Jackson Free Press

Every now and then, Sid Salter hits with a column. Yesterday told it like it is about the immensely qualified Gary Anderson -- and just why Mississippians might not elected the superior candidate: "Simply put, Gary Anderson is better qualified by education and prior job experience to hit the ground running as Marshall Bennett's successor than is Tate Reeves. Anderson has literally worked his way up through state government and is deserving of a promotion. ... The question unanswered at this point is whether a majority of Mississippi voters can consider Anderson purely and squarely on his experience and qualifications in making their decision — or will race rule once again as the lowest common denominator in Mississippi politics."

Now, my theory is that the C-L edit board compromised and Sid offered this column if they would endorse Tuck, figuring she has a much greater chance of pushing through more pro-industry reforms than Tate Reeves, who shouldn't even be involved in the "tort reform" political debate. But that's mere conjecture, and the fact is, Sid is right on this one, and I hope Mississippians will listen up. And it might help deflect the growing mountain of national criticism over Barbour and Tuck's playing the race card if the voters elected an African-American to statewide office.

Previous Comments

ID

136270

Comment

Anyone know when we'll start to get real statistics on the election? I'd love to know how it was that Anderson lost this race (assuming, in the final tally, that he does lose). Everything I ever read was that he was by far the more experienced candidate.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-05T10:13:12-06:00

ID

136271

Comment

Kate, These are the county-by-county stats as of 2:54 AM Nov 5th. Admittedly this cannot possibly be the final tally (we'll have to wait at least a week for that, I'm afraid). But I think it is close enough to the true count to get a fairly decent picture of what's going on http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0311/04/treasurer.html Also, I commented about this another board http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=1945_0_9_0_C

Author

Philip

Date

2003-11-05T10:26:55-06:00

ID

136272

Comment

As I kept saying to discouraged progressives last night, today is the day the real work begins. And the news is hopeful: notice that in those treasurer numbers, fewer than 50,000 votes separate Anderson and Reeves. In this state, that's a big something. Of course, it's not enough. White progressives kept saying to me last night that there were surprised that such a qualified man (Anderson) didn't win. I wasn't surprised. I think it's a race that shows that, well, race is still a huge issue in Mississippi. It's also a race that shows the importance of facing that fact squarely ... and then overcoming it. As for the governor's race, it's not as if Barbour and his nefarious race-pandering came in and swept two-thirds of the voters. I think there's hope there, too: I personally believe a more progressive candidate would have had a *better* chance at beating Barbour. You can't just keeping fighting over the same pool of conservative voters that's there. The parties have officially shifted: the GOP is the old Southern Democrat Party. Face it. We've got to start beating the bushes in all sorts of ways for new voters. And that starts today. And, frankly, I believe the Barbour-Tuck administration may make it easier to build a new voting bloc. So, no one despair. Frankly, the elections turned out exactly how I would have guessed, although I had believed the governor's race was too close to call. Every other race was predictable. Now, it's time to move forward. I'd also guess that there is some hopefulness in what some of the voting patterns showed. Philip, give us more conclusions as you draw them: How did Hinds County fare, for instance? The Delta? Did they turn out in greater numbers?

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-05T10:39:43-06:00