Somedays I'm glad I live in SC

We in SC have our political problems. A governor who won't resign. He's being pushed by the Lt. Governor and state legislators and they are in his own party. Some (most?) of the pushing is politically motivated and based on old problems.

But at least I don't live in Massachusetts. With the passing of Sen. Kennedy, there's now an open Senate seat. In most states, the governor would simply appoint someone to fill the seat and everyone would move on. But back in 2004, the now deceased Sen. Kennedy pushed for the state to create new legislation that would require a special election for empty seats.

Back in 2004, Mitt Romney (a Republican) was governor. John Kerry (a Democrat) was running for president and everyone thought he would be elected. This would have left his seat empty and Romney might have appointed a non-Democrat for the seat. So, Kennedy pushed for a change in the law.

Fast forward five years and the table is now reversed. There's a Democratic governor who, if the law allowed, could appoint a Democrat to be Kennedy's replacement. Instead, by current law, a special election must be held and the state will have to go with only one senator for 4-5 months.

Of course, my way of thinking is that this isn't such a bad thing. Sen. Kennedy was very ill most of this year and hasn't been able to do much with the seat. So what will be different? But to alleviate that issue, Sen. Kennedy last week sent a letter, encouraging them to change the law (again).

Isn't it great when politicians change the law to fit their parties needs? It makes me so anxious for the new health care, knowing that they can change things when they feel like it...

Senator Kennedy's passing

By now, you've heard a lot about the death of Sen. Kennedy. I spent a little time this morning researching what was said on some conservative blogs and on some liberal blogs. As expected, I saw some bashing of the man and some praises. I also saw some anti-bashing, a liberal blog bashing the people who bashed the man. Unfortunately, I didn't learn a lot about the man.

Back in January, I wrote about Contrary Evidence. I wrote that you needed to seek facts that disagree with your normal thoughts. I can't think of a single piece of legislation that the "Lion of the Senate" sponsored that I would have agreed on. But I have to keep reminding myself that, as much as I may have disliked him and his politics, a majority of the voters in Mass. voted for him nine times.

So where's the contrary evidence? And shouldn't we all be looking for it?

I know about the misadventures of Sen. Kennedy at Chappaquiddick (at least what wasn't covered up). I know a lot of people think he tried to live up to his family name (and many believe he failed). I know a lot of the senator's misdeeds - political, family, etc. But unless I believe a majority the people of Mass. are just off their rockers (I might believe that about California), I have to admit that they saw something they liked. Or maybe they wanted a powerful senator to represent them. What did these voters see?

I have to liken Sen. Kennedy to Sen. Thurmond, the long lived Senator from my own state. I was disappointed to learn that Kennedy served longer in the Senate than Thurmond did. But both men served a long career.

What do you think?