Alvin Greene, The Anti-Richard Blumenthal And Mark Kirk

Say what you will about Alvin Greene, the mercurial, bizarre, out-of-nowhere Democratic Senate candidate in South Carolina whose election seems possibly fraudulent and whose chances against GOP Sen. Jim DeMint are basically non-existent.

He has not, like other Senate candidates running this year, suffered from a propensity to exaggerate when it comes to discussing his military record. If anything, he's downplayed his achievements. From Friday's Washington Post profile of Greene comes this nugget:

The University of South Carolina confirms that Greene graduated in 2000 with a degree in political science. The Pentagon confirms that he served in the Army, and in the Army and Air Force national guards. Although Greene has not boasted of winning awards, the Pentagon says he was granted the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and Korean Defense Service Medal.

This puts Greene in a class of humbleness all by himself. Whereas, Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal admitted and apologized for misleading about his service in Vietnam and Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk copped to misrepresenting the awards he earned and the theaters in which he served, Greene hasn't made any mention of his legitimately-earned prizes.

This may be because Greene hasn't done any campaigning at all -- which has made his primary win on Tuesday utterly peculiar and spurred calls (from Rep. James Clyburn among others, for an investigation into its circumstances). And so, it stands to reason that military service will play absolutely no role in his near-impossible campaign against DeMint.

The same is not true in the Connecticut and Illinois elections where Blumenthal seems to have survived his gaffes while the jury is still out as to what damage has been done to Kirk. Asked by the Huffington Post on Thursday whether the issue of exaggerations and fabrications were off the table because members of both parties had been caught, Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) insisted that Kirk had committed the bigger crime:

Dick Blumenthal put the record straight and took responsibility. But there is a fundamental difference between, a quarter century of service and a consistent commitment to veterans, a crusading attorney general, someone who has pretty significant stability in his positions, to Mark Kirk. Mark Kirk -- set aside all of his distortions, various, various different distortions about his military record - he has flip-flopped on critical issues from what he took as a "moderate" Republican congressman from Illinois to his primary process moving to the general election, which has moved him far to the right."

And so, here is a candidate who sticks his finger in the wind and is willing to do anything to win, and also is obviously willing to embellish his record in a whole host of different ways... versus Blumenthal who has been consistent in his positions in fighting for consumers, in working to protect taxpayers and in supporting veterans who stood with him at the end of the day. We are not disabled at all in pointing out Mark Kirk's constant flip-flops and inconsistencies.

Comments

[Bsmooth]

04:18 PM on 06/17/2010

There are some serious discrepancies in his military record. I have sen it say he has served 13 years, yet his service is listed as 95-02, 06-07, 07-09 which adds up to about 11 years with breaks in service.
Also it says he attained the rank of specialist just before he got out in 09, but by having a BA he would have automatically gotten that rank.

[gregcurts]

12:00 PM on 06/14/2010

Democracy in action....

[Aripottah]

12:30 AM on 06/14/2010

Alvin strikes one as a person who has undertaken an in depth research project on the effects of continuous and distributed bong hits on basic cognitive processes.

[madHenry]

01:31 AM on 06/14/2010

I have to agree. I'm still waiting to see him respond in an interview with answers that make any sense at all. I won't denigrate his military, but I will not throw it a parade as heroic, either. It's basic military service--come in do your job, go home, go to bed and do it again tomorrow...with nobody shooting at you (except other Americans).

[ebanks84]

01:51 PM on 06/13/2010

He would be the perfect candidate if he didn't have suspicions surrounding him for being connected to the rethugs and possibly a plant. Other than that, he would definitely have to show some intelligence about the world as well before being taken seriously.

[ebanks84]

02:08 PM on 06/13/2010

"Greene won 52.5 percent of all votes cast in Orangeburg (whites) for either himself or Rawl. And at first blush, that might seem like nothing unusual--until you realize that Greene did even better in Pickens (8.3 percent non-white registrants) and Oconee (8.6 percent), the two whitest counties in the state."

The above is to contradict a post I saw that says all the votes Greene got were democratic, which is a lie, as you can see from only three districts.

[jackthecommentor]

09:21 AM on 06/13/2010

This guy makes Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes Scholar!

[ebanks84]

02:09 PM on 06/13/2010

That's exactly why she's terrified of Rachel Maddow right now!

[Countess]

09:06 AM on 06/13/2010

Look at the people who are elected to state wide offices in South Carolina and you will have a good idea why they are such a backward place. Jim Dimwit will win with about 75 percent of the vote.

[Turukano]

04:13 AM on 06/13/2010

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/something-fishy-in-south-carolina.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/sc-democratic-primary-getting-weirder.html

[DinkSinger]

10:46 PM on 06/12/2010

While is completely possible that some person or group may have donated the filing fee to Alvin Greene in an attempt to embarrass the Democrats, there was no massive fraud or crossover voting.

Greene received 59% of the vote, won by 30,509 votes and carried 42 of the 46 counties in the state.

In the latest polls, conducted by Public Policy Polling , a Democratic polling organization, on May 22-23, DeMint had a 19% lead over Vic Rawl. The poll also found Rawl's favorability rating among Democrats was 4% favorable, 18% unfavorable, 78% not sure. Out of every fifty self-identified Democrats and every eleven with an opinion only two had a favorable opinion of Rawl.

The May 19, FEC filings showed DeMint with a 25 to 2 edge in fundraising over Rawl.

The Republicans have a hotly contested, nationally covered primary race for the nomination for Governor. Anyone who voted in the Democratic primary not only gave up their vote in that race on Tuesday, they will also be unable to vote in the runoff between Gresham Barrett and Nicki Haley on June 22.

So, why would tens of thousands of Republicans all across the state skip the primary for Governor just to participate in a conspiracy to nominate the weaker of two extremely weak Democratic candidates? And if they did, why did they also vote for Vincent Sheehan, who was the choice of the Democratic party leadership and appears to be the strongest candidate for governor?

[DinkSinger]

12:40 AM on 06/13/2010

One additional fact. The official returns show that there was no county where the number of votes cast in the Democratic U.S. Senator race was greater than the number cast in the Democratic Governor race. In fact the number of votes cast in the Governor race was at least 4.8% higher in every county and more than 10% higher in 24 out of the 46 counties.

[AwakenYoshikawa]

04:15 AM on 06/13/2010

What you fail to mention about the Public Policy Polling is Alvin Greene was not even part of the poll in May, so using that as a source leaves out one of the main parties. The question of where the 10K came from being that Mr. Greene was unemployed and living with his partners and qualified for a public defender to represent him is also a big part that is left out of your post. That along with the fact that in absentee balloting, Rawl won 84 percent of the vote.

Since SC is open primary where democrats can vote for repubs and repubs for democrats, can you tell me accurately how many repubs voted for greene?

[DinkSinger]

11:53 AM on 06/13/2010

I did mention the 10k question in the first paragraph of the post. Alvin Greene was not included in the PPP poll, but I fail to see how his inclusion would have had any effect on Vic Rawls miserable favorablity ratings.

In South Carolina you chose in which party's primary you will vote. Once you pick up a party ballot in a biennial primary like the one held last Tuesday (not a Presidential primary) you are an official member of the party you selected and of that party's "club" in your precinct:

"Members of a political party must belong to the club in the voting precinct set forth in their respective registration records. The poll list of the primary ... is the prima facie list of the members of each club for the purpose of club organization and the election of delegates to the county convention."
S.C. Code Ann. § 7-9-40 (2009)

The party membership slate is wiped clean prior to the next biennial primary.

So the technical answer is yes, I can accurately tell you that ever single person who voted for Greene was a Democrat. Once again the real question is why would 30,510 Republicans on a day of a nationally publicized Republican primary race for Governor, decide to skip having a voice in that election (and the runoff) and join the Democratic party just to nominate a particular candidate in a race the Republicans were all but sure to win anyway?

[ebanks84]

01:59 PM on 06/13/2010

65.2% voted for Greene!

[Turukano]

08:45 PM on 06/12/2010

1) He was discharged from the military after 13 years with a honorable but involuntary discharge.
2) He was caught in the secure dorm computer lab with an expired id harassing a female student.
3) When arraigned, he signed paperwork with the court stating he was indigent and needed a court appointed lawyer.
4) He has been unemployed for eleven months and lives with his parents.
5) He visited the S.C DNC headquarters and registered in the Democratic primary for United States Senator, paying a $10,400 fee.
6) Despite spending 10K on a long shot to be a US Senator, he does no campaigning and cannot indentify which cities he went to do his "old fashioned" campaign.
7) To date, he has filed no paperwork with the FEC. Either he received no donations or he has not declared them.
8) On election night in at least six counties, he received more votes than registered voters.

He either lied to the court or he lied about where the money came from. I bet both the IRS and the FEC are going to have some serious question for him. Just watch the interviews, his body language is screaming out.

[DinkSinger]

12:05 AM on 06/13/2010

Could you please provide a source for point 8). The official returns show no county with a turnout as high as 45%. Since turnout is the number of ballots cast divided by the number of registered voters, it would seem impossible that a candidate could have received more than than 222% of the total ballots cast. Perhaps the allegation is at the precinct rather than county level.

[DinkSinger]

01:05 AM on 06/13/2010

Point 8) is definitely incorrect. I was able to download and analyse the returns at the county level. The county where the Greene vote was highest relative to registered voters was Lee County where he received 2,387 votes and there were 11,523 registered voters. That's 20.72%. Statewide the number of votes Greene received (100,362) came to only 3.88% of the number of registered voters (2,585,911). Keep in mind that South Carolina does not have party registration prior to the biennial primary. Once an individual votes in a biennial party primary he or she is by law a member of that party and of the party club in the precinct.

In addition, the number of votes cast in the Democratic governors race was at least 4.8% higher than the number of votes cast in the Democratic U.S. Senator race in every county and more than 10% higher in more than half the counties.

[Turukano]

04:17 AM on 06/13/2010

You are right. I misstated number 8. I should have said there are massive voting pattern ilrregularities. My bad.

[RobH413]

11:39 AM on 06/13/2010

I'm sorry, we're going to have to ask you to refrain from posting on this thread. Your insistence on presenting factual information is interfering with the preferred narrative. Furthermore, it appears you have questioned the made-up facts that were presented by another poster to defend her position, thereby interfering with his/her truthiness.

Please take no offense. You are free to investigate and analyze your facts in the comfort of your own home, but we have concluded that your presentation of these facts on this board is offensive to people who have already made up their mind. Feel free to take your facts to someplace where people are inclined to consider them before forming an opinion. This site is for people who form their opinion first, and then seek out a set of facts, whether true or not, which support their positions.

We'll have to say goodbye to you now. Thank you for playing our game. We have some very nice consolation prizes for you backstage.

[Steve1976]

06:05 PM on 06/12/2010

I still can't stop laughing.

[cornelison]

04:22 PM on 06/12/2010

How is corrupt counting of votes in So. Carolina like an after-Christmas sale?

It's "buy one, get one free."

[radmo]

01:23 PM on 06/12/2010

With the possible exception of the "Chicago Machine", no one can steal an election like a southern democrat. I expect this was just a trial run of the strategies and techniques to be used this coming November.

[larce1948]

12:12 PM on 06/12/2010

I thought it was cool that some unknown guy could win a primary but it now appears this guy is someones tool and may not have all his eggs in the same basket. It's South Carolina after all and Republicans have proven there is nothing off limits for them.

[pbnyc59]

11:51 AM on 06/12/2010

What a stupid article. Instead of reporting on where this guy came from and how he got the $10K to run, you write a fluff piece about his service? An area that needs looking into as well, nice job HP.

[nowpolitics]

04:49 PM on 06/12/2010

"... his service? An area that needs looking into as well, nice job HP."

Isn't that exactly what this article did?

[Turukano]

08:50 PM on 06/12/2010

His service? He was honorably discharged involuntary after 13 years. In his own words, "Things weren't working out...it's a long story."

[IllinoisObama]

11:35 AM on 06/12/2010

The latest update on this election fraud-turns out Gregory Brown was behind this -Brown ran against Clyborn. and a Republican fund raiser.

"The intrigue surrounding this week's Democratic primary contests in South Carolina intensified Friday as campaign finance reports linked Gregory Brown, the challenger who lost to House Majority Whip James Clyburn, to a Republican consulting firm.

Clyburn on Thursday called for federal and state investigations after another candidate, Alvin Greene, an unemployed Army veteran who lives with his parents, won a Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate there. Greene, who has a felony obscenity charge pending, "was someone's plant," Clyburn said.

Clyburn contended that Greene's campaign, and those of two other African-American candidates, were designed to upend the Democratic primary process. He also named Brown and Benjamin Frasier Jr., a perennial candidate who surprised observers by beating retired Air Force Reserve Col. Robert Burton in the 1st District.

As late as Thursday afternoon, the Federal Elections Commission had no public record of any of the three filing quarterly reports revealing their funding sources or campaign outlays.

But in FEC reports filed late Thursday and early Friday, Brown reported that his single largest payment was to the Stonewall Strategies firm run by Preston Grisham, a former aide to Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. Grisham, a 2005 University of South Carolina graduate, was an intern for Wilson in 2003 and went on to serve as his special assistant and campaign manager.

[RobH413]

11:51 AM on 06/13/2010

So all the evidence presented to date that Greene is a shill begins with the words "Representative Clyburn believes..." So here we are a week after the election and the most concrete evidence of a conspiracy is that Clyburn's primary opponent hired a a consulting firm run by a guy who was also a campaign manager for a Republican? So a guy who didn't run much of a campaign made "his largest single payment" to a consultant? How much WAS his largest single payment? $500? $5,000? So some fledgling political consultant is going to pull off a massive conspiracy nominate the weaker of the two candidates in the Dem senatorial primary, neither of which had the slightest chance of winning the general election, for a few thousand dollars? Seriously?

The irony of all this is that Greene is getting massive free publicity, and if someone WERE to go down to South Carolina and school the guy a little bit on his public speaking, he could open up a campaign bank account, and people all over the country who LIKE the idea of a regular guy in the Senate would send the guy a few bucks. The irony is that this guy, though still a longshot, has a BETTER chance of winning the general than the other dude, whose favorability ratings among South Carolinians before the primary, I have read, was a whopping FOUR PERCENT.

[heartsick]

09:23 AM on 06/14/2010

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to decide that Greene was and is a Republican plant. If he gets any contributions, they will come from Republicans who love watching him make a fool of himself.