Bobby Jindal

[AmericanLiberal]

It is great news for Louisiana that the state that almost elected David Duke ten years ago now has an Indian-American as the front-runner in the governor's race. Mr. Jindal seems like a brilliant guy and I'm happy for him. However, I'm afraid it fits the Republican pattern of nominating people like Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, and JC Watts, while in reality, keeping themselves alienated from 90%+ of black voters.

A political party should be judged based on the positions they take and not what faces they put on for the outside. For example, in the 1970's Phyllis Schafly organized very effectively against womens' rights. Fortunately she mostly failed but she did succeed in preventing a simple amendment granting gender equality to the constitution. As a consequence things such as Title IX are now under threat. I recently had a staunch Republican on another message board tell me that they should ignore black issues because blacks would never vote for them no matter what. I hope that if Mr. Jindal wins (which he probably will), he will represent diversity not only because the color of his skin, but because of the way he runs his government and the positions he advocates.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

I'll agree that it's great to see an Indian-American in the front.

As for the rest of your comments:

Why do you draw these lines? Americans are Americans.
It's a good situation when a governor represents the
views of the majority of the people who live in his state.
We all have the right to vote and we may all be represented.
What right do you have to tell the blacks in this state or
that state what they really believe? They will vote on their
own for what they believe in and the candidate who
is preferred by the most voters will win.

Do people like Rice and Watts not have the right to
make up their own minds? Must they vote with the
other 90% to really be "black?" Is it wrong to be
an independent thinker?

No, sir. Those people should be who they are.
They should stand up for what they believe in,
not what you think they should believe in.

 

[AmericanLiberal]

XP, of course they have the right do believe what they want to believe, and do what they want to do. That was not my point at all. My point is that any political party or organization that embraces diversity in the candidates it nominates should also recognize that diversity in its platform; the fact is the majority of blacks and other minorities have issues that are important to them, that is why they vote in a bloc.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

The last thing we need to do is to continue to "recognize diversity." Recognizing diversity means drawing lines
and making differences distinct. Segregation did that.
We decided we didn't want that.

The idea now is to have equality. Now, that doesn't mean
we all have to thinkand do the same things. We don't have
to. We can make choices as individuals - as Americans.

 

[Bry]

The last thing we need to do is to continue to "recognize diversity." Recognizing diversity means drawing lines

grrr. diversity does not mean "drawing lines". You're thinking of segregation, not a recognition of diversity, two OPPOSING concepts. It's one thing to recognize difference, another to engage in exclusionary practices based on difference. Implicit in the concept of "recognition" is an acknowledgement that difference is not only acceptable but necessary.

Your analysis of equality vs. difference is 1950s comic book rhetoric, but from your post, I get the impression that your heart is in the right place. "Now, that doesn't mean
we all have to think and do the same things..." that is precisely what a recognition of diversity guarantees us: that the political parties do not treat us as if we were all middle upper class to filthy rich white businessmen with our interests embedded in corporate America.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

But take a look at what you're doing. You're saying that
Condoleeza rice ought to act on that recognition, that
she ought to support certain policies because of it, and
not others.

You're doing the same thing the segregationists did - trying to
tell blacks what they should and should not do. It's not your
place. Let her vote as an individual and stop insisting that
these lines be drawn.

 

[Aquarian]

someone took a left turn I think...

AmericanLiberal said:

it fits the Republican pattern of nominating people like Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, and JC Watts, while in reality, keeping themselves alienated from 90%+ of black voters.

xp said:

Do people like Rice and Watts not have the right to make up their own minds? Must they vote with the other 90% to really be "black?" Is it wrong to be an independent thinker?

AmericanLiberal's post implied nothing as to what Rice, Watts, et al should do, rather he seems to me to be stating that the republican party has displayed a trend of putting black faces in visible positions to try and win support from the black demographic but that their actual policies do not seem to address the needs of that very demographic.

 

[Bry]

jejeje.

YEAH! What Aquarian said!

jejeje.

Sorry, I'm just being silly. Don't mind me.

 

[Aquarian]

short interuption, I gotta ask... what's with the jejeje's?

 

[Bry]

laughter. (hehehe. in Spanish.)


I like it better because the Spanish "j" is more gutteral.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Aquarian
he seems to me to be stating that the republican party has displayed a trend of putting black faces in visible positions to try and win support from the black demographic but that their actual policies do not seem to address the needs of that very demographic.

As a Republican (and a white middle-class male), I don't really see any particular needs of the balck demographic per se. What I see is needs of people in a particular socio-economic situation - who also happen to be black, though others in that same situation might be white, or Hispanic, or Indian.
Is my perception wrong? I see a person first, and a race second. Is this not how others see the world? Is this not how blacks see the world? And what exactly are the specific needs of the black demographic?

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

But he's still thinking like a separationist. A black is nominated and he automatically starts thinking in terms of demographics!
"Oh look, they're trying to go out and get the black vote!"

It's exactly that sort of line I'm against drawing. And it's just not possible that that black was nominated for his or her individual skills and character. No. Obviously the party wanted to appeal to a demographic.

Why do we do this? We don't need to. Instead of saying,
"Well, this candidate doesn't support the policies 90% of
the black population does." Why can't we just talk about
the policies they support?

And who's figuring these things out anyway?
Pollsters? The media? What business is it of theirs what race
someone is? Why do we make polls that take race
into consideration?

I am tired of division and tired of people who rely on
race statistics. We should vote as constituents and
stand united.

 

[Aquarian]

bry- ah, thanks

Jeff- I'm not sure what the particular needs of the black segment of the population needs, or indeed if they need anything that others in their socio-economic situations don't, but they do seem to be a bloc voting wise, much as union labor, pro/anti abortion, and other groups. You are probably correct that the lower echelons of black americans constitute the large portion of that bloc. Unfortunately, society is not yet to the point where they see the person before the race on the whole, surely many do as individuals but we still have a ways to go before wiping it out as one of those criteria that goes into the initial judgements we make. As a survival trait, humans make assessments very fast initially before allowing the higher brain functions to counter or rewrite the basis for the initial assessment.

xp- Rather than thinking like a separationist, it's my impression that he is attempting to convey the impression he has of the republican party, an impression shared by a goodly portion of america. I've not observed a similar reaction to black democratic candidates. Does this mean that the republican party is full of bigots? I don't believe so. But, it is an impression that many people have, and one I can understand given their stances on things such as affirmative action, congressman such as thurmond and helms (former I know, but no new devils have appeared to replace them in my mind) etc. I'll stop here and let americanliberal correct me if I'm wrong

It's certainly possible that the prominent black republicans were chosen for their skills. But you must admit, given the current state of politics, that it's also possible some of them were chosen because of their race. I'm not saying all of them were, or that ones who may have been chosen to up the race quotient are unskilled, just that it's possible.

As to the polls... there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics but mostly polls are done to auqire information which may be analyzed in the light of behavioral and sociological (that a word?) psychology to figure out a strategy to obtain the power they crave. Both sides. Within each party there are individuals who want the power to help lead society in the direction they believe would most benefit society, and others that want the power to satisfy their own needs. In the ideal world, race would not be a factor (we may acheive that someday), in the real world it is. Twould be nobler indeed to begin ignoring that data, but one side won't till the other does, to do so would lose too much competitive advantage.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Hehe. Yes. I'm well aware of that idea.

. But, it is an impression that many people have, and one I can understand given their stances on things such as affirmative action, congressman such as thurmond and helms

It's strange though that the Republican party's treatment of Thurmond is noticed, while the behavior of the democrats in regard to congressman Byrd, Justice Thomas, and former
presidential candidate Alan Keyes goes unnoticed.

 

[Aquarian]

It is strange, I'd just yesterday read about byrd's actions against a civil rights bill. I haven't had the chance yet to research why he was against it in 57, or if his attitudes have changed. Not familiar with the other two but I concur, democrats don't seem to garner the same ire for similar actions/beliefs for some reason.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by Aquarian
It is strange, I'd just yesterday read about byrd's actions against a civil rights bill. I haven't had the chance yet to research why he was against it in 57, or if his attitudes have changed. Not familiar with the other two but I concur, democrats don't seem to garner the same ire for similar actions/beliefs for some reason.

Hehe. Probably because he's a former member of the KKK.

Justice Clarence Thomas is a black Supreme Court justice
the democrats attempted to Bork. Alan Keyes is a black
conservative, former presidential candidate who was
physically hauled away from the presidential debates
in the election before last. (I think, it may've been this
last one, my memory's a little fuzzy, but that's probably
because I'm running on three hours of sleep.)

 

[MtnBiker]

The Anderson Group, today released a poll taken over the last three days that shows Gubernatorial Candidate Bobby Jindal continues to have the momentum by holding a 45-38 advantage over opponent Kathleen Blanco with just two days left until Election Day. The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted from November 10-12 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent. However, earlier the Blanco campaign they were in the lead by four points from their tracking poll..

The Jindal campaign states this poll confirms a Verne Kennedy poll released today that shows Jindal maintaining a 46 to 42 lead over Blanco.

Link

 

[jimnyc]

Kathleen Blanco wins. So much for the polls.