, doesn't mean he isn't authentic.
posted by Faze at 3:57 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


The weird thing to me, which I want explained, is where the unemployed, lives with his dad Alvin Greene came up with $10,400 for a filing fee for a race in which he didn't even campaign.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:57 PM on June 15, 2010


That "Question His Mental Heath" link is...almost creepy.
posted by Brainy at 3:58 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Bingo drjimmy11. What the hell is his "obscenity charge"? Is this one of those conversations America is not capable of having?
posted by mek at 4:00 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


If only Vic Rawls had gone by his middle name, Lou, all this could have been avoided.
posted by mrstrotsky at 4:00 PM on June 15, 2010


The ballots should be randomized. It can't cost that much more to run off two sets of half as many ballots each and mix them.
posted by Eideteker at 4:01 PM on June 15, 2010


How has he been reluctant to talk about it? He said he saved it from his Army pay.

Sorry, I conflated a couple of things related to the fee and the porno charges. From the Free Times article I linked:

[The victim's] mother said Greene didn’t have $10,400 when they went to court; she wanted to know where the money came from for his filing fee.

Greene refuses to talk about that case, which makes it impossible to ask him why he didn't have ten grand in the fall (assuming the mother's take is accurate), but could plop it down when he filed in March. Sorry for the confusion.
posted by mediareport at 4:01 PM on June 15, 2010


Keith Olberman acted like a pompus ass and a racist during that interview. Does it occur to anyone that maybe Alvin Green may have a different communication style than the personality type that we are used to associating with politicians? I work with a guy who is absolutely excellent at what he does, is a good family man, and fine human being, but he talks just like this and it took me a while to get used to it. But he thinks just fine, and by slowing my usual chat style down a few mph, we have had some productive conversations. Give Alvin Green a chance. Just because he isn't the usual fast-talking BSer, doesn't mean he isn't authentic.
Yeah, but in general fast talking BSers are the ones who get elected.
posted by delmoi at 4:02 PM on June 15, 2010


The ballots should be randomized. It can't cost that much more to run off two sets of half as many ballots each and mix them.

In CA they rotate the ballot order in each district. But simply running two sets wouldn't help in races with more then two candidates.
posted by delmoi at 4:03 PM on June 15, 2010


Keith Olberman acted like a pompus ass and a racist during that interview. Does it occur to anyone that maybe Alvin Green may have a different communication style than the personality type that we are used to associating with politicians?

It's called "being a bum".
posted by Artw at 4:03 PM on June 15, 2010


It seems that the alphabetical thing could be fixed by randomizing candidate orders, though on optical scanning machines, they'd have to have some sort of index OR a form id so it knows which version of the form it's scanning.

The weird thing to me, which I want explained, is where the unemployed, lives with his dad Alvin Greene came up with $10,400 for a filing fee for a race in which he didn't even campaign.

Um, yeah. And how insane that no one's answering that question. This seems like a relatively straightforward question for a candidate to answer. "Where did you get your filing fee money?" "None of your damn business" is just sketchy no matter how you slice it.
posted by disillusioned at 4:04 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


To Navelgazer, you may think that because Alvin Greene lives with his dad, he must not be able to afford to rent his own apartment, but that is not necessarily the case. Maybe he and his dad get along really well, and by living with his dad, Mr. Greene was able to save enough money on rent that he was able to afford the $10,400 filing fee. In fact, lots of unemployed people have savings. Not everyone spends every penny as soon as it somes in. Some people save for retirement or for a proverbial rainy day, or for a filing fee. Possibly a better question is why an unemployed person would WANT to spend so much money on a filing fee, for an election that he would seem to be very unlikely to win (and let's face it, although he did unexpectedly win the primary, it remains unlikely that he will actually become a Senator). But you know, people buy lottery tickets despite the great improbability of winning. Some people like to dream the impossible dream. He probably saw "Man Of LaMancha" as a kid.
posted by grizzled at 4:04 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


If Alvin Greene really saved $10,000 in 5 months, I'd consider voting for him for any office he wants. His Wikipedia page notes that he's being represented by a public defender in his porn case, which requires proof of indigency:

However, according to court records, Greene is currently being represented by a public defender in his obscenity case. South Carolina law requires defendants who want to be represented by the public defender's office to file an "affidavit of indigency" in order to prove they cannot afford to hire a lawyer. On this affidavit, the applicant must disclose all income and assets, including checking accounts.
posted by mediareport at 4:14 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Regarding the obscenity charge: I have no way to actually know what happened, but the Jon Stewart link shows whatshisface on Fox interviewing the accuser. Briefly, Greene and his accuser were in a library computer lab. Greene is alleged to have asked her whether she liked football, and when she said sure, he told her to look at some pictures on his screen, which were pornographic.

I don't care if you're of legal age to view pornography; being shown it without your consent is and should be a crime. I don't want SURPRISE! PORN! when I go to the library.
posted by desjardins at 4:18 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]




To repeat something that has been discussed in the previous thread, SC has open primaries, so another possible explanation is that Greene has been elected by Republican voters.
posted by mahershalal at 4:25 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Greene refuses to talk about that case, which makes it impossible to ask him why he didn't have ten grand in the fall (assuming the mother's take is accurate), but could plop it down when he filed in March.

South Carolina law requires defendants who want to be represented by the public defender's office to file an "affidavit of indigency" in order to prove they cannot afford to hire a lawyer. On this affidavit, the applicant must disclose all income and assets, including checking accounts.

Hmmm.... Looking around a little, it seems that there are no hard-and-fast rules for who qualifies for a public defender in SC. Is it possible that he would have qualified even with some savings? Particularly if he was unemployed?
posted by mr_roboto at 4:33 PM on June 15, 2010


Grizzled: I recognize that his family could have money, or he could've had something saved up. WHat I'm saying is that it's a hell of a lot of money to plop down and then not follow up on. Plus the indigency thing, but in my experience that's easier to deal with then one might expect. Non-Public Defender Criminal Defense attorneys are pricey, and Public Defenders have an instinct to "imprint" upon clients, to the extent where one could likely have helped him with the necessary forms just to get the paperwork out of the way.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:34 PM on June 15, 2010


Also: NOT TO SAY IN ANY WAY THAT THIS IS WHAT ALVIN GREENE WAS DOING, but I've had "indigent" clients who flashed wads of hundreds in front of me. Not all income is reported.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:35 PM on June 15, 2010


The weird thing to me, which I want explained, is where the unemployed, lives with his dad Alvin Greene came up with $10,400 for a filing fee for a race in which he didn't even campaign.

The article availablelight linked to of a soldier that served with Greene in Korea might shed some light on this:

"There's been a lot of speculation about where he got the $10,400 filing fee necessary to run for Senate. He says he saved up from the Army. Do you think that's possible?

I think that was very possible. Greene didn't do anything during his personal time, and ate at the post dining facility religiously. The first time I saw his room all he had was a radio and a couple sets of clothes, which is not unusual for someone that just moved to a new post. But after 5 months all he had was just a radio and a couple sets of clothes still. Considering his lifestyle and coming back from Korea I believe he could have saved over $10,400, and spent it on putting himself on the ballot."
posted by gyc at 4:44 PM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


Same thing happened in Vancouver though in a less obvious way. Jim Green, a respected community activist and City Council member running for mayor was defeated by a business friendly opponent, Sam Sullivan when a spoiler candidate, James Green, siphoned off enough votes to ensure victory for Mr Sullivan. 'James' appeared on the ballot before 'Jim'. It was an ugly ugly spit in the eye of democracy.

In an ironic twist of fate - Mr Sullivan was booted out as his party's candidate the next mayoral election in what was basically a palace coup by his own NPA party (which was in turn soundly defeated by JIM Green's Vision Vancouver Party).

Who's on first?
posted by helmutdog at 4:48 PM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


gyc, thanks. That explains... possibly... something.

And for what it's worth, I'm not jumping on the "Republicans Did It!" ship, at least just yet. It seems like they might have made sure that he filed with the FEC or Secretary of the Senate, for one thing. Also, if I were that nefarious, I wouldn't put my trust in a guy like Greene (based on what we've seen of his disastrously bizarre public appearances thus far) to not accidentally spill the beans on an operation of that magnitude.

But I do want this to make some degree of sense. And right now, it doesn't.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:53 PM on June 15, 2010


It seems to me it's likely that someone manipulated the vote than planted Greene into the race. There are kooky no-hope candidates that run for office all the time. But the results breakdown definitely smell very very fishy.

And as an introverted shut-in, I've sometimes fantasized about running for public office, and it is likely that had I actually entered my name in a race, I probably would've done at most about as much campaigning as Greene apparently did (which is to say none at all).
posted by gyc at 5:04 PM on June 15, 2010


Well, I think 'Republicans Did It' needs some refining.

Did individual Republican or Republican-leaning voters, figuring that DeMint's nomination was not in doubt, decide to instead vote for the worse candidate in the Democratic primary? Almost certainly.

Did party officials, or preachers, or talk-radio hosts, or forwarded emails, encourage people to vote that way? Probably.

Was there anybody on a party payroll behind those actions? Maybe.

Did DeMint personally pay Greene's filing fee, using the profits from his illegal dogfighting ring, after laundering them through his Confederate-flag business? Probably not.
posted by box at 5:11 PM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


If Republicans put Greene on the ballot/paid his filing fee, how did they find him? It seems implausible that they would pick some random guy, and Greene doesn't seem to be the sort of person that would come to a political operative's attention.
posted by plastic_animals at 5:11 PM on June 15, 2010


I don't want SURPRISE! PORN! when I go to the library.

Same planet, different worlds.

Seriously though, I doubt you would think SUPRISE! PORN! should be a felony.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:11 PM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


mahershalal: "another possible explanation is that Greene has been elected by Republican voters."

People keep saying that, but does it really make sense? Did Republican voters plan this ahead of time? Did it just occur to all of them spontaneously?

Remember Rush Limbaugh telling people to vote for Hillary Clinton? Even that didn't substantially affect the primaries one way or the other. That kind of swerve would require a lot of media surrounding it, unless Republicans are all telepathically connected somehow.
posted by roll truck roll at 5:12 PM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


I guess we'll find out who the real Yellow Dog Democrats are this fall.

(Hell, yes, I'd vote for him.)
posted by Monsieur Caution at 5:14 PM on June 15, 2010


soul music's most insinuating singer?

insinuating adj. Provoking gradual doubt or suspicion; suggestive:

I have interviewed the Reverend Al Green and insinuating is not the word that came to my mind. He was incredibly charismatic, charming, perfectly well mannered and he has the most amazingly expressive speaking voice. I will say this--I have never been treated so wqarmly and graciously by a celebrity. It was an absolute pleasure to talk to him.

Ingratiating, perhaps, is a word that could be used to describe him, perhaps, and poorly at that, but insinuating ? And what insinuations has the Reverend Al made and about whom ? Hmm ? You see the problem here, do you not ?
posted by y2karl at 5:19 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


To repeat something that has been discussed in the previous thread, SC has open primaries, so another possible explanation is that Greene has been elected by Republican voters.

And, as I mentioned in the previous thread, the GOP gubernatorial race was very contentious, so it's pretty unlikely Republican voters crossed over to vote for this race in which there was only a minute chance that a Democrat might win in November anyway. Not to mention, no one had even heard of Alvin Greene prior to the election anyway, so I find it highly unlikely there was some underground push to get Republicans out to the polls for this.
posted by chiababe at 5:21 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


It seems implausible that they would pick some random guy, and Greene doesn't seem to be the sort of person that would come to a political operative's attention.

There's precedent for this in South Carolina, believe it or not.
posted by chiababe at 5:23 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


disillusioned: "how insane that no one's answering that question. This seems like a relatively straightforward question for a candidate to answer. "Where did you get your filing fee money?""

The dude clearly says, over and over, that he paid the fee from money he saved from the Army. What he won't say is if he had the money when he requested a PD on the obscenity charges.

Please note, this is "answering the question." What I think you may be intending to complain about is the lack of corroborative and/or investigative reporting. It seems sketchy to me, too. But that's one of the few questions the guy responds to with a specific and consistent answer.
posted by mwhybark at 5:30 PM on June 15, 2010


I don't want SURPRISE! PORN! when I go to the library.

Based on experiences walking around a few libraries and catching glimpses of patron's screens, I think "SURPRISE! PORN!" should actually be the ALA's new motto.

If you want some good entertainment, ask your friendly neighborhood librarian if they have any stories.
posted by formless at 5:32 PM on June 15, 2010 [6 favorites]


Great. California just passed a proposition mandating open primaries, and this much larger state has smaller filing fees (based on 1% to 2% of the salary for the position). 2012 is going to be batshit insane here. (Since Schwarzenegger was a major force behind it, I think it's his final insult to the State, ensuring that future office holders are even worse than he is)
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:35 PM on June 15, 2010


Ugh, that Atlantic article indicating it may have been electronic voting machine fraud makes me sick. Like in 2000 an election is possibly not only stolen, but the voters are made to look like ignorant idiots too. If true, that's supervillain-level evil right there.
posted by formless at 5:41 PM on June 15, 2010


Seriously though, I doubt you would think SUPRISE! PORN! should be a felony.

It seems on par with say, public urination; a fine maybe, a felony no.
posted by mek at 5:42 PM on June 15, 2010


(From my post)
y2karl

> soul music's most insinuating singer?


insinuating adj. Provoking gradual doubt or suspicion; suggestive:

He was incredibly charismatic, charming, perfectly well mannered and he has the most amazingly expressive speaking voice. I will say this--I have never been treated so wqarmly and graciously by a celebrity. It was an absolute pleasure to talk to him.

Ingratiating, perhaps, is a word that could be used to describe him, perhaps, and poorly at that, but insinuating ? And what insinuations has the Reverend Al made and about whom ? Hmm ? You see the problem here, do you not ?


Well, la de da, mister big shot interviewer. I hope you are not insinuating that I don't do my research.
;)

I pulled it from the Reverend Al's offical website which is conveniently linked for you in the quote you referenced.
posted by jeremias at 5:48 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


According to Rasmussen, 21 percent of South Carolina voters prefer an unemployed, probably mentally incapacitated sex pervert who was involuntarily discharged from the Army to Republican incumbent senator Jim DeMint.
John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --

Tyrone: 27%.

John: ... you said that immmediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 5:52 PM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


To repeat something that has been discussed in the previous thread, SC has open primaries, so another possible explanation is that Greene has been elected by Republican voters.

Sorry, I can't give republicans that much credit. You can't spread a secret plan around that many people and not have a single leak. Someone who got the secret e-mail forward to vote for him would have given it to their local TV station.

I think...he just won the primary. Best of luck to him - he doesn't seem that much worse than a lot of other senators; his main crime is being unknown (then there is that alleged porn thing too, but...we're talking about SENATORS here).
posted by Salvor Hardin at 5:54 PM on June 15, 2010


I'd vote for him on the condition that he show surprise pornography to Joe Lieberman on a regular basis. There can be a daily 4chan thread to suggest what will be most surprising.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:08 PM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


y2karl, what are you ingratiating?
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:15 PM on June 15, 2010


his main crime is being unknown

I wouldn't call it a "crime," but his main issue is, in fact, that his winning the primary doesn't make any sense at all and smells fishy from just about any angle, but none of the theories for it hold water either.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:17 PM on June 15, 2010


There is no way this guy was elected by republicans via open primary - getting the word out to the base to vote for this guy - thousands of people - without ANYONE else hearing any of it, and all those thousands of people managing to keep it a secret? Not credible.

Vote-machine tampering theory - credible, if these machines are the same or similar to the diebold machines, vote rigging those without leaving a trace is demonstrably trivial and does not need to involve many (or even multiple) people. I'd focus on this one, not just because it's credible, but because if it were the cause, it would be a Really Big Deal.

Alphabetical voting? Star-name confusion? Seems plausible, but the evidence weakly suggests otherwise (districts did not vote in patterns that might be expected if this was the primary reason)

The voters really really REALLY hate the incumbent? I don't live in the area, so can't guess... :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 6:19 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


There's this rabidly homophobic, reactionary family out here where I live. They run for office as Democrats out here, but they wouldn't be out of place hanging out with the Westboro Baptist crew.

Anyhow, the family name pops up occasionally, but not enough that you'd necessarily associate their name with their views if you weren't paying close attention to the news.

A few years back, one ran for Board of Education. You can vote for five out of the eleven or so candidates that run any given year. The only candidate that received more votes than this heinous person was the owner of a local automobile repair chain whose name is all over the TV all the time. Neither of the top vote-getters had the least bit experience with education, but they both got elected because people recognized their names.

Indeed, several of my out and proud friends actually voted for this homophobe specifically because they recognized her name - they just couldn't remember why they recognized the name. Had they remembered, they would have voted for somebody else.

Not to fall back on Occam's Razor, but the simplest explanation here is that the voters were ill-informed about the candidates and voted for a name that sounded vaguely familiar.

It feels satisfying, after a fashion, to imagine that this was the result of some sort of grand and well hidden conspiracy, but to what end? Neither Democratic candidate was likely to unseat DeMint. Sure, its embarrassing to think that the Democrats were so poorly organized that they couldn't mount a decent campaign against him or that the South Carolina voters were ignorant about their candidates and voted anyways, but that is the simplest explanation.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:23 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


The voters really really REALLY hate the incumbent? I don't live in the area, so can't guess.

Greene's opponent in the primary was not the incumbent. Jim Demint, a Republican, is the incumbent for the Senate seat.
posted by chiababe at 6:23 PM on June 15, 2010


Hmm, I wonder if the vote machine tampering is simply so effective that there has been vote-rigging almost since day one of the machines (every election that introduces vote machines seems to introduce statistical anomalies and suspicious discrepancies that would trigger invalidation in many other countries) but each time, no proof is found, so the matter is dropped.

So as vote tampering becomes more and more the norm, the idea that it could be happenning also becomes less and less credible, because of all the previous irregularities, the cries of wolf, never resulted in a conviction, so common-sense saying "ignore the false alerts" grows more entrenched, the machines are working fine.
posted by -harlequin- at 6:27 PM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


Republicans crossed lines to vote Democratic:

Republican turnout for the Republican primaries was through the roof, as there was a hotly contested race for the nomination for the Governor. If there were enough Republicans voting in the democratic election to swing the race, then there's organized, wide scale voter fraud, as they'd have to be voting twice.


Nate Silver's rundown is about right. There's a 90% confidence that the vote was probably rigged, using the same statistical tools that nab tax cheats and money launderers. You can concoct a reasonable story to fool a reasonable man, but you can't explain away why you're a special little snowflake who can get away with violating Benford's Law (to within 90% of confidence, no less!).

This is going to get real ugly, real quick - and with the vote 5 months away, there's tons of time for muck raking. Anyone even remotely near this is going down - and that means Jim DeMint. It might be enough to blow up their anti-incumbent advantage in other races nationwide - unless it's Rhode Island, voters will take the inept over the corrupt.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:29 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Well, I think 'Republicans Did It' needs some refining.

Okay, how about this:

'Republicans did it this time pretty much the same way they did it in the other case in 1992 when a republican operative in SC paid a black guy to run for office in a bid to help the operative's sister win a bid for Lieutenant Governor?
South Carolina has a history of political plants being placed in elections to skew turnout. In 1992, Republican operative Rod Shealy was convicted of hiring an African-American fisherman to run for congressional office in hopes of stimulating white turnout to help his sister get elected lieutenant governor.
You'd think the fact that something almost exactly like what's being alleged here actually has happened before in the same state would put at least a bit of a damper on the enthusiasm of the "things like that just don't happen" crowd, but there you go.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:54 PM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


As for the vote rigging part, well, I don't know exactly how it might have happened (if it did) but it doesn't even matter. Vote rigging has been pulled off before, and people have consistently proven themselves remarkably clever when it comes to devising new methods of cheating, so uncertainty about how the vote might have been rigged is irrelevant, in the absence of investigative findings one way or the other. Vote rigging can and has happened. That's too much a fact to discount.

But, on the other hand, who's to say it was even necessary? If you really find the "first name on the ballot" argument persuasive, then maybe that was all it took. If it sounds reasonable to you now, it might have sounded reasonable beforehand to someone planning an election scam, too.

In any event, an investigation could clear up all these unanswered questions. So why take the chance on letting a potential fraud go unexamined?

Personally, as I've said, I think the main point could just as well be to arouse a response from the SC Democratic establishment because the case is so obviously fishy, then accuse the Dems of persecuting Greene, and use the whole incident to stir up old resentments among any black voters in SC who still give credence to the conservative canard that the Democratic party remains the one true party of the KKK. See how they persecute a legitimate black candidate who doesn't tow the party line? Sounds like a pretty good tactic for creating internal discord and potentially peeling off a few black voters, the Dems only major source of political support in SC.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:09 PM on June 15, 2010


the simplest explanation here is that the voters were ill-informed about the candidates and voted for a name that sounded vaguely familiar

This would make sense to me, except that I don't think people who are this ill-informed aren't big primary voters. Primaries tend to bring out the activist-y types - either people really involved in party politics or rallying around an outsider candidate. People so clueless as to not have any notion of who is on the ballot will show up for general elections (although that too boggles my mind), but in my experience are not the bulk of primary voters.
posted by naoko at 7:25 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

I like 538's theory #2:
1. Vic Rawl and his campaign ignored the non-candidacy candidacy of Alvin Greene and so, despite Rawl's slightly higher but still low statewide name recognition--much of which was unfavorable, mind you--Democratic primary voters chose Greene as a placemarker substitute for a candidate, Rawl, they either didn't know or, if they did know, didn't like.

2. Somewhat overlapping with #1, especially for the people who knew nothing about either Greene or Rawl, there was such a low level of voter information that this race was essentially a throw-a-dart-at-the-dartboard race in which one candidate among two mostly unknown candidates, Greene, won for some set of unknown and perhaps inexplicable reasons. (Familiarity of his surname? His name's location on the ballot alphabetically?)
The theory that there was an effort by Republicans to tinker with the election by strategically voting for this guy is interesting. Is it likely?

Wouldn't there necessarily have to be traces of this strategy online? It seems like there should have been, and then still be blogspot blogs and Facebook pages and what have you dedicated to this strategic vote. These traces would have gotten/will be outed if such a "whisper campaign" existed. Go Lazyweb, go!

Alternate theory: South Carolina's been pranked for a reality show casting Greene as a modern-day Forrest Gump.
posted by artlung at 7:26 PM on June 15, 2010


Funny.
posted by shockingbluamp at 7:36 PM on June 15, 2010


So lets just say for fun that somehow he beats DeMint. Then what? Could someone (who?) require a psych evaluation? If it was just the House of Reps, that would be one thing-- he could easily evade responsibilities and get lost in the shuffle, but the Senate? This guy couldn't even manage a few straight forward tasks in the Army, how could he possibly manage 6 years as a US Senator. Can you imagine him trying to interact with his pages, his staff, the other Senators, the President?

He has difficulty maintaining eye contact and both his face and body convey extreme discomfort when he is being interviewed. Why on earth did he run for office if he is so uncomfortable with public speaking?

I really wish some journalist would sit down with him and pinpoint some of his "irregular" answers such as where--exactly-- did he canvass before the election (he has yet to name a specific town yet claims he traveled around the state.) Or why, if he had $10,000 did he not hire a defense attorney. Or what he thinks being Senator entails.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:45 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


My apologies, but the idea that this was because Greene's name was first on the ballot is completely idiotic. If that was the case, then there would be sweeping victories by the first name on the ballot in all sorts of races where the general public has no idea who is running (many local elections, state judicial elections, etc.). That simply does not happen. If it did, there would have been lawsuits long ago correcting that. I don't know what happened, but I can promise you that it is not because the guy's name was first on the ballot.

I know quite a few people who hold public office and run for public office. Even at the local level, candidates I know pay for polling to be done leading up to an election. Did Rawl do any polling? I find it hard to believe that he didn't. On the other hand, maybe he was really trying to hold onto his money for the general election. If he did do polling, I want to know what the pre-election poll numbers were. If he didn't do any polling, I have to believe that someone did. This was a US Senate race.

Something very, very weird happened here.
posted by flarbuse at 7:50 PM on June 15, 2010


I didn't think much of this guy until he started describing all of the ways you can cook shrimp.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:54 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


If he didn't do any polling, I have to believe that someone did. This was a US Senate race.

Rawl publicized polling results in the immediate lead-up to the primary that showed him within seven points of DeMint.

The poll was conducted by an organization named South Carolina Index, and you can read the results yourself here. Here's a brief quote:
According to our May 18th telephone survey DeMint’s job approval and re-elect numbers are well below the marks of a strong incumbent. Only 53% of all voters currently approve of his job performance while only 48% of all voters are likely to support his re-election. In a head to head question with Democratic challenger Vic Rawl, DeMint gets 50% of the vote to Rawl’s 43%. It is important to note that Rawl has never run for statewide office and has not aired any TV ads during this primary season.

DeMint’s tepid showing in the early horse race numbers may also indicate that other statewide races will be equally competitive. When asked in the May survey if they would most likely vote for a Democrat or a Republican candidate for governor this November, voters split 46% for the Republican and 44% for the Democrat.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:29 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't doubt that something fishy has gone on here -- it's all a bit weird, but ya know, the pile-on in the press & from other politicians has gotten so egregious that I'm beginning to root for this Alvin Green guy just because everyone's being such asses about him. I can't help but like an underdog for some reason.

Even if he is a plant, or benefitted from machine tampering, or whatever it may turn out to be, if it turns out to be anything, the rush to judgement about his mental state reminds me of the Republicans diagnosing Terri Schiavo via videocam from D.C. It seems crass and mean.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:35 PM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


Rawl publicized polling results in the immediate lead-up to the primary that showed him within seven points of DeMint.

But what we need is Rawl vs. Green polling. Maybe Rawl took one look at this guy and figured he was such a loser that it wasn't worth spending money on a poll.
posted by naoko at 8:45 PM on June 15, 2010


I don't want SURPRISE! PORN! when I go to the library.

I tend to go to libraries to write several times a week, and let me tell you, if you don't want to see surprise porn then stay far away from libraries. It's unusual if I don't see someone watching porn at the library.

I'm not at all exaggerating, unfortunately. The first time it happened I was mildly surprised, but then it happened the next day at a different library, and the day after that at another library, and I realized it was just a thing now.
posted by Nattie at 9:09 PM on June 15, 2010


Ya rly. When I first moved to BC, we hadn't set up internet at home yet (and frankly my parents couldn't understand in 1997 why this was important), so my only option to check email was the library.

There was this one guy, god he was creepy, who would look at the most violent and degrading porn you have ever seen in your life. On a computer in the middle of the library. I'm fairly pro-porn, and definitely pro-killing-puritan-attitudes-to-sex, but dear Christ this stuff was way out there. A lot of us complained to library staff but nobody ever did anything, I have no idea why.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:27 PM on June 15, 2010


if it turns out to be anything, the rush to judgement about his mental state reminds me of the Republicans diagnosing Terri Schiavo via videocam from D.C. It seems crass and mean.

I agree--it really is. The media has done an awful job on covering this. The press shouldn't casually suggest Greene is mentally ill or otherwise marginalize him. It's divisive and ugly. It's pointlessly offensive and distracts public attentions from the real, potentially serious issues that might (or might not) be there. Greene is innocent until proven guilty. And even if he were implicated in some fraud, he might just be a fall guy. He might not even know anything. But I'm definitely inclined toward some scenario involving fraud.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:42 PM on June 15, 2010


A lot of us complained to library staff but nobody ever did anything, I have no idea why.

Because they were good library staff.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 9:45 PM on June 15, 2010


Buh? I'm not really sure how grown man with obvious erection watching incredibly violent porn on a computer funded by my tax dollars in the middle of a library is a librarian doing a good job.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:53 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Wait, seriously? You favor content being censored at public libraries? Places where unfettered access to information of all kinds is their reason for being? What if some douchebag (or a bunch of douchebags) complains that you're looking at Xtra and they're personally deeply offended by that? Should the librarians do something about that? Being in favor of free access means being in favor of free access even for things you personally find distasteful.

Please note that I'm not saying that a gay-oriented news site is in any way equivalent to violent porn. I am merely pointing out that you don't want "people are complaining about this" to be the metric by which content is censored in a public library.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 10:07 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Pornography is restricted for sale and view in Canada to those over 18 years of age, Let's not start playing the Censorship Boogeyman card just yet.

"I don't like it" = bad metric
"Already restricted to legal adults and illegal to provide to those under 18 and restricted to specific venues and locales such that one must consciously choose to partake of it" = not such a bad metric.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:14 PM on June 15, 2010


Huh. Never thought you'd be so puritanical, but I guess it just goes to show you never can tell.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 10:22 PM on June 15, 2010


Holy gibbering Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.

I am not puritanical. It would behoove you to read my first comment. I am very pro-sex. I am very much against the insane puritanical nature of most of North American society.

But people do have a choice as to when and where and how they engage their sexuality. Part of that includes the choice to not see things that are restricted by law on public display for one man's sexual gratification. And it very definitely includes the choice to not have groups of young children having to walk by pictures of some woman e.g. getting whipped while another man pisses on her face.

This isn't puritanism, it's basic respect for not forcing other people to be participants, whether active or passive, in your sex life without their consent.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:28 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yes, Canada is pretty shitty as far as ideological commitment to the open access of information goes. Witness hate speech laws, anti-pornography laws, and such. But this isn't Canada, and the Canadian metric is as inapplicable here as the Australian ban of any nude image of a woman with less than a B-cup.
posted by kafziel at 10:29 PM on June 15, 2010


Oh God, here we go.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:30 PM on June 15, 2010


I know this is continuing a partial derail, but here goes: dnab, I'm inclined to agree with you; libraries are not an appropriate place to be watching porn for sexual gratification. I can see this discussion heading to some kind of vague analogy to the treatment of Little Sisters, or something like that. I don't think this is a valid argument.

I'm not sure where to draw the line though. Should someone writing about, say, early 20th century French erotica be allowed to watch the relevant material? (I can tell you it is no less graphic than modern stuff). I would tend towards thinking this is at least somewhat appropriate. Masturbating in a library? I think everyone can agree that is totally unacceptable.

One thing I don't think is fair in what you said is the bolstering of your argument by characterizing what seems from your description to be BDSM themed porn as "the most violent and degrading porn you have ever seen in your life". This strikes me as playing on people's prejudices around certain sexual practices and belies somewhat your claims to being a libertine.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:02 PM on June 15, 2010


Only one solution to this derail.

Green for PM of Canada 2012!
posted by formless at 11:06 PM on June 15, 2010


Not true, [expletive deleted].

Someone here, a couple years ago, pointed out that one of the concerns with internet porn is not that teenagers are going to view it, it's that there is pretty much no filter between 'some naked people' and 'some naked people dressed in leather fucking a donkey.'

Pre-internet, discovering porn would be more of a progression from one to the other. They made more sense in context.

But, y'know, I'm tired of this discussion. Apparently I'm pro-censorship, puritanical, and not-liberal. Silly me for suggesting that the public library is the wrong venue for getting your rocks off.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:19 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I bet there are a lot of discussions about this South Carolinian primary oddity out there on the intertubes tonight. I bet Metafilter's the only place where it somehow mutated into a heated argument about the permissibility of viewing hardcore pornography in public libraries.

Feels a bit like a Cubist nude inserted into the "Celebrities - they're just like us!" pages of a supermarket tabloid or something. I'm pretty sure that's to Mefi's credit. In any case, I'd watch cable news more often if it whiplashed around like this.

"Tonight on Olbermann: Keith's interview with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl about illegal immigration veers off by degrees into a debate on the merits of bottled water and a series of expletive-laced exchanges on the viability of concentrated solar thermal energy. Then Umberto Eco wanders in to begin discussing the semiotics of border patrol uniforms before getting distracted by the designs on Cameraman No. 3's faux-vintage t-shirt . . ."
posted by gompa at 12:05 AM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Meanwhile, back in South Carolina, just about everybody who's been interviewed because they know Greene or his family says this is straight up.

That doesn't rule out the voting machines going bonkers, but a simple explanation for the $10K / indigent claim is that he concealed his savings when applying for legal aid. Not saying that happened, mind you, but it is the simplest explanation.

By the way, Rawl spent only $40K (FEC link) and more than half the money ($125K) in his treasury came from his own pocket.
posted by warbaby at 12:32 AM on June 16, 2010


Wait, seriously? You favor content being censored at public libraries?

Yes. Public library, public content. There are research rooms available at major libraries to provide private areas for screening uhhh, inappropriate films if you need to do so for "research purposes". If you genuinely had a need to do so, a librarian would help you out, that's what they're there for. Watching porn at the public terminal is NOT ACCEPTABLE EVER. End derail.

And all that said, it shouldn't be a felony!
posted by mek at 12:52 AM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


My apologies, but the idea that this was because Greene's name was first on the ballot is completely idiotic.

Thank you, flarbuse. McCain comes before Obama, unless I have somehow missed a radical reorganization of the English alphabet.

Dnab, thank you for this: I'm not really sure how grown man with obvious erection watching incredibly violent porn on a computer funded by my tax dollars in the middle of a library is a librarian doing a good job.


Nor am I. In fact, even if he didn't have an erection and even if the porn in question wasn't violent, there's a problem there.

I watched the video posted, and frankly my burning question was not so much "Who does that guy think he is?" but "Who was cruel enough to set this guy up as the fall guy for...?" That video is fucked up. We can argue different conversational styles, ass-hole-esque interviewers (he was, too) and silly voters all day long, but someone is setting this guy up as a target. You can tell by the way that video interview goes.
posted by deep thought sunstar at 12:53 AM on June 16, 2010


but a simple explanation for the $10K / indigent claim is that he concealed his savings when applying for legal aid. Not saying that happened, mind you, but it is the simplest explanation.

I'm also not seeing how lying to get money isn't a bad thing,
posted by deep thought sunstar at 12:55 AM on June 16, 2010


Benford's law is the giveaway here. It's like gravity, you can't just "break it", and it means something is very wrong, regardless of candidate etc.
posted by smoke at 2:16 AM on June 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


All right, I read Nate Silver's piece and withdraw my earlier "simplest solution" proposal.

Allow me to offer a different proposal.

In Silver's piece, one expert points out that three counties had unusually high (as in "more than the number of reported voters") turning out in regards to the Governor's race.

What if the fix wasn't in on the Greene/Rawls election but somebody was trying to mess with the Republican Governor primary? They'd obviously have to click off some box for Democratic Senator on the fake ballots just to make sure that the ballot looked legitimate. Maybe they just checked off Greene's name over and over.

Not saying that it couldn't have been a campaign against Rawls, just wondering if there was some tea party vs Republican action in SC that might have prompted somebody in the Republican party to make sure that their guy won...
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:27 AM on June 16, 2010


There's a 90% confidence

That 90% isn't a posterior probability, it's a p-value. It means that you expect something as or more extreme than the observed data 10% of the time. Given the huge number of races in the US, something like this happens constantly.

Also, the 538 articles aren't Nate's work. It's a 538 staffer, Tom Schaller.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 5:09 AM on June 16, 2010


(I'm also kind of curious how showing a porno video to a college student who is presumably over 18 can possibly be a felony, but hey, he is black in the South.)

Seriously though, I doubt you would think SUPRISE! PORN! should be a felony.

It seems on par with say, public urination; a fine maybe, a felony no.

And all that said, it shouldn't be a felony!


Please don't do this.

There's a LOT more to this than simply showing someone porn. First: He was in a dorm computer lab, with a borrowed ID and impersonating another person to be in that dorm. Second: He was trying to get the students to let him come up to their dorm rooms after showing them some fairly hard-core porn. Third: This was not an isolated indecent.

So trespassing + identity theft + fairly creepy sexual advances on a campus that takes such things very seriously + repeated incidents does, in fact = felony. Please note that race is not a factor in this equation.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 6:27 AM on June 16, 2010 [5 favorites]


Good ol' politics. I was just reading about how Lyndon B. Johnson stole the 1948 Texas Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate. What's staggering to me is how many people still have faith in the U.S. Political System. Voting "irregularities" happen all the time. The trick isn't fixing an election, it's keeping it fixed: for that you need to have good lawyers and a few judges in your pocket.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:13 AM on June 16, 2010


I can't say I'm surprised that a state would make it a felony to knowingly cause another person, who did not consent in advance, to view pornography. That is a pretty commonly used form of grooming, for example by child molesters. (I am basing that observation on my own experience in dealing with child molesters in the legal system, which I have done for about 20 years now.) It is interesting but not amazing that South Carolina didn't put an age limit in its statute. I also agree wiith 1f2frfbf that it isn't suprising that a prosecutor would use his/her discretion to charge Mr. Green under said felony statute, given the alleged surrounding circumstances.

I still can't believe that Jim DeMint is facing such a weak opponent in his primary. Will wait with interest to see if another shoe drops.
posted by bearwife at 10:38 AM on June 16, 2010


Give Alvin Green a chance. Just because he isn't the usual fast-talking BSer, doesn't mean he isn't authentic.
posted by Faze at 5:57 PM


Holy shit, I agree with you Faze. Well said.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:38 AM on June 16, 2010


Doh! Meant to say I can't believe DeMint is facing such a weak opponent in the general election.
posted by bearwife at 10:39 AM on June 16, 2010


Well, la de da, mister big shot interviewer. I hope you are not insinuating that I don't do my research.

They should have known better. And so should have you, for that matter, for it should have struck you as odd. Unless you posted it ironically as in look at the goofy thing they said about Al Green.

But it was a bit nit picky of me if that was the case. Hell, it was a bit nit picky, period.

As for being the big shot interviewer, hardly. I was a lowly free lancer, writing for the Rocket, a now defunct local music monthly here in Seattle. I begged for the interview and got it. And then got blasted by the editor because of the banter exchanged--we spent too much time talking about Johnny Mathis.

As an interview, it sucked but as a conversation, it was like talking to an old friend--I was never treated as kindly by anyone I interviewed. Not that that list is anything I could not count on my fingers.

And, as for the interview, at thed I went into a fan boy gush about how much I loved his music and was going on about how I had been a fan ever since I first heard I'm So Tired of Being Alone when it came out, over a car radio back one night in Kansas, especially near the end when he wen--He-e-ey, BayBEE! sang the Reverend back at me. And everyone there in the room at the Roosevelt Hotel in Los Angeles burst into laughter as did I and the Reverend. Good times, good times. That will always be one of my favorite memories.

/derail
posted by y2karl at 11:30 AM on June 16, 2010


It was a phone interview, by the way--I was not there in the room when he sang that and I have always assumed that they were laughing because it was by no means the first time he had heard that said to him, and, as a consequence, by no means the first time that his companions had heard him sing that into a phone during an interview. It still makes me smile when I think about it.
posted by y2karl at 10:44 PM on June 16, 2010




Rawl concedes

His concession statement is full of crocodile tears about the "lack of election integrity in South Carolina" - something that he never seems to have noticed before getting T-boned by it.

SC Dems accept Greene's primary win

Yup, it's weird but there's no evidence of wrongdoing.

I never said 'I told you so' and I don't like people who do









but I told you so. Heh.
posted by warbaby at 2:22 PM on June 19, 2010


43. FADE IN

On Tom, sitting into frame in Caspar's office.

Tom
So what'm I right about?

Behind his desk, Caspar is smiling.

Caspar
Well, I'll tell ya, but first you gotta promise
not to say I told you so.

Tom's eyes hold an Caspar's. He is taking out a pack of
cigarettes.

Tom
I never say that. And I don't like people who
do.

Caspar
Mink was robbin' me right along with the Motzah.

Tom
. . . What convinced you of that?

Caspar
Mink Larouie took a powder. We can't find him.
Bluepoint's makin' excuses for him, but personal-
ly, I think you were right. I think Mink and
Bernie was in it together. I think Mink heard
you'd bumped the Motzah, and lit out. The lousy
sonofabitch.

His eyes on Caspar, Tom takes out a cigarette, lights it,
takes a deep drag.

Tom
. . . I told you so.

posted by warbaby at 2:30 PM on June 19, 2010


Action figures (via a comment in an old Greene post).
posted by box at 9:43 AM on July 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


NYT - No wrongdoing found in Greene finances. Funds were his own and no fraud in asking for public defender.
posted by warbaby at 6:44 AM on July 12, 2010


« Older Devo kawaii desu!   |   Post mortem social networking Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post