Not that you did, but just in case you did, I’ll share this release from Democratic Party HQ:
Columbia, SC- Today, South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler asked Alvin Greene to withdraw from the race for US Senate. Greene, a resident of Manning S.C., was the apparent winner of the Democratic Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate in yesterday’s primary. Since the election, the Associated Press has revealed that Greene was recently charged with disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity after showing obscene photos to a University of South Carolina student. Fowler released the following statement after her conversation with Greene:
“Today I spoke with Alvin Greene, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the US Senate, and asked him to withdraw from the race. I did not do this lightly, as I believe strongly that the Democratic voters of this state have the right to select our nominee. But this new information about Mr. Greene has would certainly have affected the decisions of many of those voters,” said Fowler.
“We are proud to have nominated a Democratic ticket this year that, with the apparent exception of Mr. Greene, reflects South Carolina’s values. Our candidates want to give this state a new beginning without the drama and irresponsibility of the past 8 years, and the charges against Mr. Greene indicate that he cannot contribute to that new beginning. I hope he will see the wisdom of leaving the race.”
You see, the Democrats are jealous: The Republicans are getting all that free media on “The Daily Show,” and they want some, too…
Related Posts
Reading about Greene confirmed what I think is wrong with our two-prty primaries.
I live in a county that is 100% Democrat in local races. Though I am a Republican, I had to vote in those races, because they are the de facto general election. That left me string at a ballot full of state-wide Democrats I didn’t know. I didn’t vote in any race that I didn’t know the candidate (and I actually tried a little research, mostly to no avail). But I am sure that’s not the case with everyone (including my USC junior daughter).
Greene’s name was listed above Rawl’s on the ballot.
Enough said?
@Greg
If a voter selects a candidate who he doesn’t know, who is at fault?
A voter doesn’t have to select anyone.
Yeah, kind of makes you wonder about this whole Democracy thing, huh?
I mean, come ON, people — I’d never heard of this Greene guy. I didn’t know MUCH about Vic Rawl, beyond the fact that he’s one of my 542 Facebook “friends.”
Now I feel really bad, because I didn’t vote in that race. And that was supremely irresponsible of me. I should have done the research, in spite of the fact that DeMint seems inevitable. I don’t like having DeMint as my senator, and I should at least do my best to decide whom I want going up against him, however slim that candidate’s chances may be.
But I didn’t. I was so mesmerized by the governor’s race, and a couple of others that happened to catch my eye along the way, that I neglected that one. And of course, I hadn’t even decided to vote in the Democratic primary until the last minute.
The problem is, I’m so accustomed to knowing a lot about these candidates in spite of myself, because they all used to come see me for endorsement interviews. I have to learn to do what everybody else does, and DO my research as a citizen and be prepared.
Yeah, kind of makes you wonder about this whole Democracy thing, huh?
What, I should wonder about it because you can’t be bothered to inform yourself?
I knew Vic Rawl was running and I knew why, without even doing any deep research. Frankly I did not know he even had an opponent, but I voted for Rawl, because I’d never heard of Greene but I knew who Rawl was and what he was about.
I can’t believe you didn’t even bother to vote in that race, after all that whining about being “disenfranchised.”
I did some search, but not a whole lot, and based a vote for Rawl more on what friends said about him than on anything I could dig up. Good friends? Sheer luck?
Does anyone else wonder why this came out AFTER the election?
Good question, Maude.
This one supports my theory that high voter turnout is actually a dangerous thing. All through my life, I’ve heard the “get out the vote mantra” before every election. The “experts” chant the familiar, that everyone needs to vote. Given the lack of knowledge of the majority of citizens about the issues and the meaningful qualifications of the candidates, I’d as soon see most people stay away from the polls.
It is true, we have an electorate that has chosen be to ignorant of the platforms that various political figures truly support. Yes, it is also true that so many working folks simply are so exhausted from the end of working 1 or 2 and sometimes 3 different jobs just to keep ends barely meeting by the end of the month that they simply do not have the desire or energy to do anything more to make a difference. So they also make the choice to distance themselves from a political process that they feel they have the inability to participate in.
All the more reason to have various formats in place to reach out to the masses. Do you think that some of the political events which occurred recently occurred because all of the electorate that put people in power were aware of the agenda of those they voted for. Highly unlikely, but rather somehow, some vary aware strategy people came up with a way to connect with certain groups and offer something that the group could connect with. Go to a another group, and connect with that group on a slightly different ideal of like thought.
People want to be in communication with people it is our very nature. A person very much wants to have something to connect with. Help them to be grounded and part of something bigger than themselves.
All the more reason, to have to have a political process, which is in place to provide for the needs of those citizens strong, weak and all in between. Will it be perfect. Highly unlikely. Not on this terra firma. Should we continue to try to involve more to be part of the solution, absolutely yes. And provide opportunities for gatherings to exchange ideas, the encourage thought, thoughts that someone coming from other experiences would not have been able to relate to; without the broad exposure to various individuals.
We people will always choose someone to be a leader, and someone to be a follower and someone to do much of the heavy lifting. The 80 – 20 rule just seems to be the reality in so many things. The political process belongs to us all, all the same. Sometimes we as a people will choose the wrong messenger but one thing is for certain we as a people will also change that messenger when times dictate change is due, sometimes we wait until change is over due.
Once again, all the more reason to a have a political process in place making it possible for the changes to be civil.
Good points, Kristin. One further point– if you are reading this blog, you are, despite Brad’s fortunate success, in the minority and far more interested in politics than the average person.