Alvin Greene Wants to Be Time's "Man of the Year"

AP

Since the South Carolina Democratic primary for the Senate took place earlier this month, it seemed like the only person not talking about Alvin Greene... was Alvin Greene. But Greene broke his silence to Time magazine reporter Michael Scherer in an interview released today.

"I am the best candidate for the United States Senate in South Carolina," Greene told Scherer. "And I am also the best person to be Time magazine's Man of the Year."

Greene also discussed what he hopes to accomplish in his campaign. He said that he wants to focus on three things: jobs, education and "justice in the judicial system." And according to Time, he wants to "curtail long jail sentences, for first-time, non violent crimes."

He continued, "My campaign slogan is 'Let's Get South Carolina Back to Work."

Since his primary election win last week, many have attempted to explain how Greene, an unemployed military veteran who is facing charges of exposing a student to explicit images, managed to defeat Vic Rawl, who was backed by the Democratic Party establishment.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) accused Greene of being a plant and asked the U.S. Attorney General to conduct an investigation.

"I would hope the U.S. Attorney down there would look at this," Clyburn said. "Somebody gave him that $10,000 and he who took it should be investigated, and he who gave it should be investigated."

And State Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler asked Greene to withdraw after the felony charge against him was made public.

But Greene told Time that the heat he was receiving was undeserved.

"What about everyone else's mental state," Greene told Scherer after seeing a Fox News spot questioning his mental health. "It seems like things don't apply to me. I'm the nominee, and 60 percent isn't 60 percent anymore."

South Carolina Democrats are holding a meeting today to decide whether to overturn the results of the election.

[joelankerich]

I have read and seen how the electronic ballots can be manipulated. I don't think it is unwise in a case where an unknown person defies logic with 60% approval to check the results. Anyone who does not want to check for tampering can not be for the truth. This is not the first election where tampering was alleged. Google it. Think for yourself and you might discover something new.

[mmabelle]

It's pretty obvious there was something wrong with the voting machines. It's easy enough to happen - a simple programming error will do it. And when it propagates to all the machines in the system, you get lopsided results.

Is anybody else out there concerned about this?

[gboyd41]

MurdochSucks-point #1, tampered with poll outcomes. How? It would be very interesting to understand by what means this was done. Keep us informed. Point #2, can't disagree that this whiner was not well known before this election, except that he was apparently expected to win the primary by the big dogs. Point #3 It should be made crystal clear that the candidate is not a singer, movie star, talk show host, ect.? Why is that a matter of debate? My point being, do you have to have a reason why a voter selected a paticular candidate? I can think of one reason why millions of voters elected our current administration. Point #4-see point #3. Point #5 Perhaps "shuffle up" the order of candidates? Better yet, perhaps an IQ test for the voters? But, alas, that is illegal. Bottom line-the SC Dems didn't see this coming and are now in a whining mode and will find any excuse to overturn the election results.

[hockeyputz]

akcoyote-

If you want to talk about "elitists", start with low-life Joe Barton of the Repubs in Texas. That man should be sent down to the Gulf to work in the 90 degree heat and spend his time off watching first-hand the suffering of the residents in the area.

Instead- he's crying about how unfair it is that we're asking BP to fork out money to assist in this oil rig disaster. HE APOLOGIZED TO BP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to CNN, he only attempted to backtrack his comments after being hammered to get out there and "clean up his mess".

His apology rang hallow because it only came after immense pressure. The sad thing is how many other Republicans echoed the same sentiments as Mr. Barton and who sympathize with BP, not with those in the Gulf. THAT, akcoyote, is elitism.

As far as Mr. Greene goes, he obviously is seeking fame and fortune. If he stays in the election, once it's over you and I both know that he'll come out with a "tell all' that exposes exactly who it was that stepped up to the plate to get him in this thing. I'll bet anything that the book is already in the works.

[MurdochSucks]

The point is that there is no way that Greene could win the general election. There is fraud going on in the primary system, and it needs to be investigated, exposed, and all guilty parties prosecuted. We cannot have representative democracy without insuring the integrity of our voting system. Greene is using a public defender in his felony case, which means he doesn't have enough money to hire a lawyer, but we are expected to believe he has $10K in the bank from which he wrote a very unorthodox personal check. It is quite obvious that he is a plant from the Republican party, or a prank from a non-partisan party. Since that is the case, we need to investigate and determine, possibly override, the primary outcome. It only makes sense, and anybody denying that is just a Republican making a partisan issue out of this debacle.

[gboyd41]

Alternative hypothesis-SC voters were so thoroughly discussed with the hand picked Democratic Lackey's, which they have been getting year after year, that they would vote for ANYONE else. In my opinion, just as good a hypothesis as yours.

[MurdochSucks]

There are several theories out there:
1) Republicans gave him money to run, and possibly tampered with poll outcomes.
2) Non-partisan group thought it would be funny to get him on the ballot knowing that Rawl wasn't that well known anyway.
3) People that it was Al Greene, the singer.
4) Many African-Americans related with the last name Greene, a predominantly black spelling.
5) Greene came before Rawl on the ballot, and nobody knew who either of them were, so they chose the veteran. This actually could make some sense.

Personally, the fact that he didn't have the means to pay to be on the ballot certainly points to fraudulence. This is evident in the fact that he didn't have money to pay for an attorney to represent him in the felony case. So, if he didn't have the means, then he is not a legitimate candidate (as per the rules that they must pay with their own money). If he is not a legitimate candidate, the voter results must be overturned.

The problem with your ill-conceived hypothesis is that Rawl wasn't a hand-picked Democratic lackey. He was a relative unknown. There would be no reason for any Democratic backlash.

My point is that there should be an investigation into the fraud, and the vote should likely be overturned. It is unfortunate for Rawl that this took place. DeMint is an incumbent, and the Red-staters are all shouting about throwing their incumbents out, so Rawl definitely could have had a chance. Now, even if overturned, his candidacy will have a cloud over it. How convenient for the Republicans. Coincidence? I think not.

[gboyd41]

It appears the Democratic "leaders" of SC are finally showing their true colors. Voting for the candidate of your choice is okay as long as the "right candidate" is elected. When the chosen one does not win then the hardball politics starts-Chicago style! Excuses abound-conspiracy, faulty voting machines, what next? It will be extremely interesting to see if a few Democratic fat cats can effectively squash the will of the people. We will see. If so, what is the use of having elections?

[akcoyote]

This is too funny. The elitist leftists are doing everything in their power to overthrow the results of a duly held election all because the elected candidate doesn't 'think' the same way that THEY do!! And these are the same 'elitists' who call others racists and bigots!! You just can't make up stuff that is this good! ROTFLMFAO!!

[Ni_Hao]

Wah wah wah! Our guy didn't get in so we want to take our toys and go home. What a crock. It appears the "favored" Democrat candidate wasn't so well liked by VOTERS! I don't think any of us care a hoot where is $10k filing fee came from. That's chicken feed in a senate race, and to me, what's the difference between that $10k and lobbyist donors to a different candidate? And one last thing, it's not like he was indicted or convicted for stolen cash in his freezer, or soliciting sex in an airport bathroom - wide stance and all. And unlike current politicians from both Dems and Repubs, no one is challenging this man's actual military service. That looks like a big step in the right direction.