Who IS Alvin Greene, who just won a primary in South Carolina?!!!!

According to the Huffington Post he's "An unemployed military veteran who raised no funds and put up no campaign website (and) shocked South Carolina's Democratic Party leadership by capturing the nomination Tuesday to face Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint in November." Greene didn't squeak by either. He defeated former state Rep. Vic Rawl (D), by a margin of 59% to Rawl's 41%.

Just a couple of issues with Greene's qualifications: according to the Washington Post are an felony obscenity charge facing Greene and the issue of his payment of the $10,440 candidate filing fee despite being unemployed. Another issue may be his acceptance speech which is as follows:

"Hello.

I want to thank the thousands of voting machines that elected me.

I want to thank the ballots for making you think of Lou Rawls and Al Greene, who I liked a lot. As a kid. I think Lou Rawls is dead. Which helped.

Hello.

No.

I look forward to representing the people of South Carolina, wherever they are.

I want to thank God for the envelope with money in it that He sent me, along with the note telling me to run for senator.

And I want to thank all of of you for making all of this and all of me possible. And God.

Okay."

WHAT? Not exactly a stirring or motivational speech huh, South Carolina? Is this what the democratic election process has become? Ignorant voting for the name at the top of the ballot?

Maybe so!

Here's another example published by the Washington Post:

"It happened one month ago in Indiana. Democrats held a low-interest primary for the right to take on Rep. Dan Burton. Everyone in the party backed Nasser Hanna, a professor who raised $110,995 and spent a little less than a third of that. Nobody endorsed Tim Crawford, an unemployed conservative activist who spent no money. Yet Crawford not only won -- he crushed him with 60.9 percent of the vote, a bigger margin than Greene scored in South Carolina. He won every single county.

What happened? Crawford's name was first on the ballot and...."

It's just weird to see people win an election evidently because their name is in a certain position on the ballot. Are we doomed to elect people possibly worse than some of the ones who are already in office?

(Now this REALLY gets subjective. At least I have reasons.)

How about the questionable capabilities of Michele Bachmann (R-MN) who's never uttered an opinion that was anything but nuts. She's about as "off the wall" as they come, or Joe Barton (R-TX) , who apologize to British Petroleum for the "shakedown" they were subjected to by Obama for insisting that they start with a 20 billion escrow fund to pay for their catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf...or Sharron Angle, Republican Senate nominee running against Harry Reid, who is hoping to phase out or privatize Social Security and Medicare. She also evidently wants to eliminate of the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency and proposes that Second Amendment remedies might be necessary if Congress doesn't change its course.

Second Amendment remedies??! Does that mean what I think it does? Good ol' Arizona. Strap on your guns and meet me in the street at high noon. I wonder what Sharron Angle packs?

A Michele Bachmann thought

Wouldn't it be ironic if Michele Bachmann lost her seat in Minnesota because of her advice to everyone to NOT turn in their census form?

Since one of the things the census does is determine how many representatives states are allowed, maybe the people will do what she says, Minnesota will get less representatives and she will be one of her own casualties.

That would be too sweet! :D

Geeez! Ken Starr?

I'm really disappointed in my alma mater, Baylor University, hiring Ken Starr as their president. He has seemed to display quite a deficit in the principles department on many occasions in his past. Even though Baylor seems to have become more and more conservative and fundamental over the years even this appointment surprises me.

There's not much point in elaborating. I think that Ken Starr is the type of guy you either love or dispise. It goes without saying that I would be found in the latter grouping.

A couple of Sarah Palin thoughts: "Balloon Head" is the perfect description. That's not original with me but I wish it had been. Could we find a more popular, nonsensical and uninformed critic of the current administration? Maybe, but it'd be difficult.

Palin says that Obama is promoting a "sit down and shut up" attitude. How can that be when every time I hear him speak he has said 'if any of you have a better idea bring it to me and we'll consider it."

Also, the televised forums with the Republicans and the Democrats appear to be getting more popular and, I think, more often. Before you level your unfounded criticism watch one of them and see what's being sai. You can record it for later but watch them - they're eye openers.

If you don't agree with the Obama administration at least use logic to criticize it...and "Balloon Head," don't criticize a person for using notes and then write your own notes on your hand and use them in a televised interview!

The Supreme Decision

The Supreme Court is America's ultimate and fairest judgmental body and it's decisions are supposed to represent and protect all Americans. It is the final word in justice. Here's my question about that:

How does the Supreme Court's decision to overturn a law that limits corporate spending in candidate elections (that's been in place since Teddy Roosevelt) be representative of justice for American democracy? This recent decision which gives a corporation the same 1st amendment rights as every individual virtually places an election's outcome in the hands of the corporations. (Do you think any corporation has the American people's interest foremost in their business plan?) Now, with their vast financial resources, corporations can place any one they choose in office, period.

How does that protect the one person, one vote democratic idea that was put forth by the founding fathers. It doesn't!

I realize the the Supreme Court is, in reality, a political body and always has been but they're at least supposed to pretend to be in favor of a justice that serves the American people. With this most blatant decision, a 5-4 (Republican) vote in the court, even the pretension of equality for all is gone and there will NEVER be another fair election in America as a result.

Americans, get ready for corporate America to pick your politicians for you going forward. The Supreme Court just greatly diluted the value of your political choice known as a vote. Sit back, relax and wave goodbye to the power of your vote at the polls.

You can read about the decision here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

All the answers

I'm just going to dive right in with a comment and a couple of questions.

The Republicans now have all the right proposals, solutions and answers to health-care reform, the economic stimulation (or not,) the massive loss of jobs, two wars and all the other crises that they either created or allowed to be create by their wealthy constituents during George W. Bush's administration. Where in hell were all these political critics with all their answers during those 8 years of Republican rule? Why weren't they proposing and implementing these ideas if they're SO right for Americans?

Now that we have an administration that is actually trying to accomplish a few goals that benefit a large portion of the American people, the Republicans are "anti-all of it" because "they have better ideas."