June 12, 2010 archive

Alvin Greene for the United States Senate! (Updated)

greene_t600

Alvin Greene said he won the Democratic U.S. Senate primary by crisscrossing South Carolina to stump, but he refused Thursday to name a single place he’d visited.

He said he put $2,000 of his own money in the race, but had only one campaign flier to show, and was reluctant to part with it.

The state’s highest-profile Democrat, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, called for investigations into how Greene paid his $10,400 filing fee, his lack of federal election reporting and how he managed to capture almost 60 percent of Tuesday’s vote without campaigning.

Harharharhar!!!

At last the Democrats have nominated a candidate entirely untainted by their miserable record as corporate suck-ups and roll-over puppies for the neo-con agenda!

Hurrah!

(And I’m not the only one cheering!)

If this 32 year-old man without a cell phone or computer, who has never held any political office, has no job and is “on the not-guilty side” of a felony charge, can become the Democratic nominee for Senate from South Carolina, then literally anyone can. That means me, or you, or that guy on the street corner who talks to cats.

Alvin Greene has broken down the last barrier, a barrier some refer to as “being somewhat qualified to hold office.” Now, with $114 in his campaign account, no job, unclear funding sources and “involuntary” discharges from the Army and Air Force, he is ready to take on the system.

This is the greatest political story of my generation! But it won’t have a happy ending without you, my friends!

So break open those piggy-banks and make a contribution to Alvin Greene’s campaign for the United States Senate from South Carolina

…just as soon as he has a campaign, or a website, or a campaign fund, or…

Whatever!

…………………………………………………………………………..

Update: After staring at this story for 24 hours without anything like an idea, it finally occurred to me that there’s always an alternative to paying a big-time filing fee if you want to run for public office, and since one of the questions that everybody in the MSM echo-chamber is asking is…

How did Greene come up with a $10,400 filing fee to run in the Democratic primary, it might be more worthwhile to ask…

Why bother?

Why pay $10K when there’s always an exception for indigent candidates? Otherwise an un-Constitutional qualification for office by wealth will have been surreptitiously imposed!

For example, in Bullock v. Carter the Supreme Court ruled that…

It seems appropriate that a primary system designed to give the voters some influence at the nominating stage should spread the cost among all of the voters in an attempt to distribute the influence without regard to wealth. Viewing the myriad governmental functions supported from general revenues, it is difficult to single out any of a higher order than the conduct of elections at all levels to bring

Page 405 U. S. 149

forth those persons desired by their fellow citizens to govern. Without making light of the State’s interest in husbanding its revenues, we fail to see such an element of necessity in the State’s present means of financing primaries as to justify the resulting incursion on the prerogatives of voters.

(3)

Since the State has failed to establish the requisite justification for this filing fee system, we hold that it results in a denial of equal protection of the laws. It must be emphasized that nothing herein is intended to cast doubt on the validity of reasonable candidate filing fees or licensing fees in other contexts. By requiring candidates to shoulder the costs of conducting primary elections through filing fees and by providing no reasonable alternative means of access to the ballot, the State of Texas has erected a system that utilizes the criterion of ability to pay as a condition to being on the ballot, thus excluding some candidates otherwise qualified and denying an undetermined number of voters the opportunity to vote for candidates of their choice These salient features of the Texas system are critical to our determination of constitutional invalidity.

And likewise at all times and in all places where a filing fee which many people could not afford to pay has been imposed.

Top 10 Reasons — Media Denied Access to the Gulf Spill

Let’s see, Maybe the NYTimes will help …

Last week, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, tried to bring a small group of journalists with him on a trip he was taking through the gulf on a Coast Guard vessel. Mr. Nelson’s office said the Coast Guard agreed to accommodate the reporters and camera operators. But at about 10 p.m. on the evening before the trip, someone from the Department of Homeland Security’s legislative affairs office called the senator’s office to tell them that no journalists would be allowed.

“They said it was the Department of Homeland Security’s response-wide policy not to allow elected officials and media on the same ‘federal asset,'” said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for the senator.

[…]

Capt. Ron LaBrec, a Coast Guard spokesman, said that about a week into the cleanup response, the Coast Guard started enforcing a policy that prohibits news media from accompanying candidates for public office on visits to government facilities, “to help manage the large number of requests for media embeds and visits by elected officials.”

 

Reason 10) Elected officials and Media on the same ‘federal asset,’ are not allowed.

Reason 9) Easier to manage requests for ‘media embeds’ and visits by elected officials.

Friday Philosophy: Setting some ground rules

Off the top, let me acknowledge that there is disagreement between various factions on the importance of civility.  I hope that I have conveyed that I am in favor of it.  One of the purposes of this diary is to promote some civility, in a philosophical vein.

It may be that in my writing travels, travails, and educational efforts, I may have ignited or sparked the desire of someone else to write about trans issues.  If that has indeed happened, then part of my purpose in life has been served.

But I would be less than observant of the duties that purpose imposes if I did not include the caveats.

Load more