enlarge

Credit: Charleston Place Hotel

The hotel has sued the SRLC and its signatory, South Carolina political operative Robert C. Cahaly over the money dispute. The Charleston City Paper wrote a long feature about the issue.

In its federal complaint, the hotel says in March it originally entered into an agreement for the booking which ran from Thurs. Jan. 19 through Sun. Jan. 22. South Carolina political operative Robert C. Cahaly, who is named as co-defendant in the lawsuit, served as the group's signatory. The contract was amended on Dec. 20, 2011.

In the complaint filed in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, the hotel says it has come to believe that the SRLC "was grossly undercapitalized, failed to observe corporate formalities, was insolvent, and was mere[ly] used as a façade for the operations of the defendant Cahaly." In addition it says, "Cahaly, an individual businessman, has sought to hide from the normal consequences of carefree entrepenuring by doing so through a corporate shell.

"Due to their incompetence, the defendants failed to properly plan or manage the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, and it was poorly attended," the hotel says. "The conference was so poorly attended as to cause one Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, to cancel his appearance.

"Poor attendance caused many of the conference sponsors to leave the conference," it continues. "Poor attendance left the defendants responsible for a significant payment to the plaintiff under the terms of the contract."

The article continues by saying, "at 3:01 p.m., the time when the defendants were due to check out of the hotel, the defendants emailed [hotel] management and cancelled the meeting at which they were supposed to settle the bill." In the email, the SRLC allegedly accused the hotel of difficulties with refunds or adjustments, poor overall treatment and a hotel manager instructing an SRLC staffer to engage in illegal activity, according to the City Paper article.

Sounds more like bitterness over the poor attendance of their conference than mismanagement by the hotel.

Continue reading »

[Washington D.C. – Members of Congress became involved in the Occupy discussion Tuesday as Republican leaders of the House Oversight Committee held a hearing to discover why camping has been allowed at Occupy D.C., McPherson Square.

The hearing room was filled to capacity with a mix of occupiers, media, curious staff members and police officers. The two-hour hearing ranged from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) calling the whole thing “baffling” to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a self-proclaimed “old country prosecutor” saying “the battle for this republic is going to unravel if the law… is not enforced.”

The law he was referring to is the ban on camping in some national parks. Gowdy grilled Jonathan Jarvis, the director of the National Park Service on the definition of camping.

Jarvis said it was the act of sleeping or preparing to sleep. Given that definition, Gowdy pressed on by asking why the Park Service hadn’t enforced that law.

Jarvis, who has been NPS director since 2009 and was participating in his first Congressional hearing, said they were using discretion with the unique protest. He told the Republican that the protest was a 24-hour-vigil and that absent an emergency or threat to public health or safety “they must be able to continue their vigil.” He did say that the Park Service would begin enforcing camping regulations there “very soon,” meaning that protesters may be given citations or arrested for sleeping in the park.

Timothy Zick, a law professor from William and Mary, agreed with Jarvis. He told the committee that this protest is different in that it seeks to occupy as part of its First Amendment message.

“No permit is required for a demonstration of this size, and no time requirement,” said Zick, “The agency is in compliance with regulations.”

Lurking in the background of the hearing was Rep. Darrell Issa, the Oversight Committee chairman, who fired the first shots in this debate. In December, he ordered a full investigation into Occupy D.C. McPherson after a group of three hunger strikers affiliated with the movement came to his office asking that D.C. representatives be given the right to vote in the federal government.

He was in top form at the hearing, with his hair slicked and his arrogance on full display. At one point, Congressman Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said “normally I would like to thank the chair for holding this investigation…” but that the tone was on the wrong track and Issa interrupted to say “you’re welcome." Later, he interrupted D.C.’s non-voting representative Eleanor Holmes-Norton as she lamented the fact that no one from Occupy D.C. was invited to speak on their behalf.

“This is not a country where we talk about people and don’t invite them to defend themselves…” said Norton just before Issa cut in to tell her this hearing was intended to be what would happen with the next set of protesters.

Sam Jewler, an Occupy D.C. protester, said the group had tried to contact every member of the Subcommittee on Health and D.C. in order to put forth a witness for the hearing, but no one responded. Instead him and other supporters had to watch silently as they were talked about at one of the highest levels of government.

“We were not allowed to practice our right to free speech at this hearing,” said Jewler.

Continue reading »

enlarge

Via the Washington Post:

Across South Carolina on Saturday, voters had said they liked Gingrich’s aggression in debates — believing it would make him the best Republican to take on President Obama in the fall.

“I think Mitt Romney is a good man,” said Harold Wade, 85, leaving a polling place in this picturesque seaside suburb outside Charleston. “But I think we’ve reached a point where we need someone who’s mean.”

That was Gingrich, he said.

“What we need is someone who’s got some brains,” Wade said, explaining his vote for the former speaker. “And we need someone with some guts.”

In the spirit of Newtie, Rick Santorum's honorary Florida chairman said "Gays make God want to vomit," on Sunday, and another Santorum religious fanatic pastor supporter trashed Mormons at a Santorum rally calling them racist. This may not be untrue, but I'm fairly certain Rick Santorum isn't exactly an open-minded, "love everyone" kind of guy either.

Bottom line? Mr. Wade is going to get his wish. I predict that all candidates' gloves will be off. No more Mr. Nice Mitt. No more meek Ricky. Newtie will swagger onto Monday's debate stage wearing everything but the white hood.

They want mean? I think they're about to get it.

DOWNLOADS: (115)

PLAYS: (441)

Embed

Mitt Romney made twin revelations on taxes during last night's GOP debate in South Carolina. First, after previously claiming "I don't put out which tooth paste I use either," Romney suggested he might release his tax returns in April after clinching the Republican nomination. (On Tuesday, Mitt pointed to the source of his cowardice, admitting he "probably" pays only 15 percent on the millions he still earns annually from Bain Capital.) But perhaps more shocking was Romney's casual call for a top income tax rate of 25 percent. That not only contradicts his much-hyped 59-point, 162 page economic plan, but would deliver yet another massive, budget-busting windfall for the wealthy more than twice the size of the Bush tax cuts they already received.

On January 1, 2013, the top income tax rate is scheduled to return from its current 35 percent to the pre-Bush level of 39.6 percent. Romney had proposed extending the 35 percent rate for the top two percent of taxpayers (including those who like himself are among the richest 3,140 Americans). In comparison, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich have called for slashing gilded-class tax rates to 28, 20 and 15 percent, respectively. But when Fox New host Bret Baier asked the candidates "What is the highest federal income tax any American should have to pay," Mitt apparently panicked that his payday for the upper crust was too small:

ROMNEY: I would like 25 percent, but right now it's at 35, so people better pay what is legally required. But ultimately let's get it down to as low as we possibly can, if it's 20, if it's 25 but paying more than 25 percent, I think, is taking too much out of our pockets.

BAIER: So the highest you had was 35?

ROMNEY: Well, that's what the law is right now, but 25 is where I would like to see us go.

Of course, that's not what Romney's economic plan says.

Earlier this month, McClatchy reported that "Romney tax plan would most benefit wealthy." The Center for American Progress explained just how much. While "Romney's plan also gives nearly 60 percent of its benefit to the richest 1 percent of Americans," Mitt's tax cuts for millionaires are "nearly twice the size of those from George W. Bush." And that was before Mitt Romney's spontaneous outburst Monday that he would really like a top rate of 25 and not 35 percent.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (517)

PLAYS: (383)

Embed

During Monday night's South Carolina Republican debate, Rick Santorum told the audience what they wanted to hear about poverty -- that if you're poor in America, it's your own damn fault.

WILLIAMS: Senator Santorum, the Obama administration has not specifically addressed high levels of joblessness and a 25 percent poverty rate in black America. They say they want to fix the economy for all, but given the crisis situation among a group of historically disadvantaged Americans, do you feel the time has come to take special steps to deal with the extraordinary level of poverty afflicting one race of America?

SANTORUM: It’s very interesting, if you look at a study that was done by the Brookings Institute back in 2009, they determined that if Americans do three things, they can avoid poverty. Three things. Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children. Those three things…
(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Those three things, if you do, according to Brookings, results in only 2 percent of people who do all those things ending up in poverty, and 77 percent above the national average in income.

After which, he might as well have added: "USA! USA! USA!"

Yes. The Brookings paper did include that about poverty. But it also included discussions of the following:

• The extent of mobility --- both within and across generations --- in American society and how it compares to other countries. [Note: it compares very poorly.]
• What has been happening to middle class families in the U.S. in recent decades and the politics of assisting the poor when the middle class itself is foundering.
• The concentration of income and wealth at the very top of the distribution.

Easy to see why Santorum left this stuff out. Since he's laughably claimed that there are no classes in America, he absolutely doesn't want to touch any of this with a ten-foot pole -- especially the last point, since to Republicans, the concentration of wealth at the top is a feature, not a bug.

But I wish Williams would've asked Santorum two simple follow-up questions: why did poverty increase when Republicans were running the country during the 2000s--and why are the most conservative states also the poorest?

enlarge

Credit: Blue Gal

Yet another debate, this one hosted and livestreamed at Fox News. Drinking game suggestions taken below, plus share what you see, and if anyone Tebows on the stage, I'm turning it off.

Debate Open Thread below....

Evidently Eric Holder was not just speechifying when he said the Department of Justice would be looking at Voter ID laws. Last week, South Carolina's draconian and racist Voter ID law discriminates against minority voters.

Via the Washington Post:

In its first decision on the laws, Justice’s Civil Rights Division said South Carolina’s statute is discriminatory because its registered minority voters are nearly 20 percent more likely than whites to lack a state-issued photo ID. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is one of a number of states that are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” on voting changes to ensure that they don’t hurt minorities’ political power.

“The absolute number of minority citizens whose exercise of the franchise could be adversely affected by the proposed requirements runs into the tens of thousands,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said in a letter to South Carolina officials.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) called the decision “outrageous” and said she plans to seek “every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights.”

Awww, Nikki haz a sad. That's too bad, but the South Carolina laws were incredibly draconian, and even when they were challenged, the data they provided to the DOJ excluded over 200,000 voters.

Republican motto: If you can't win elections, steal them.

Via Dave Weigel:

On Monday, a South Carolina Democratic consultant named Tyler Jones took a camera down to the Columbia, S.C. Tea Party rally that Michele Bachmann and Nikki Haley both spoke at.

"I interviewed around 25 people total and probably 75 percent of them said they were supporting Donald Trump," says Jones, "and just about every single person is a birther. I took two hours of footage and chopped it down to six minutes of mind-blowing stuff."

There is nothing I could possibly say that isn't said for me with this video. Yikes. That is all.

[h/t Daily Dish]

South Carolina Senate candidate Alvin Greene has been indicted on obscenity charges.

Washington Post:

Longshot U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene was indicted Friday on two charges, including a felony charge of showing pornography to a South Carolina college student.

A Richland County grand jury indicted Green for disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity - a felony - as well as a misdemeanor charge of communicating obscene materials to a person without consent.

Greene, who surprised the Democratic party establishment with his primary victory, was arrested in November after authorities said he approached a student in a University of South Carolina computer lab, showed her obscene photos online, then talked about going to her dorm room.

Greene declined comment at his home. He has also refused to talk about the charge in interviews.

Jim DeMint is, I'm sure, suitably shocked. And cackling. I'm still convinced the voting machines put this idiot in the primary.

Update: And to think, he just got himself a whole new set of new advisors, too.

The most famous candidate in the country was in Columbia Thursday evening, making his way through a small crowd and shaking hands, schmoozing and introducing a member of a documentary film crew that has been following him along the most written about campaign trail in America.

The candidate is not running for president, but the U.S. Senate. His name is Alvin Greene. Maybe you’ve heard of him.

Greene was in town for a meeting of the South Carolina Democratic Party executive committee and gave a brief speech to a room of about 50 at the state party's headquarters on Hampton Street.

He asked the Democrats there -- many had recently voted down a protest to his surprise primary win June 8 over former judge and legislator Vic Rawl -- to support him in the fall election against Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, Green Party nominee Tom Clements and write-in candidate Mazie Ferguson.

There was a smattering of applause. A man shouted out “I’ll vote for you.” A woman seconded it.

Greene’s speech clocked in at around 23 seconds, which is consistent with what his campaign adviser Felipe Farley had predicted weeks ago, when he noted that Greene wasn’t going to be doing any long barnburners on the stump.

Just bizarre. That is all.

Chalk another one up for the good ole boys of the South Carolina GOP. Every time I read something about this group it feels like a slow, deep slide back to 1865.

The Lexington County Republicans censured State Senator Jake Knotts Friday night for his nasty racist remarks about "ragheads." Here's the quote:

"We've got a raghead in Washington, we don't need a raghead in the Statehouse,"

His apology was even worse than the original quote. He justified his idiotic racism by claiming to be in a casual setting and conversation. I see. If one is relaxed and just chatting, being a racist is ok? Well, it's ok if you're the GOP in South Carolina. Bless their hearts.

A censure is fine and well if it actually means something. But in the case of Lexington County, it means next to nothing. Remember, these were the same yahoos that censured Senator Lindsey Graham because he said climate change is real. That censure led him to his twisty gyrations last week while arguing against the Murkowski amendment to reverse the EPA finding on greenhouse gasses while not actually coming out and saying climate change is real.

So a censure means very little, and Knotts' response affirms it.

"No, I'm not going to resign from office and they can say what they want to," said Knotts. "I made a mistake. I immediately recognized it and apologized."

And of course, Knotts had his defenders:

During the meeting, people spoke up for and against Knotts.

"I actually thought the apology was just as bad, the attempt at the apology was just as bad as the original remark," said Joshua Gross.

"I do not feel like we should be divisive and sew more discord by doing something so ugly as to censure him," said Tommy Blonk.

But don't despair, because there are worse threats to the Lexington Party GOP than racists. There are...(cue scary music, please) LIBERTARIANS.

Knotts says libertarians have infiltrated the party and are the same group of people who called out US Sen. Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on an energy bill, but didn't vote to censure Gov. Mark Sanford for his affair.

Poor Knotts. He just can't bring himself to say "teabaggers", can he? In South Carolina, that just might be a hangin' offense.

Good ole lyin' Joe the Hon Wilson (I swear, that's how his campaign disclosure reads) won't quite withdraw his endorsement, choosing instead to walk that thin line between losing donors and losing his soul, assuming he had one:

Congressman Wilson released a statement Thursday evening saying he "strongly supported" the actions by the county party.

"Senator Knotts did not reflect the values of our citizens in his language or in the tone of his remarks and certainly did not reflect mine," said Wilson.

That stops just a bit short of an endorsement withdrawal. I'm sure Lyin' Joe knows it'll all blow over soon enough and be a thing of the past.

If it doesn't, they've always got the voting machine strategy to fall back on.