Converse Chellis, our new State Treasurer

The wild ride of the last week or so came to an end with the selection of Converse Chellis to be South Carolina's next State Treasurer.

Not surprisingly, legislators bitch-slapped Governor Sanford when his recommended candidate, Charleston County Council Chairman Tim Scott, couldn't even get a single vote for nomination. An attempt by Senator John Courson to delay voting for more candidates (presumably) to help elect an outsider, such as myself, falled handily. In the end, Chellis handily defeated State Senator Greg Ryberg (R-Aiken).

The rejection of the last-minute smear campaign against Chellis was wider than expected by legislative observers. Perhaps had they tried to based their allegations in reality, instead of blind ambition, it might have worked. Instead, their over-the-top attacks were ignored, and even mocked by some.

Meanwhile, hidous allegations against Chelis by OJ Simpson that he was the real killer, as well as other charges that Chellis is the Devil himself, remain unproven. We look forward to getting to the bottom of these and other accusations in the months ahead.

Ravenel's indictment and the recent smear campaign have no doubt served to increase cynicism to how the public views the office. We wish Converse well, and hope that as our Treasurer, he has the ability and opportunity to give this office a fresh start, by restoring the trust of the public, as well as New York bond companies, in this office.

24 Response to "Converse Chellis, our new State Treasurer"

  1. Anonymous 3/8/07 13:57
    YES!!!!!!!
  2. Anonymous 3/8/07 13:57
    YES!!!!!!!
  3. Anonymous 3/8/07 13:57
    YES!!!!!!!
  4. Anonymous 3/8/07 13:58
    TAKE THAT, YOU LIARS!!!
  5. Anonymous 3/8/07 13:58
    TAKE THAT, YOU LIARS!!!
  6. Anonymous 3/8/07 13:58
    TAKE THAT, YOU LIARS!!!
  7. Anonymous 3/8/07 14:00
    Just goes to show that you can lie your way into office, as long as nobody has time to find the closet where your skeletons are hidden.

    Time will tell, and we ARE watching.
  8. Congratulations 3/8/07 14:29
    Anonymous sounds off his rocker. It'd be nice of him to share specifics. What lies & office?

    Earl,

    Congratulations to Mr. Chellis.

    We hope this is a lesson to the rumor mongers like our chubby little buddy over at FITS.

    We're also disappointed you didn't take up the write-in campaign.

    Not to worry. The governor's office will be open soon. Interested?

    Earl for Governor! Sounds good!
  9. Anonymous 3/8/07 17:16
    NO!!!!! THERE WAS NO THOUGHTFUL DELIBERATION. WHAT A MOCKERY OF THE SYSTEM.
  10. Greeleyville moye 3/8/07 19:18
    Good choice I knew it all along right.
  11. Anonymous 3/8/07 21:06
    Mark Sanford and his scum filled slim throwing crew are on crack.
  12. Brian McCarty 3/8/07 22:29
    This shows that the Governor of South Carolina has absolutely no pull with the legislature.

    The arrogance, backhanded political attakcs through flunkies and just plain political stupidity is now clear.
  13. begrieved citizen 3/8/07 22:32
    converse is ok but the ga bungled this one....a dark and sad day in the political history of our state
  14. Anonymous 3/8/07 23:34
    mr. mccarty, we all know you would rather have the wife cheating bob peeler as governor....so ....sad...belle
  15. Anonymous 4/8/07 11:29
    I agree that this information about Mr. Chellis was “last minute.’ However, I am not sure why this the campaign to publicize this matter was considered a “smear campaign.” While it is surprising that information about this law suit has never come out before, the question everyone should be asking is not what motivated someone to come forward with this information at this particular time, but whether the allegations set forth in the Complaint are true.

    We are now stuck with an unelected Treasurer for almost four years. Wouldn’t it have been nice if the Legislature had determined whether this man stole from his partner before putting him in this position? Ken Wingate could have served a couple more weeks.

    It never ceases to me. When people such as Shirley Hinson, Wallace Scarborough, and Bob Peeler are running for public office they scream “family values.” But, when they get caught stealing from their partners or cheating on their spouses, suddenly these issues become “private matters” and any mention of them becomes a “smear campaign.”
  16. Earl Capps 4/8/07 12:48
    If they had a legitimate case, why did they accept a settlement? You can bet I wouldn't have.

    In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty, last time I checked.

    Unless one of the Governor's thugs says you are, I guess.
  17. Lack of Facts 4/8/07 18:20
    Earl,

    Careful. Don't give the governor's thugs a bad name. Remember one of his former thugs, Will "Beat'Em Up" Folks, pandered this on his blog.

    Will's still milking it for hits by claiming Mr. Merrill was responsible for a silly memo six years ago.

    According to Charleston's News & Courier: "Folks ... said he stood by his report. "Let's see some proof that anything I've written has been wrong," he (Folks) said."

    Here's a better idea. Will needs to prove anything he wrote is true. Same for other blog mudslingers.

    Remember, Will brought us the bogus rumor that some midlands elected official has a Strom Problem.

    Then he made blog headlines with a claim the governor paid off on the death of a little "black girl."

    Both rumors died - lack of facts.

    FITS has the credibility of a "pimp from a cheap New Orleans whore house." -Adapted from a line in the movie Patton (1970).
  18. Baahaaaahaaaa...... 4/8/07 18:51
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/NismoRacer/FOMYBITCHES.jpg


    Yes, looks like that above link describes the governors little hit team and his administation.

    Yes, agree on the "Shot" crowd. And Brian's comments were right on target.
  19. Anonymous 5/8/07 15:08
    Earl says "If they had a legitimate case, why did they accept a settlement? You can bet I wouldn't have."

    Maybe they settled for a whole lot of money.

    Maybe they did not want to drag the matter out for three or four years.

    Maybe they didn't want to pay tens of thousands of dollars to lawyers.

    Maybe they wanted to go on with their lives.

    Not all people have the luxury of standing on principal all the time.
  20. Porky 5/8/07 22:14
    anon 1508 - how about i sue you and accuse you of fraud, misrepresentation, wanting to rape my cat, and having bad taste in music.

    if we then settled out of court, that would make you guilty of whatever i sued you for.
  21. west_rhino 6/8/07 10:21
    If there was a legitimate case why was there a settlement?

    Another part of the "closed system" the state reinsurance facility, that tends to liabilities, very often looks at a case and decides, on the state's behalf to "fold in the poker game" and tender a settlement long before things get to go trial, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of the parties involved.

    We have, therefore, had candidates that amongst the dirt hurled at their campaigns, numerous instances of sexual harassment that appear to valid on the basis that there was a settlement paid out, though the accused has been denied his (or her) day in court to determine the validity of the case.

    The system might save some lawyers fees and higher awards, but doesn't serve all equitably.

    So Earl, are Wil and the FITS girls managing your campaign to succeed Chellis in the House?
  22. Kossuth County Iowa Moye 6/8/07 21:23
    WR your last statement may be the reason Earl quit the Treasurer race he maybe looking at Mr. Chellis old job. What you say Earl?
  23. Earl Capps 6/8/07 22:18
    Moye - I have no interest in being in the House. I've got all the booze I need already and have had plenty of maritial problems without ever serving a day in the State House.

    If others want to put themselves through that crap, they're welcome to it. As for me, I like being home at night.

    Call me lazy ... because that's what I am.
  24. Anonymous 8/8/07 16:17
    Porky:

    You confuse criminal cases, where the presumption of innocence attaches, with civil cases, where innocence and guilt do not come into play.

    Under our rules of law, an attorney who files a lawsuit without a legitimate basis to support the allegations contained there can be disbarred. This is called Rule 11.

    If there was no basis to the suit filed against him--it was “all lies” as some are saying—then Chellis should have sought sanctions against the lawyer who filed the suit, much as was done against the Durham persecutor in the Duke “rape case.”

    Eventually, the truth will come out. I hope that Mr. Chellis is vindicated. However, having read the Complaint and knowing the attorney for the Plaintiff, I think Mr. Chellis will have some trouble getting elected in his own right next time around.

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

To post a comment without having a Blogger account, select "Name/URL", put your name in, but leave the URL line blank. Email me if you'd like to comment, but need help making it work.