Category Archives: Elections

Vic Rawl throws in the towel

This just in from Vic Rawl:

STATEMENT FROM VIC RAWL
A few moments ago, I sent the following letter to my supporters:
Dear Friend:
The last ten days have been extraordinary.
But for me and Laura, it is the months before that are far more important. I cannot express our gratitude for your support during the campaign and in the days since the primary election.
We hold our heads high, and know that the friendship of people like you is far more important in life that the outcome of any election.
I wanted you to hear from me that we will not be appealing last night’s decision by the Democratic Executive Committee to reject our protest of the election results. My campaign for the United States Senate has ended.
The issues we raised about the lack of election integrity in South Carolina are real, and they are not going away unless people act. I assure you that I will continue to speak out about our frail, vulnerable and unverifiable election system in the months to come.
I also feel strongly that the Democratic Party needs major reform of the rules and procedures regarding ballot qualification, protests and many other areas. This is critical to strengthen the Party and make it broadly competitive in our state.
Let me also take a moment to thank our volunteers. They gave selflessly of their time and talent toward making our state better. I also deeply thank my staff, a talented and dedicated group of professionals who were champions both before and after June 8th.
Thank you again for your support – this race was for you.

“We are not Confederates.” See, that was easy

Back on a previous post, Greg Jones said:

On a final note; do any of the German government buildings still fly the Nazi flag?
Just asking.

To which I gladly replied, No, they do NOT, Greg. The Germans decided to draw a line, to say going forward, “We are not Nazis.”

Unfortunately, South Carolina has not yet decided to declare to the world, “We are not Confederates.”

And therein lies the problem.

At this point, the “heritage” crowd will get apoplectic, and scream about how the Confederacy and the war it started is completely different from the Nazis and the war they started, with different causes, different motivations and different kinds of moral culpability.

But the BIGGEST way in which they are different is that the Germans are able to say, “We know our history and will never forget it. But we HAVE learned from it. And we can say unequivocally, that is not what we are about any more.”

And South Carolinians, who should be able to do the same, do not. In fact, the Republicans seeking to become our next governor deliberately, meekly submit themselves to, and do their best to pass, an ideological purity test administered by people who think the exact same conflict over the exact same issues continues today, and who are continuing the struggle.

Senate wasting time on voter ID

While we all wait for the Senate to act on the Sanford vetoes overridden by the House (an override doesn’t stick unless both chambers do it), Mike Fitts reports that they are busy squabbling over a partisan litmus-test issue:

With dozens of vetoes overturned by the House headed to the Senate for consideration, that legislative body was entangled this morning in a Democrat-led filibuster over voter I.D. legislation. Democrats fear the bill would disenfranchise thousands of people, especially the poor, who often do not have drivers’ licenses or easy access to their birth certificates.

Yeah, I know that many people of goodwill on both sides — people I respect — think there is a huge principle involved here, and that the consequences of their losing the fight would be dire. But I remain unpersuaded.

As I’ve written in the past, including one of my very last columns at the paper, I am unpersuaded by both sides. The GOP claims they must stop widespread voter fraud. The Dems claim they are trying to prevent wholesale disenfranchisement. I frankly think any fraud that actually occurs, or people who would even be inconvenienced by voter ID, are few and far between, and not enough to determine the outcome of elections.

But you say, isn’t ONE case of voter fraud an outrage? Isn’t a single person denied the right to vote a sin against democracy?

Look, call me heartless or apathetic, but I take the 30,000-foot view on this. I’m looking at the forest. To me, the staggering numbers of people who vote with NO idea who they are voting for or why is a MUCH greater threat  to democracy than these rare phenomena the two parties are obsessing over.

Doubt me? Well, then, I have two words for you: Alvin Greene.

Nikki and the neo-Confederates

“Nikki and the neo-Confederates”… Hey, THAT could be a name for my band! Kind of Katrina-and-the-Wave-ish. I wonder if Nikki would agree to front us?

Just though y’all might be interested in viewing the video of Nikki Haley and the other candidates seeking the endorsement of a group called “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots.” And who are the “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots” aside from folks with a certain affinity for redundancy? Well, by their agendas ye shall know them. To quote from the group’s “2010 Agenda:”

The Federal government has stolen our liberties and rights and nullified our ability to self govern as a state. It is the obligation of all people of our great state to restore unto ourselves and our children these inalienable rights as set forth in The Constitution of the United States of America.

Mind you, that’s the preamble to their 2010 Agenda, and not their 1860 Agenda. Don’t believe me? Here it is.

You think maybe I’m kidding when I say the GOP this year has spun so far out that the worst thing you can call a Republican candidate, in his estimation, is a “moderate?” All four gubernatorial hopefuls dutifully sat down and earnestly answered this group’s questions. Did they do that for any group that YOU belong to?

I didn’t watch all of it. I couldn’t. But if you want to here’s the link. And here’s the first clip from Nikki’s interview:

What, precisely, was Carol Fowler supposed to do?

Last evening on “Pub Politics” when I was on either my first or second very tall Yuengling (and thanks much to the Kincannon Law Firm for sponsoring the show and springing for the brewskis), we got onto the subject, inevitably, of Alvin Greene.

This, of course, was Thad Viers’ cue to start saying, over and over, “Green-Sheheen… Green Sheheen…” Or was it “Sheheen-Green?” I forget. Seems to me the scansion or something works better the first way…

But the rest of us engaged in trying to answer the kinds of questions that the guy in Paris was asking me this morning: How did this happen? Who was to blame?

One of the guys — probably Wesley, he being the Republican in the host duo — blamed Carol Fowler, Democratic Party chair.

But I protested. What, exactly, was Carol supposed to do? She’s the chair of the Democratic Party (or, as Thad would say, the “Democrat Party”). So is she really supposed to tell a poor black man, No, you can’t run for office?

As it was, she got paternalistic enough to give one pause, if one is inclined to get touchy on behalf of the powerless and clueless. This from Corey Hutchins’ report from BEFORE the primary (the only such enterprise reporting on Greene, when it could have done some good, that I’ve seen):

The candidate, a 32-year-old unemployed black Army veteran named Alvin Greene, walked into the state Democratic Party headquarters in March with a personal check for $10,400. He said he wanted to become South Carolina’s U.S. senator.

Needless to say, Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler was a bit surprised.

Fowler had never met Greene before, she says, and the party isn’t in the habit of taking personal checks from candidates filing for office. She told Greene that he’d have to start a campaign account if he wanted to run. She asked him if he thought it was the best way to invest more than $10,000 if he was unemployed.

How much further was she supposed to push it?

And while the party regulars certainly had a preferred candidate, just how far were they supposed to go in saying, Hey, vote for this white guy we like instead of this black guy we don’t even know? To what extent does an Equal Opportunity party do that?

Maybe there’s something I’m missing. Help me out here.

‘I am not a moderate.’ That just says it all…

First, an apology: I realize it’s unfair to single out this one thing that Gresham Barrett said in his interview with The State. There was a lot of other information in the piece, and I learned things about him I hadn’t known — or had forgotten. I recommend that anyone who plans to vote in next Tuesday’s runoff and is undecided read it.

But I tend to zero in on telling details, and this one really struck me — not for what it says about Gresham Barrett, but for what it tells us about what’s going on in the Tea Party-besieged GOP:

Barrett said he’s been on the receiving end of more attacks, including a Haley TV ad, than any other Republican gubernatorial candidates “My record over the last several months has been distorted. I am not a liberal. I am not a moderate. … Unfortunately, a lot of people have disagreed with my TARP vote and can’t get over it. There’s nothing I can do about that. It is what it is.”

Let’s hear that again:

“I am not a moderate.”

God forbid he should be seen as anything but an extremist. Obviously, he (like pretty much all the Republicans this year) believes that would be political death. Which reminds us why I simply could not see endorsing, or voting for, any of the GOP gubernatorial hopefuls this year — which is a real departure for me.

Now, to highlight some of the good stuff I learned about him from the piece: He remains unafraid to differentiate himself from Mark Sanford, at least in small ways. I knew that he did not hesitate to criticize him in the past. But this year, Republicans all seem to be doing a calculation that goes like this: What’s going on? The voters — at least MY voters, who are usually sensible conservatives — all seem to have lost their minds this year! How can I stay on their good side? What’s my guide? Oh, yeah — Mark Sanford! HIS ideas are totally nuts… since the voters have gone nuts, maybe they’d like it if I act like HIM… and so forth. But Gresham Barrett is saying no to that, at least to some extent.

And that means voters (or at least, those who did not vote in the Democratic primary) have an actual choice next Tuesday. Not that he has a chance, but at least they do have a choice, between an actual conservative Republican, and a Sanfordista who talks about being a conservative (and not so much a Republican).

We’re making one heck of an international impression

It’s just not the sort a sane person would want to make.

As I was getting out of a vehicle to walk to the State House right after lunch today, I got a call on the Blackberry from Paris. Caller ID said the number was … well, there were 11 digits. To summarize the phone call, I quote from the e-mail I found when I got back to the office:

Good Morning M. Warthen,

I am a french journalist, working for a french national private media
called Radio Classique.
I am working today on a story about Alvin Greene and the democrat
candidacy.
It would be very interesting for me to talk to you about that and may be
doing a short interview by phone.
Is it possible ?
It would be great.
May be within two hours or tomorrow morning your time ?

It would be great and very interesting.

thank you very much.

Best regards.

Marc Tedde
Radio Classique

I asked if he also wanted to talk about all the Nikki Haley stuff. He didn’t know about any of that. Just as well.

Just what South Carolina needs.

Anyway, we’re going to do the interview tomorrow morning — afternoon, his time, morning our time. I’m going to let him call me again, rather than vice versa, I assure you.

Truer words than Jake’s never spoken in SC

Well, I’ve gotta hand it to Jake Knotts — he stood up as what he is and spared no words about it: He is a redneck. And he was right to be proud of the supposed ephithet. A farmer suntan is a mark of hard work, something of which a simple kind of man should be quietly proud. Or blusteringly proud, depending on his inclinations.

In saying that, he touched on something — a minor, side issue, really — I tried to explain in my column about why we VERY RELUCTANTLY endorsed him against Mark Sanford’s candidate in 2008. The decision nearly killed Cindi Scoppe from sheer mortification, but there was one silver lining in it for me: I had always felt a tiny bit of middle-class guilt over always being against the rednecks (on video poker, on the lottery, on the Flag, and so on), and sometimes doing it in a way that betrayed class snobbery on my part. I figured, endorse this rough, brutish son of the soil against the Club for Growth snobs just once, and for the next 20 years I wouldn’t have to feel that guilt again. Yes, I’m being a little facetious, but also a little bit serious.

Anyway, you can’t deny (unless you are a Republican Party functionary, in which case you will deny it most vehemently) the truth of what Jake said about the hypocrites of his party, who defend Nikki from his brutishness because she’s their gal, and their likely standard-bearer in the fall. Unlike Henry McMaster, Jake will not humbly join that train; he remains what he is, with all the good and bad that entails.

What is Jake right about?

He’s right when he says that if he’d only called Barack Obama a “raghead,” the Lexington County Republican Party would not have indignantly censured him and sought his resignation. Calling the president a “raghead” would be merely a comical slip, compared to the deliberate demonization of the president through such devices as Henry’s “Vultures” ad. If Jake had only been talking about Obama, it would merely have put him on the ragged edge of what is increasingly his party’s mainstream (as the mainstream is more and more infiltrated by Tea Party extremism). Oh, Carol Fowler would have fired off an indignant statement. The Black Caucus may have drafted a fiery resolution that would have died a lonely death on the House floor. But within the Republican Party, only a deafening silence. The righteous fury we’re hearing is coming from advocates for Katrina Shealy and Nikki Haley. It’s coming from the Sanford wing of the party, which is seeing the chance to achieve what it could not in eight years of holding the governor’s office — seize control of the party.

He’s ABSOLUTELY right when he alludes to the uncomfortable truth about the newly politically correct GOP. It deserves to be carved into granite somewhere over at the State House:

“If all of us rednecks leave the Republican Party, the party is going to have one hell of a void.”

Indeed. Where would the S.C. GOP be without rednecks? In the minority, that’s where. That’s assuming they went back to the Democratic Party where they came from.

I was just over at the State House myself, and fell into conversation with Dwight Drake, and I happened to ask him — now that he’s out of it — how he thinks Vincent-vs.-Nikki contest will shake out.

He said that of course one must start with the obvious — that this is a majority Republican state (actually, a plurality-Republican state, but why quibble?) … which caused me to interrupt him to say, “Which it wouldn’t be if all the rednecks left, as Jake said.” And he readily agreed.

Of course, he would agree, being a Democrat. But if Republicans were totally honest, they would agree, too. There is no question that the balance of power in the South shifted from the Democrats to the Republicans as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace led legions of rednecks to abandon the Democratic Party. No, not everyone who switched parties was a redneck; some were mere pragmatists who saw there was a heap of white people in their districts and if they wanted to be elected, they needed to go with the GOP. But that would not be the case if not for the rednecks. However much of the GOP vote may be thus described — 15 percent, 30 percent, whatever — it’s enough to mean there are more Republicans than Democrats.

And while your more high-minded sort of Republican — the kind who like to imagine themselves as the sort who 50 years ago would have been Republican, when in the South it was not much more than a debating society making up a demographic roughly the same size as the Unitarians (the kind who are feeling SO broad-minded because they may have a nonEuro, something that would excite relatively little comment among Dems) — may protest loudly at the notion, on some operational level, consciously or unconsciously, every Republican with the pragmatic sense to win a primary knows this. Occasionally we see overt manifestations of it, such as in 1994 when the GOP unashamedly boosted their primary turnout by including a mock “referendum” question on the Confederate flag. Or when, having taken over the House as a result of that election, the new majority made it one of its first orders of business to put the flying of the flag a matter of state law, so that no mere governor could take it down.

Lord knows that other pathetic gang the Democrats has enough to be embarrassed over, but this is the big dirty secret of the Republican Party. Huh. Some secret. Everybody knows it.

The Republican Party can talk all it wants to about conservatism and “small government,” yadda-yadda, but we all know that it has political control in these parts because of the rednecks in its ranks. That’s just the way it is.

Two views on the McMaster endorsement

First, we have this release from Nikki Haley:

Friends,

With one week until Election Day, I am proud to welcome my friend Attorney General Henry McMaster to our campaign!  General McMaster was a true gentleman on the campaign trail and I am thrilled to have him join our team.

You can watch General McMaster’s endorsement from this morning here.

Over the past few days, we have seen South Carolinians from all political backgrounds join our movement.  The people are tired of arrogant, unaccountable governance and we are ready to take our government back!  General McMaster’s endorsement is merely a reflection of the support we are seeing from across this state – and I am honored by the trust he has placed in me.

To help us  build on these great successes, please consider contributing to the campaign today.  I can promise you that we are spending campaign contributions wisely.

Thank you for all your hard work on my behalf and I look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail soon!

My very best,

Nikki

Interestingly, that came over the transom (view transom here) AFTER I got this from S.C. Democratic HQ:

SC Dems: McMaster Endorsement Confirms Haley as Establishment Candidate

COLUMBIA- South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler released the following statement today in response to State Attorney General Henry McMaster’s endorsement of GOP gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley.
“It’s no surprise to South Carolinians that Henry McMaster would endorse Nikki Haley today. Mrs. Haley proudly represents the Republican Party establishment in South Carolina. As a devoted student of Mark Sanford’s School of Political Ideology, she would continue to promote the same failed policies and agenda of the Sanford/McMaster administration.  South Carolina voters are tired of the GOP establishment and ready to take our state in a different direction under the leadership of Vincent Sheheen,” said Fowler.
Paid for by the South Carolina Democratic Party – 1.800.841.1817 or www.scdp.org –
and not authorized by any federal candidate or candidate’s committee.

Establishment candidate? Our Nikki? Them’s fightin‘ words!

CREW wants Henry to probe Greene candidacy

“CREW?” Yeah, I had to look it up, too. I learned that it is “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,” which rang a bell, and sure enough, they’re the crowd that not only listed Mark Sanford as one of the worst governors in America, they used his picture to illustrate the concept.

For what that’s worth.

Anyway, now they’re all worked up about Responsibility and Ethics right here in SC, and demanding that Henry McMaster, among others, investigate how in the heck that Alvin Greene guy became the Democrat’s champion against Jim DeMint. Here’s what they say, in part:

Washington, D.C. – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), took two significant actions against the questionable Democratic candidate for South Carolina Senate, Alvin Greene.  In a letter to South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, CREW asked for an investigation into whether Mr. Greene was induced to run for the Senate in violation of South Carolina law.
CREW also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that primary-winner Greene and three other candidates in the June 8, 2010 Democratic primary in South Carolina: Gregory Brown, Ben Frasier and Brian Doyle and their campaign committees, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and FEC regulations by failing to file mandatory disclosure reports prior to the election.
Melanie Sloan, CREW’s Executive Director, said “The people of South Carolina have a right to fair, transparent and fraud-free elections.  Paying candidates to run for office and concealing the sources of campaign funds undermines the integrity of the electoral process and threatens our democracy.”…

Seems kind of overly optimistic to me that Henry would be interested. He’s kind of busy these days knuckling under to the Nikki Haley tidal wave that’s washing the state GOP far, far out into right field (bradwarthen.com, never afraid to mix two overworked metaphors). After the whuppin’ he got last week, he’s now dutifully following in her footsteps.

So that leaves the FEC on its hands and knees looking for that elephant poop Jim Clyburn’s talking about.

Man up, lawmakers: Override those vetoes

Little left to say, except it’s time for lawmakers of both parties in the House to set aside all the B.S., lay down their insecurities, eschew their customary fecklessness, man up and veto those indefensible vetoes. I’m talking about this veto and this one and this one and most of the others.

I’ve really had it with the argument from the GOP leadership that they just have to sustain most of these vetoes. Kenny denied it the other night when I asked whether Nikki Haley’s strong showing last week had scared the leadership into thinking they have to go along with the Sanford nihilists, even though they’ve slapped him down every other time (even when he had a case, which he doesn’t this time). But I’m convinced that’s the only logical reason to explain this fear to do the right thing. Cindi thinks so, too. And Cindi knows WAY more about the budget process than I do. You’ll note that she gives the governor credit where he deserves it, on fairly marginal issues that don’t involve much money (Cindi has always been much more inclined than I am to reach WAY out to try to find some things to give the governor credit on), but she concludes with this cold bath of common sense:

Most insidious is his repeated implication that by vetoing what he considers frills, he will cause the money to be spent on “core services” of government. Now, I’ll be the first to agree that, as he puts it, “the vast majority of this year’s budget should be directed to core government functions like public safety, education, and health care.” But the facts are that 1) that already is happening and 2) his vetoes do not redirect money from “frills” to “core services”; they simply allow the money to sit in the bank for a year.

I have long believed that the Legislature needs to either increase taxes or else eliminate some programs or agencies altogether (and probably eliminate some even if it does raise taxes). But that’s a decision that needs to be made in an orderly way, by a clear majority in the Legislature — not by a disgraced lame-duck governor with an ax to grind and a third of the members of the House. And perhaps not even by a Legislature that is too frightened of its own shadow to make rational decisions about the responsibilities that come with insisting on operating the government. If lawmakers can’t override most of the governor’s vetoes this week, perhaps they should make arrangements to come back to town later this summer, when emotions have settled down, to consider taking some of the money Mr. Sanford wants to squirrel away and using it to patch critical holes that he has created.

And as for you Democrats: I was much reassured by James Smith telling me yesterday that the Dems would override (with the caveat that while that was the leadership position, Dems don’t do bloc voting), but then I read the paraphrase of Joe Neal in the paper this morning saying Democrats have not decided how they will handle Sanford’s vetoes today and I wonder: Will they stick it out and do the right thing? (And you know what? This is one case in which we actually NEED the Dems to vote as a bloc, because that might embolden the jittery mainstream Republicans.)

If they don’t, and if the Republicans (minus the Sanford loyalists) don’t, then on the whole they are useless.

Fun Post IV: Jon Stewart’s latest on SC

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Alvin Greene Wins South Carolina Primary
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I say it’s a “Fun Post,” but you know what — the fun of being mocked by “The Daily Show” is starting to wear thin. Even Jon Stewart, so charmed by us last week, seems to be getting sick of all the absurdity here in what he terms “America’s whoopie cushion, South Carolina.” There was an edge to his delivery last night — as when he said, “Only South Carolina can take a silk purse and turn it into a sow’s anus” — that seemed to say, “Enough already with you people!”

Shadd endorses Meadors as 5th circuit solicitor

If I were my former paper, I suppose I’d have an “EXCLUSIVE” tag on this…

John Meadors tells me that at 4 p.m. today, third-place finisher James Shadd will endorse him for the Democratic nomination for 5th Circuit solicitor.

This is a big boost for Meadors, who trailed top vote-getter Dan Johnson badly last Tuesday, 43 percent to 30 percent. I say “trailed badly,” but those numbers still put Meadors within comeback range, especially if Shadd can deliver a significant portion of his 7,692 votes (27 percent).

Complicating this calculation — and making any chunk of voters who can be induced to come out particularly significant — is the expected low turnout for the runoff next Tuesday. Think about it — Republicans still have a governor’s race to settle, not to mention attorney general and Gov Lite and superintendent of education. Whereas Vincent Sheheen’s big win took away most of the motivation for Democrats to turn out again.

So basically, in this race, anything could happen next week.

Bolchoz endorses Wilson for attorney general

While I was at Rotary at 1 p.m. today, Robert Bolchoz endorsed Alan Wilson for the Republican nomination for state attorney general.

So if you’re Leighton Lord, you’re worried right about now. You would have barely trailed Wilson in the vote last Tuesday, 39 percent to 37. The question becomes, how much of his 24 percent can Bolchoz deliver?

I don’t know. We’ll see. More on this race later. I’m trying to get some face time with the two remaining candidates.

Vic Rawl files protest of Alvin Greene’s win

Photo of Vic Rawl from his Facebook page. I mean, I THINK it's Vic Rawl. It's HIS Facebook page so it's gotta be him, right?...

Vic Rawl had a press conference down in Charleston today — yeah, like I’ve got time to run down to Charleston — to announce that his erstwhile campaign has filed an official protest of his bizarre defeat by Alvin Greene in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Here’s his statement:

STATEMENT OF JUDGE VIC RAWL
June 14, 2010
Good afternoon, and thank you all for coming.
Earlier today, our campaign filed a protest of last Tuesday’s election results with the South Carolina Democratic Party.
We have filed this protest not for my personal or political gain, but on behalf of the people of South Carolina.
There is a cloud over Tuesday’s election. There is a cloud over South Carolina, that affects all of our people, Democrats and Republicans, white and African-American alike.
At this point, the people of our state do not have the basic confidence that their vote will be counted.
The strange circumstances surrounding Tuesday’s vote require a thorough investigation. For better or worse, this protest process is the only platform currently available for that investigation.
And let me be clear: regardless of the outcome of this protest, a full and unblinking investigation of this election and the overall integrity of South Carolina’s election system must go forward. Whether our protest is upheld or not, I intend to bring my full energies to electoral reform well into the future.
I want to speak briefly about the bases for our protest.
First is ongoing analyses of the election returns themselves, which indicate irregularities.
Second are the many voters and poll workers who continue to contact us with their stories of extremely unusual incidents while trying to vote and administer this election.
These range from voters who repeatedly pressed the screen for me only to have the other candidate’s name appear, to poll workers who had to change program cards multiple times, to at least one voter in the Republican primary who had the Democratic U.S. Senate race appear on her ballot.
For those who experienced problems voting, I urge you to go to our website, www.vicrawl.com and use the form there to report them. You can also call our Election Integrity Hotline at 843-278-0510.
Third is the well-documented unreliability and unverifiability of the voting machines used in South Carolina.
It is worth noting that these machines were purchased surplus from Louisiana after that state outlawed them.
The full details of our protest will be presented on Thursday.
For the people of South Carolina, getting to the bottom of Tuesday’s results will build confidence, either way.
I also hope that a full and frank discussion of our voting system will result in substantial reform.
At the risk of repetition, this protest is not about me, or my personal political fortunes. Indeed, if the protest is upheld and a new election ordered, I have not decided whether to run in it.
But, either way, I am not done with the issue of fixing our elections.
Lastly, let me make something clear. Like all of you, I am aware of the controversies surrounding Mr. Greene. This protest is not about him either.
I would like to speak directly to Mr. Greene and say: “Sir, this is not about you, and it’s not about me. I wish you and your family nothing but the best in the weeks and months ahead.”
I will be happy to take questions.

Yeah, I’ve got a question, which I would ask if I were indeed in Charleston: What’s YOUR explanation for how this happened? You keep saying it’s not about you, but isn’t it, to some extent? Don’t you share some of the blame? I mean, I admit that I share some blame, for not voting in that race. But maybe if you’d been a little more visible, I would have voted for you. Maybe.

Anyway, we’d all like to get to the bottom of this. So protest away, by all means.

Vic Rawl and the pros from Dover

I read in the paper this morning that the stunned Vic Rawl did not wish to comment yesterday.

But he was sending out this press release:

Statement by the Vic Rawl for US Senate Campaign

“South Carolinians would rather be 100% right than 90% uncertain.”

As we stated yesterday, our campaign began examining election data on early Wednesday morning. Over the course of the next 24 hours, our staff found several results that seemed unusual to us. We stress that, then and now, we very much hope that Tuesday’s primary was conducted fairly and that nothing untoward happened.

Expert Data Analysis

No one on our staff is a statistics expert or mathematician. As the unusual information began to accumulate, several unconnected people and teams who are far more expert in election forensics than our staff contacted the campaign and volunteered to look at results from Tuesday’s primary.

One of the teams was Dr. Walter Mebane of the University of Michigan and Dr. Michael Miller of Cornell University. Dr. Mebane is a professor of political science and statistics and a recognized expert in detecting election fraud. As of August 2010, Dr. Miller will be professor of political science at the University of Illinois, Springfield, and specializes in the analysis of election data.  Neither is affiliated with the Rawl campaign.

Dr. Mebane performed second-digit Benford’s law tests on the precinct returns from the Senate race.  The test compares the second digit of actual precinct vote totals to a known numeric distribution of data that results from election returns collected under normal conditions.  If votes are added or subtracted from a candidate’s total, possibly due to error or fraud, Mebane’s test will detect a deviation from this distribution.

Results from Mebane’s test showed that Rawl’s Election Day vote totals depart from the expected distribution at 90% confidence.  In other words, the observed vote pattern for Rawl could be expected to occur only about 10% of the time by chance.  “The results may reflect corrupted vote counts, but they may also reflect the way turnout in the election covaried with the geographic distribution of the candidates’ support,” Mebane said.

Dr. Miller performed additional tests to determine whether there was a significant difference in the percentage of absentee and Election Day votes that each candidate received.  The result in the Senate election is highly statistically significant: Rawl performs 11 percentage points better among absentee voters than he does among Election Day voters.  “This difference is a clear contrast to the other races.  Statistically speaking, the only other Democratic candidate who performed differently among the two voter groups was Robert Ford, who did better on Election Day than among absentees in the gubernatorial primary,” Miller said.

These findings concern the campaign, and should concern all of South Carolina. We do not know that anything was done by anyone to tamper with Tuesday’s election, or whether there may have been innocuous machine malfunctions, and we are promoting no theories about either possibility.

However, we do feel that further investigation is warranted.

Voting Machine Examination

With that in mind, another expert volunteer traveled today to the SC State Board of Elections in Columbia to conduct an examination of selected voting machines that were employed in Tuesday’s election. When we have the results, if any, of that examination, we will release them immediately.

Gathering of Anecdotal Accounts

While we believe, and urge others to note that “the plural of anecdote is not data,” our campaign is receiving calls and e-mails from people – voters and poll workers – who experienced significant problems with voting for whom they intended. We are looking into these reports and will release any information we find.

Judge Rawl and the campaign stress again that no one knows exactly what happened on Election Day. South Carolinians would rather be 100% right than 90% uncertain.

Well, of course, I said that all along. On the morning after the shocking vote, I was shouting, “Why doesn’t someone do a second-digit Benford’s law test? I mean, come ON!”

Sure I was. You just weren’t listening.

“Where Have All the Reporters Gone?” Duh…

Doug T., back on this thread, kindly brings our attention to a piece by Walter Shapiro on Politics Daily headlined “Nikki Haley and Rand Paul Races: Where Have All the Reporters Gone?” An excerpt:

On the cusp of her historic landslide victory in the South Carolina GOP gubernatorial primary, Nikki Haley swooped into Hartsville last Saturday afternoon. More than 100 Tea Party activists waited in the scorching heat for the Indian-American state legislator, who had fought off two public but totally unproven accusations of adulteryand survived a Republican state senator castigating her as a “raghead.”

It was the perfect political scene to cap the weekend’s campaign coverage less than 72 hours before the state’s most raucous, riveting and, at times, repugnant gubernatorial primary in decades. Hartsville (population: 7,465) may be a small town in the Pee Dee region, but it is just 70 miles northeast of the state capital (and media center) in Columbia. But still there was one thing missing from the picturesque scene — any South Carolina newspaper, wire service, TV or radio reporters.

What we are witnessing in this election cycle is the slow death of traditional statewide campaign journalism. I noticed the same pattern (and the same nearly reporter-free campaign trail) in Kentucky last month as I covered libertarian Rand Paul’s decisive defeat of the state Republican establishment in the GOP Senate primary. Aside from an occasional AP reporter, virtually the only print journalists whom I encountered at campaign events were my national press-pack colleagues from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico and the Atlantic Monthly.

Newspapers like the Louisville Courier-Journal and The State, South Carolina’s largest paper, have dramatically de-emphasized in-depth candidate coverage because they are too short-handed to spare the reporters. A survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) found that newsroom staffs across the country have declined by 25 percent since 2001.

Actually, those numbers underestimate the problem. At the start of the decade I had essentially 8 full-time people in the editorial department (actually 7, but I had a part-timer whom I could work full-time in a pinch without getting into trouble with the bean-counters). There are now two full-timers, folded into the newsroom. As for the newsroom — a separate department on a separate floor reporting separately to the publisher (although that separation exists no longer) — I cannot speak with any accuracy. But it’s easily more than 25 percent.

And near as I can tell, that’s pretty typical of the business. The people left are busting their humps, but can only do so much. So it is when the business model underwriting an industry evaporates.

And we see the effects daily. Our democracy is suffering from a lack of anyone to play the Fourth Estate’s traditional role. Yeah, you can get interesting stuff here and there from enterprising independents who go were the MSM reporters ain’t (which isn’t hard). But you don’t get wall-to-wall coverage, you don’t get “newspaper of record” coverage that lets you in on the totality of what’s going on.

I should add that when Shapiro writes of the “slow death of traditional statewide campaign journalism,” it’s actually been much slower, much more gradual, than he describes.

When I was a reporter (oh, jeez, here we go; the old guy’s gonna tell us again how much better it was in the olden days), we actually had something that you could call “statewide campaign journalism.” I cut my teeth on state politics in 1978 in Tennessee covering the gubernatorial contest between Lamar Alexander and Jake Butcher. I was working at The Jackson Sun, a 37,000-circulation p.m. daily. For the last month of that general election, we had somebody with each of those candidates all day every day, traveling with them across the state, riding on the campaign plane and in the cars with them (and reimbursing the campaign on a pro rata basis). We went everywhere with them; we shared their meals. The only breaks they got from us was when they were sleeping, and we probably would have watched them then, too, but we had to write sometime. A typical workday ran about 20 hours. Your metabolism adjusted. Then, of course, we’d call in new ledes for our stories on the run. No cell phones, of course — you’d go to a phone booth, call the city desk and dictate the new lede — based on the latest thing the candidate had said or done — off the tops of our heads. (This, of course, required skills now extinct.)

This was an unusual level of coverage, even then, for a paper that small (how small? Think Florence Morning News). I remember a reporter from the Tennessean once saying — condescendingly, but I think he was trying to be nice —  that the Sun was the “little paper that did things in a big way.” But it was fairly typical for the big paper out of Nashville and Memphis.

By the time I arrived at The State in 1987 the standard of coverage across the country had diminished considerably. But still, we had the horses to cover most of major candidates’ important appearances. We didn’t get them with their hair down as much as we had a decade earlier, but the coverage was still pretty good. And if we ran short of political reporters, we had a deep bench. For instance, in 1988 I pulled Jeff Miller in from the Newberry bureau to be the lead day-to-day reporter for the GOP presidential primary, so that the State House reporters didn’t have to take their eyes off the State House. Today, there is no Newberry bureau — and no Camden, Sumter, Florence, Orangeburg or Beaufort bureaus either. The last of them closed in the early 90s.

Nowadays, reporters will catch a big campaign event if it’s in town, or if it’s big enough run to Greenville or Charleston for a high-stakes debate. But sticking to a candidate one-on-one throughout the campaign? No way. In fact, some of today’s few remaining reporters weren’t even alive back when we did that.

But yeah, the big cuts have happened in the past decade. Things started out bad for the industry in the first six years (killing off Knight Ridder, which used to own The State), then got dramatically worse starting in the summer of 2006, with the bottom falling out of what was left in September 2008.

So no, you shouldn’t be surprised if the South Carolina MSM is missing from a campaign rally in Florence. Or from the Alvin Greene story. Or from comprehensive coverage of the battle over the state budget. This is the way things are now. The army’s largely been disbanded, forcing a lot of us to go guerrilla. You’ll get coverage, and sometimes it will be inspired and even in-depth, but it will be spotty.

Maybe they thought they were voting for the Rev. Al Green

That’s my latest theory to explain the victory of Alvin Greene in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.  They thought he was Al Green. (Never mind that this is South Carolina and Al’s from Memphis; just indulge me for a moment — I’m on a roll here.)

And if that’s what those voters were thinking, well then, who can blame them? Certainly not I.

A few days ago, I was listening to Pandora while blogging, and had to stop what I was doing to listen fully to an awesome track by the Rev. Al. It was an unlikely song to be so awesome. It was “How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?” Yep, the Bee Gees tune.

Now, I feel about the Bee Gees sort of the way Rob in High Fidelity (my very favorite book of the last 15 years, which I know I mention all the frickin’ time)  felt about Peter Frampton. (In fact, I feel more that way about Peter Frampton than I do about the Bee Gees, because some of their pre-disco stuff was good. But their disco sins are difficult to forgive.) If you haven’t read the book, you may remember the scene in the movie. Rob and Dick and Barry go to hear this new singer in a club, and as Rob enters, he hears the strains of “Baby I Love Your Way,” and grimaces, “Is that Peter F___ing Frampton?” and almost leaves. But he listens, and is so enchanted with what the singer does with the song, that he says to Dick and Barry, “I always hated this song,” and they moan a sympathetic, “Yeahhhh…” and then he confesses, “Now I kind of like it…” and they moan, “Yeahhhh…” (Here’s the scene, by the way.)

OK, so sexual attraction was also involved there. But I know that with Rob’s highly refined pop music sensibilities, he would also have been blown away by Al Green doing that Bee Gees tune. It was amazing.

Where was I? Oh, yes… so if that was why folks voted for Alvin Greene, all is forgiven.

But only in a real emergency, mind you…

Thanks to Jack Kuenzie for bringing our attention to this via Twitter:

Andre Bauer, describing himself on his FB page: “The only candidate who will tell the truth when need be.” Perhaps not the best wording. 1:21 PM Jun 9th via web

And sure enough, there it is, right where Jack said. The entire blurb:

From the honks to the road side chats our people are determined to vote for the real conservative in race for governor.The only candidate to give back his paycheck.The only candidate who runs his own business.The only candidate who has experience marketing South Carolina to business leaders across the world.The only candidate who will tell the truth when need be.

He means it, too. When the chips are down and all other options have been exhausted, ol’ Andre will flat tell you some truth, and take a polygraph to prove the amazing feat.

I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Huck Finn, which I long ago used in a column about Bill Clinton:

So I went to studying it out. I says to myself, I reckon a body that ups and tells the truth when he is in a tight place is taking considerable many resks, though I ain’t had no experience, and can’t say for certain; but it looks so to me, anyway; and yet here’s a case where I’m blest if it don’t look to me like the truth is better and actuly SAFER than a lie. I must lay it by in my mind, and think it over some time or other, it’s so kind of strange and unregular. I never see nothing like it. Well, I says to myself at last, I’m a-going to chance it; I’ll up and tell the truth this time, though it does seem most like setting down on a kag of powder and touching it off just to see where you’ll go to.
Ol’ Huck had a finely developed moral sense, and could tell when it was time to do something as outrageous and “unregular” as tell the truth. And ol’ Andre’s making sure that we know that if and when the need arises, he can do the same.

Free Times story on Greene BEFORE the vote

Corey Hutchins over at the Free Times brings my attention to his story about Alvin Greene, posted this afternoon:

…State party executive director Jay Parmley looked like he’d bitten down on a joy buzzer as he sat in the chair of his office, scrolling up and down the precinct reports on his computer monitor shaking his head, cursing under his breath, wondering why, why, why; how, how, how?
In the race for United States Senate, political unknown Alvin M. Greene had walloped challenger Vic Rawl.
Around the state, Democratic activists were facing the smacking electoral truth that a non-campaigning, unemployed, black, country-living, coo-coo-for-Cocoa-Puffs nobody who’d been kicked out of the Army and was currently facing federal sex charges had just beaten — in the Democratic primary, and by 17 percentage points — a well-known former legislator, judge and current Charleston County councilman who’d raised a quarter of a million bucks for the race and for months been campaigning his ass off.
The news wasn’t sinking in as much as it was settling like a depth charge….

But I wasn’t nearly as impressed by that as I was by the fact that Corey had done a reasonably complete story on Greene well before Tuesday’s vote. An excerpt from that May 19 piece:

At the end of a dirt driveway off a dusty highway in rural Clarendon County, just outside the town of Manning, a lawn overgrown with weeds sports no campaign sign for the man living in a house there who has filed to run as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate.

The candidate, a 32-year-old unemployed black Army veteran named Alvin Greene, walked into the state Democratic Party headquarters in March with a personal check for $10,400. He said he wanted to become South Carolina’s U.S. senator.

Needless to say, Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler was a bit surprised.

Fowler had never met Greene before, she says, and the party isn’t in the habit of taking personal checks from candidates filing for office. She told Greene that he’d have to start a campaign account if he wanted to run. She asked him if he thought it was the best way to invest more than $10,000 if he was unemployed.

Several hours later, Greene came back with a campaign check. The party accepted it, and Greene became an official candidate for the U.S. Senate. He was eager to have his picture put on the party’s website to show he had filed, says state Democratic Party executive director Jay Parmley.

And Corey was asking Greene himself some of the questions that should have been asked:

Reached by phone May 12, and asked how he thought his campaign was going, Greene said, “So far, so good.”

Asked when he planned to file with the FEC, he replied, “OK, yeah, so what do you need? What are you trying to get from me, now? I’m in a hurry.”

Greene says he decided to run for the United States Senate two years ago when he was serving in Korea.

As for the $10,400 he used to get on the ballot, Greene says it was money he’d made from being a soldier.

“That was my personal pay,” he says. “Money out of my pocket.”

Parmley says he finds the whole thing odd.

He says running for any other office in the state would cost much less money. “If you’re going to file for something and not do anything, why waste $10,000?”

Even then, ahead of time, Corey was raising the Republican conspiracy theory, rightly or wrongly:

Greene’s curious candidacy raises the question that something else might be going on.

Republican place markers in Palmetto State Democratic primaries are campaign legend.

In the early ‘90s, a Republican strategist was prosecuted and forced to pay a fine when he was found to have coaxed an unemployed black fisherman into running in a primary race to increase white turnout at the polls in a Lowcountry congressional race. The political operative paid the man’s filing fee.

Greene says he’s never heard of such a thing. He says he just really wanted to run.

Regardless of how or why he got into the race, his candidacy has certainly created some political intrigue.

Good enterprise, young man. Too bad more of us didn’t read it at the time.