What the election means to me

I don't pretend to be a political pundit or to have my finger on the pulse of the electorate. There are plenty of bloggers who will do that and give in depth analysis. Instead, I will simply point out a couple of things yesterday's elections mean to me.

As you've probably read, Republicans won big in many elections, especially in SC. We elected the first ever female governor, a lady of Indian descent (born in SC to Indian parents). We also elected our first African-American Republican Representative, Tim Scott. He's not a representative to my district, but I've seen some very good things about him. For SC to elect these two is very progressive for a state that isn't known for it's progressiveness. We also elected a real conservative Representative (Trey Gowdy) in my district to replace a pseudo-conservative Representative (Bob Inglis).


We passed four amendments in SC, guaranteeing a right for hunting and fishing, a right to a secret ballot in union elections and helping fiscal soundness.

I've already seen reports of voter intimidation and expect we'll see more. These incidents should be dealt with quickly and (if accurate) severely. I would hope that candidates on both (or all) sides will come down hard on these people.

Am I celebrating this morning? Hardly. We still have an economic mess in this nation and it's not going to be over soon. We still have a social mess with the Federal Government trying to get into too many parts of my life and that won't end soon. Our nation is still at risk from terrorists and I see people and politicians willing to close their eyes to avoid looking at it. And we have an abundance of politicians who claim to be leaders that have serious moral issues and personal baggage.

So I guess I'm troubled. Happy that the results went the way I wanted, but nervous that it won't make a difference. Or at least enough of a difference.

Is there a statute of limitations on racism?

Seems one Shirley Sherrod, former USDA official made some "mistakes" in a speech. In her speech, she outlined where she didn't work as hard for one person as she could have and her motivation was racism. What's different about this story is that Sherrod is black and the person she didn't work hard for was white.

In a hurry to prove there's no "reverse" racism here, the White House has apparently asked for, and received her resignation. Full story here.

Tea baggers will have a field day with this, saying it proves there is rampant racism in the White House. The NAACP has already spoken out against Sherrod's actions, saying essentially that racism is racism, regardless which color is targeting the other color.

I have two comments. First, Ms. Sherrod said she learned from the issue. She learned "that it wasn't just a black and white issue. It was about those who have and those who do not." (Source)

Umm. Seems Ms. Sherrod has traded racism for class-ism.  How would she treat someone who "has" who was needing her help? Would she work hard for them, or do just enough to make it look like she was working?

Second is that this issue happened 24 years ago. She re-tells the story and tells how she learned from it. I'm very glad for her and hope many people can live from her story. My question is, when does the statute of limitations on racism run out?

To answer that question, Ms. Sherrod might ask Trent Lott. You see, then Senator Lott reminded us that Strom Thurmond ran for president once and commented he would have been good for the country. A lot of people were upset because Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform.

But like Ms. Sherrod, Thurmond learned to move beyond racism over the years, supporting the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of Martin Luther King a holiday. (see my post here). So should Trent Lott have been punished for something that happened 50+ years earlier? Or did he perhaps realize that Thurmond had learned a lesson and maybe have been a good president after all?

Maybe it's time to listen to our president and realize that talking about racism is simply a distraction.

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?