03-16-2008, 12:13 AM
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007...-jindal-an.html
Bobby Jindal and the Future of Geopolitics
Bobby Jindal has become the new Governor of Louisiana. In order to understand why is this important to anyone outside of Louisiana, consider the following points, in combination :
1) Bobby Jindal is only 36 years old, and has become one of the youngest ever Governors in US history. Prior to this, he has served in the US House of Representatives, was a Rhodes Scholar, and was employed at McKinsey & Company. His success in so many different areas reflects deep intelligence and competence, rather than just a fluke.
2) As Governor of a medium-sized state, he has gained an Executive Branch position, and thus has already accomplished more towards creating a Presidential resume than Barack Obama, 10 years his senior, has. Barack Obama has just 4 years of Senate experience and no executive experience. Note that no US President has been elected without Executive (either Governor or VP) experience in the last 11 elections since John F. Kennedy in 1960.
3) That he could win so handily on a GOP ticket in Louisiana shows that whatever perceived disadvantages he may have had for being a Catholic, or for being non-white, were not barriers. In other words, if he can win there, he can win over a majority of America.
4) As by far the most prominent Indian-American in US politics, he has exclusivity in garnering political support from what is the highest-income ethnic group in the US. This elevates the visibility of a dark-skinned group that has a higher average income than whites, and thus reduces self-limiting perceptions of imagined 'racism' that many minorities still hold. This also grants the GOP a pathway to conduct a campaign to attract high-income, fiscally and socially conservative minorities, which the GOP presently does a shockingly poor job of.
5) India is one of the most pro-US countries in the world, and is also a rare country that is more supportive of Republican politicians than America itself is (very few people know this). Indo-US ties are the most rapidly widening economic and political ties between any two large countries in the world today, and with the Indian economy set to grow at 8-11% a year for the next 13 years, Indo-US trade will amount to as much as $400 Billion by 2020 (from $32 Billion in 2006, and just $5 Billion in 1990). Bobby Jindal is already a household name in India, and thus is superbly positioned to maximize this imminent wave of Indo-US geopolitical alignment and economic integration.
6) I repeat, he is only 36 years old. How much had any of the big name politicians of our era accomplished at that age? He has 20 years to go before he is even 56, and thus has ample time to lay the groundwork for multiple shots at the Presidency or Vice Presidency.
However, there is still along way to go, and the path is strewn with many traps and pitfalls. In order to advance to the highest echelon, Bobby Jindal has to work on the following three things :
1) Oversee the reconstruction and recovery of New Orleans into a city that is better than it ever was before. This is a monumental challenge, but success here will immediately receive nationwide applause. This is the accomplishment that he could ride to the Presidency.
2) Honing his speaking skills. While a competent speaker, he is not as electrifying at the big occasion as Barack Obama is, and this does matter immensely. This is a learnable skill, however, that almost anyone can gain through diligent practice.
3) Stay as scandal-free as possible over a very long period. One scandal can derail higher political ambitions permanently.
When Bobby Jindal rises to national prominence as a Presidential candidate at some point between 2016 and 2036, remember what you read here on The Futurist in October of 2007, and observe how a unique convergence of multiple megatrends elevated an unlikely man to the greatest heights of political power.
October 28, 2007 in India, Political Debate, Politics | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/693213/22797290
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bobby Jindal and the Future of Geopolitics:
Comments
To the Indian immigrants I would add the exo-communist Chinese communities (to coin a phrase).
They both provide important cultural insights, political influence and economic and technical skills to the nations which they enter while eroding the core values and beliefs of the Democratic and other Western leftist parties - pro-entitlement platforms, anti-capitalism views, anti-Western hatred, anti-success attitudes and racial paternalism.
Bobby Jindal and those who follow him are the Democrats' worst nightmare.
Posted by: Saul Wall | October 29, 2007 at 03:37 PM
I just noticed that number 2 in your list of three challenges is true but says something sad about human nature. Being a charming smooth talker is one of the classical signs of a high functioning psychopath which is exactly the kind of person that does well in politics but is less likely to do the right thing if doing the wrong thing can be advantageous to the person in question.
As for number 3, if he does get into scandals he might consider changing his name to Kennedy or Kerry or Clinton... something with a "K" or hard "C" sound. People with those sorts of names tend to be acquire a magical non-stick quality to all disturbing revelations. Or maybe it is just people with a "D" after their name.
Posted by: Saul Wall | October 31, 2007 at 12:07 PM
GK,
An interesting observation. One that raises an even more interesting point.
One thing I have noticed throughout my travels, is that each culture has its own peculiarities, and for the most part like to swap stories with foreigners. However very few countries actually allow the foreign culture ( or in many areas ideals and beliefs), to blend with their own.
In the US, we are extremely tolerant compared to any other country I have ever been in. Sure you have uneducated Joe Shmoe who will tease and harass the visitors, but over all, we offer harbor like no other country on earth. Very rarely does the teasing or harassing ever get so out of hand where physical violence is intiated (save for the downtown areas where not even a cop will venture without caution).
However due to this openness and acceptance, we have (in my humble opinion), lost a âsense of selfâ so to speak.
For example, many Americans have taken on Islam as a break from traditional Christian values. Many people allow themselves to emerge themselves so much in foreign culture, that they forget their host nations ideals founded by the forefathers. Heck, unless you speak Spanish, forget going to a grocery store and being able to ask for an item you canât seem to find. The ten commandments were banned from a court for cryin out loud.
Not only has America lost its sense of self, but it has lost itâs heritage as well. Nowadays, almost every value put forth by our nations founders, has been stamped as âintolerantâ, or âinsensitiveâ. Our Bill of Rights is under constant attack by those who want to ban guns. On the flip side, Freedom of Speech is abused on a daily basis because people can criticize the US directly, and get away with it. After all, we can say what we want right?
You see the problem is that the ethics, morals, and principles of our founding fathers are slowly being eroded away. Modern day ideals that would have made our forefathers roll over in their graves. What made America great to begin with (not to mention what ultimately made our nation what it was) was those ideals. Yet slowly and surely, as new cultures, ideals, and lack of responsibility has subverted our culture, America has lost itself. And I want it back. I want to be able to go to a foreign country again, and say âI am American, and proud of it!â without having it pointed out to me how badly our nation has become perverted.
So do you honestly believe that it would be a good idea to have a president who is American, but proud of their Indian heritage as well? Or would you want a president who stands up and says, âI am an American. Born and raised. Furthermore, I will restore this nation to the heights upon which the eagle of freedom initially flew!â I am not saying that such a one would be blind to the geo-political world, but that they should not compromise Americaâs belief or statutes (unlike todays party politics BS).
Posted by: brokerdavelhr | October 31, 2007 at 05:09 PM
brokerdavelhr,
So do you honestly believe that it would be a good idea to have a president who is American, but proud of their Indian heritage as well?
What evidence is there that Bobby Jindal has done this, any more than Rudy Giuliani has played up his Italian angle?
I mean, Jindal won in Louisiana, of all places, where there are virtually no Indian-Americans.
On the contrary, leftists attack Jindal as a 'sellout' simply for being a pro-US person of color.
Posted by: GK | October 31, 2007 at 05:17 PM
GK,
I actually spoke to soon in my previous post by breaking one of my golden rules- 'Study before you speak'. So I did some browsing and I found this website
http://www.bobbyjindal.com/
which gives a little more insight as to what makes this guy tick. I like the way he speaks actually. Very different from most other politicians. Can't wait to see what he does while in his fairly new position. Watched some of his speeches and read some of his plans and policies, and I must say that I actually like the guy. I hope that he does make plans for the presidency. All those values I thought were at stake might just be better served by him.
Posted by: brokerdavelhr | October 31, 2007 at 06:06 PM
There are several immigrant groups with strong support for freedom and capitalism. Immigrants from not only India but also Cuba, China and Vietnam.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear that immigrants from Mexico and South America share this ideal. I have a couple ideas as to why, nothing definite. It's also possible I'm wrong about the impression, I haven't seen a rigorous study of views on freedom by immigrant country. Anyone else think this is true and/or have an explanation for the difference?
Posted by: Jason Nichols | November 01, 2007 at 02:52 AM
Are Democratic ways leftist only?
Is Democracy left oriented only?
After reading the post and comments, esp. Saul Wall, I have a feeling that non of you understand the true meaning of Democracy.
One on hand, y'all talk about how we set up Democracy in Iraq, on the other hand you scream about "the Democratic and other Western leftist parties"...
On the other note, I like diversity in US politics, and will welcome Bobby Jindal if he has good common sense, and actually will work for every US citizen, not only for Indian-American population, like most of the ex-mexican senators.
Posted by: World Citizen | November 01, 2007 at 12:28 PM
WC:
Are you confusing the concept of democracy (small d) with the Democratic Party (big 'D')?
The US government is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy isn't actually a good form of government as it's simply tyranny of the majority. A better form includes protections for the individual, property rights and rule of law. This is referred to as âwestern democracyâ, which is a term that includes US as well as Mexico, Europe, etc. All of these are democracies of varying strengths (the strongest being the US due to, in my opinion, itâs much stronger constitution and higher levels of checks and balances of a bicameral rather than a parliamentary legislative body).
Democracy is also used in a philosophical way. The US Democratic party's philosophy is based on socialism, while the Republicans are a mix of conservative and/or Libertarian (aka Objectivist) views.
Finally, what weâre establishing in Iraq is also a constitutional republic, not technically a pure democracy. Itâs accurate to use the umbrella term âdemocracyâ to describe it.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: Jason Nichols | November 01, 2007 at 01:45 PM
Thank you Jason for the detailed description <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm actually familiar with everything you described, I hope people here refresh their memory as well.
I just would like to disagree with you on this: "The US Democratic party's philosophy is based on socialism". I doubt US Democrats based their views on Socialism or Marxism, I think those are just Liberal views, not Socialistic.
BTW, I would note also that saying that Republicans are following Libertarian(individual liberty) views is a bit off beat in my opinion, because it's most of them who vote for censorship <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (check the Fox news - they all want you to "shut up") <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I would say that Republicans are on the Libertarianism(private property rights) side.
BTW, I would also note that US has one of the weakest constitutions as well - it's so easily abused and twisted, and we saw it for many years now... <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Posted by: World Citizen | November 01, 2007 at 05:25 PM
"World Citizen' is just about the last person who is qualified to comment on Democracy. He actually refuses to admit that Burma, Iran, Russia, North Korea, etc. are not Democracies.
Furthermore, he exhibits the classic sign of left-wing fascism. Obsession with silencing Fox News, when it is only 1 right-wing network vs. 7 left-wing networks, gives this away Fox News actually has far more Democrats as regulars than the others have Republicans as regulars.
So, why is it wrong for 50% of the population to have even 1 out of 8 news networks? If leftists are unsatisfied with 7 out of 8, and obsess over the last one, that shows that they are the ones who are opposed to free speech.
BTW, I would also note that US has one of the weakest constitutions as well - it's so easily abused and twisted, and we saw it for many years now...
er.. care to provide any examples? The examples provided had better be from an official judicial or congressional source.
Lastly, "World Citizen" ran away from inconvenient questions in the last chain. I repeat them again here, in case he now has the courage to answer :
1) BTW, 'World Citizen', what are you doing to stop the violent massacre of peaceful Buddhist monks in Burma? Of innocents in Sudan and Zimbabwe? Where is your so-called 'world community' in preventing these atrocities?
2) If you think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA to get Republicans elected, then why is not a single Democratic Senator saying this? Why do believe something that not one Democrat thinks is credible?
3) Taiwan is not recognized by the UN. Yet, it is a democratic, wealthy country. Does it deserve to exist as an independent country? Or is it supposed to be part of non-Democratic China?
4) Are you also a "World Citizen" of countries like North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, etc., where people are not allowed to vote at all?
and a new one :
5) There are countries where women are not allowed to work, expose their faces in public, or pursue education. These countries also execute homosexuals by throwing them off of tall buildings. Women who have pre-marital sex are sometimes stoned to death. As a "World Citizen", are you a citizen of such countries as well?
Posted by: GK | November 01, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Just a quick observation: #3 seems to imply that Jindal did well despite being a Catholic. Considering that Louisiana has a high proportion of Catholics, this should probably be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. See this map: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/re...on/catholic.gif
Posted by: sam | November 02, 2007 at 03:03 PM
Obama is not electrifying as a speaker ... he is a bore ... at the beginning his appearance struck people ... now that e listen we hear nothing
Posted by: bee | November 02, 2007 at 07:46 PM
I would have to say that in a way, I know where 'World Cliche' is coming from. The Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of speech. However many people often abuse this freedom by advocating illegal activities that range from drugs to subversion of our own country. I am not saying that freedoms are bad, however a little more self-discipline in every US citizen would be greatly appreciated.
Now let me define another relevant problem. The freedoms our forefathers fought so hard for, are under constant attack by the democratic party (Big D). For instance- extreme gun control, allowing illegals into the country and offering them protection from Americans when in fact they should have no rights at all, abuse of power, and just general ignorance. They are politicians who believe (and I quote Hillary Clinton in her own words) that 'No people can coexist in a society without a government to guide, and lead them'. They do not fight for the peoples rights much anymore. The reasons vary as to why. The main reason is that they are so caught up with protecting the people from their own actions (which not only infringes on the freedoms of responsible people, but gives many excuses to actions commited out of gross stupidity), that they end up creating more problems then they fix.
World Whacko,
You argued with Jason on the democrats of this county being socialistic. This makes you twice as blind. As I stated above, they try to enact a law for the common good. This however is not for common good because there is no check to it. They see a trend in a committed action (whether it be school shootings, religious issues, fireworks, or even something as small as speeding), and seek to set forth a law that would ban such activities.
This is by very definition socialism. What is worse, is that people who maintain and use fire-arms safely, do not speed excessively or drive drunk, who do not try to force their religion down other peoples throats, or abuse any of their freedoms, are then forced to obey the law that in essence, takes away their freedoms.
This all stems from lack of self discipline. Democorats (and all those who agree with them) tout that it is up to the government to stop people from doing stupid things. This is a common occurrence that I can cite many examples of it need be. However by turning this line of thought into law, it prohibits the American people from the freedoms that so many of our previous generations laid down their lives to protect.
The only solution to this is to stop passing laws (that are usually only enforced when special interest groups get involved (what makes those a**h**** so special anyway?))that will have a nationwide impact on all US citizens, and start punishing the individual who screwed up.
For instance, if someone murders another, then it is up to the courts to take their life in return (this will never happen though because the Legislative and Judicial branch have made an excuse for just about anything short of rape). If someone steals something from another, then they should be made to pay that individual back, and not be free until they have done so (in many Arabic countries, they just cut of your hand). And so on, and so on.
Which is why I like this Bobby Jindal guy. Sure I have a lot more to learn about him before I make any further statements, but thus far, he seems like 'the man for the job'. Unlike many politicians (who will only try to curb a problem, or take advantage of it), he finds the cause of the problem, and tries to cut it off at the source. WITHOUT passing ridiculous laws that punish those who do not deserve it.
Also, when was the last time the Republic Majority voted for a censorship? I want an example. Obviously if you brought it up, you must have some to share.
Posted by: brokerdavelhr | November 03, 2007 at 06:36 AM
Bobby Jindal's success, and the anger of leftist democrat party hacks at his "betrayal" points out the basic racism of modern leftists.
They require people of color to "stay on the plantation" and don't go acting all uppity independent now. Any person of color (or woman) who thinks for himself is just going to be called an "uncle Tom" or worse.
How long can the US Democratic party keep suckering normal non-ideologic, non-america haters to keep voting for them. Pity the poor independent businessperson who still thinks the US Democratic Party is on his side.
Posted by: Al Fin | November 07, 2007 at 09:31 PM
You will make for a good campaign manager. But I must say, Bobby Jindal seems to be a man of substance.
Posted by: pinkHammer | November 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Al Fin,
I do agree that racism does exist in some areas still. It is a bloody shame, and I wish that it wasn't true.
However a fire is fed by both air and wood.
In many, many of the northern cities, and all over the US now, a case of reverse racism also exists.
I cannot walk in many 'ghetto' neighborhoods and areas because I am white. When I go to a mostly African-American, or Hispanic populated area, I am called cracker, whittie, and a number of other racial slurs. 'Reverend' Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and many others often slam whites for using the word 'nigger'. Thats right I said it.
I was told by all my friends in the African American community that this is offensive because it makes them feel like they were back in the slave days. Ironically enough, both the terms 'Whittie' and 'Cracker' where terms used by slaves in reference to their abusive owners.
So we have African-Americans running around calling themselves 'Nigger'(wearing the title proudly), but God forbid a white person says it (witness Dog the bounty hunter). Yet the same people call me cracker and whittie without second thought.
Will someone please explain to me why retribution must be made? Further more, what good is it? I personally abhor the idea of slavery. I keep getting the answer that retribution, apologies, and special rights be granted to African-American's to make up for the 200 + years of slavery, and mistreatment. 1 out of every 20 people I see in a library are African-American. This means that all the libraries in the US must be racist and try to prevent them from entering! So, special college funds are made for the African American Community.
Guess what? 75% of my bosses and mentors have been African-American, and not one of them have ever needed any 'special aid'. They are all smart, hard-working, and people of great stature.
Meanwhile, my little brother was denied employment as a police officer because he would have tipped the legal scales, despite the fact that he was much more qualified.
Where is the justice? Where is the personal responsibility? Where is the balance?
In truth, there is none. If Obama is not made president, it is not because of Racism. It is because his politics were not what the people want.
Bobby Jindal gives me hope that people are responsible, and that no matter what the color of your skin is, people will vote for you if you are good at what you do.
He is currently governor of Loisianna. A place that the NAACP says is in a state of emergency because of some beating. The NAACP says that because of hangings and police brutality.
In the case of Shelwanda Riley, she bit the policeman before he used the pepper spray. This is something not shown on CNN. They just show the cop pepper spraying her. You know what? IF I was a cop, and if someone tried to bite me, I would spray them too!
In the Martin Lee Anderson Story, I watched the video 12 times, read every news paper article, and report I could find, and was not able to draw a conclusion either way because both sided gave double sided reviews. The child had a blood disorder, and according to both coroners, died of the ammonia (which is commonly used as a 'smelling salt'). The guards did not know of this condition as it was never diagnosed before. Obviously, the child was not in to good of physical shape if he collapsed after a mere few laps. Had the parents watched their child closer, they would have at least brought him to the doctors for suspected Asthma (due to the shortness of breath). I actually looked up the symptoms of sickle cell, and found that the symptoms do include weakness, pain in varying areas of the body, shortness of breath, etc. It comes in bouts that last from a few hours to several weeks. Even if the guards did what they were accused of, one could hardly call it a 'hate crime' anyway like the NAACP makes it look like. This is because there were African American guards involved as well. But, thanks to liberal media, a hate crime it has been dubbed.
Basically, I am tired of the BS. personally, I cannot wait for an African American who knows politics and does the right thing to step forward so that they can tell the NAACP just how full of it they are. Heck, even Bill Cosby had nothing nice to say about them. They are just another special interest group milking the system, and leeching our society. 'Reverend' Al and Jesse, HAH! They seek retribution and pay back where the Bible forbids it! Reverend my a**!
I just wish more like Bobby Jindal would come forward to put these groups in their place!
Posted by: brokerdavelhr | November 24, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Jindal supports a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning. He's no friend of free speech. He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth. In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.
Posted by: Josh | November 26, 2007 at 08:12 AM
Josh,
Jindal supports a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning.
So do about 60% of the US Congress, which thus includes all Republicans and many Democrats.
At any rate, the flag-burning amendment is merely a stunt to expose the anti-US fifth-columnists by making them writhe in agony.
He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools
Any proof? He is a Rhodes Scholar, you know.
and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth.
That is just an extreme left-wing distortion of being pro-life. Harry Reid is also pro-life too, BTW.
In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.
Certainly not based on his position on flag-burning, which 60% of Congress supports. He is more electable than George W. Bush, who did win 2 Presidential elections.
And the 'backward cesspool' of Louisiana has usually elected Democrats (Blanco, Nagin, Landrieu) until recently. The election of Jindal, if anything, indicates how Louisiana is now progressing from their previously backward state.
Posted by: GK | November 26, 2007 at 10:29 AM
So do about 60% of the US Congress, which thus includes all Republicans and many Democrats.
So? Jindal has a lot of company in his anti-free-speech position. He's still anti-free-speech.
At any rate, the flag-burning amendment is merely a stunt to expose the anti-US fifth-columnists by making them writhe in agony.
Any proof of this? Even if true, it means Jindal takes an anti-free-speech position in bad faith. And you think this is a defense?
He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools
Any proof? He is a Rhodes Scholar, you know.
You're easily impressed.
Source for Jindal's position on intelligent design:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1668433,00.html
and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth.
That is just an extreme left-wing distortion of being pro-life. Harry Reid is also pro-life too, BTW.
That's nice, but irrelevant. Proof that Jindal thinks a woman who is raped should be forced to give birth:
"I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious."
http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/ar...30075.html
So my claim about Jindal's position on abortion is not a distortion. I await your apology.
Translation : Josh believes that people of color should not be able to choose to be Republicans.
Translation: GK is unable to defend Jindal against specific criticisms, so he accuses Jindal's critics of racism. GK cannot come up with his own arguments so he retreats GOP talking points.
Certainly not based on his position on flag-burning, which 60% of Congress supports. He is more electable than George W. Bush, who did win 2 Presidential elections.
Jindal will not be able to explain away his hard-right stance on every issue. The American people are not ideologues and will reject a transparent demagogue like Jindal.
The election of Jindal, if anything, indicates how Louisiana is now progressing from their previously backward state.
You miss the point. It is only because LA is a cesspool that Jindal was able to make ethics the focus of the campaign rather than his insane hard-right positions on a variety of issues.
Posted by: Josh | November 26, 2007 at 10:46 AM
He's still anti-free-speech.
No, he isn't. That is a weak slander on your part since you have no proper argument.
60% of Congress, which thus includes many Democrats, support this motion. This is a majority, and thus a mainstream position. No one other than fifth-column anti-Americans actually covet the right to burn a US flag on US soil.
Also, you seem to be the one suppressing free speech by seeking to snuff out discussion of intelligent design. I don't support ID, but I don't think free-speech should be suppressed to block it.
Why do you?
Abortion : Distort a pro-life position with any extreme example you want, you still can't prove his position is any different than Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, etc.
Pro-life people could just as easily say that all pro-choice people love to stick ice-picks into 8.5-month fetuses. That would be wrong, but that is what you are doing.
I will apologize to you ONLY if you admit that all the Democrats mentioned in this link also believe the same thing as Jindal.
In summary, I have proved that :
1) Jindal is no more extreme than virtually all GOP Senators and some Democrats. This is proven by the fact that some Congressional Democrats also support both flag-burning amendments and pro-life positions. Thus, Jindal has no position that is not held by 50-65% of the US population, except possibly Intelligent Design.
2) Leftist fifth-columnists are hypocrites about free-speech, as they want flag burning to be condoned, but not discussion of intelligent design. I remind you of your humilating defeat when you tried to justify the suppression of Fox News.
3) Racism against pro-US minorities is becoming increasingly rampant, as a person of color who simply holds the same positions as most Republicans and some Democrats, is considered an extremist *only* because these are not 'approved' views for colored people to have.
You can't say he is an extremist unless you say 50-65% of all Congressmen are extremists. Period.
Posted by: GK | November 26, 2007 at 02:36 PM
No, he isn't. That is a weak slander on your part since you have no proper argument.
The position that burning the flag should be illegal is anti-free speech because it seeks to outlaw expressive activity.
Abortion : Distort a pro-life position with any extreme example you want, you still can't prove his position is any different than Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, etc.
Clearly you are ignorant of abortion politics. There is not one "pro-life" position, there are several. Jindal's is a very extreme one, in that he feels a woman who is raped should not be permitted to abort. Harry Reid does not share that view:
"Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid#Abortion_issues
You're sloppy. Tighten up your research.
Thus, Jindal has no position that is not held by 50-65% of the US population, except possibly Intelligent Design.
Except for the position that a woman who is raped should be forced by state coercion to give birth. Thus, of the 3 positions under discussion, Jindal is an extreme Rightist on two of them. Not a good track record for a national candidacy.
as they want flag burning to be condoned, but not discussion of intelligent design.
How foolish. Show me where anyone has said that it should be illegal to discuss intelligent design. Apparently you think excluding something from a public school science course is the same as outlawing all discussion of it. How sad.
I remind you of your humilating defeat when you tried to justify the suppression of Fox News.
You mean where I called you on your use of the ad popularum fallacy and you danced and dodged and lied? I never said Fox News should be supressed, by the way. Perhaps you should take a remedial reading course.
You can't say he is an extremist unless you say 50-65% of all Congressmen are extremists. Period.
If you can find evidence that 50-65% of Congressmen think a woman who is raped should be forced to have the child, present it. Until then you're a fraud and one who is exceptionally easy to expose. No wonder you sockpuppet in the comments sections of other blogs in a desperate attempt to get traffic.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Josh,
You are simply avoiding points that expose the gaping holes in your logic.
1) The flag-burning amendment is supported by 60% of congressmen. Jindal is no more extreme than them. Period. Thus, this is not a barrier to electability, merely something that anti-US extremists like you disagree with.
2) Your selective, ideological position on free speech, opposing it when someone wants to discuss Intelligent Design, but favoring for fifth-column anti-Americans who want to advertise their synergies with jihadis, shows you to be the one who does not favor true free speech. Advocating a discussion of ID in schools is no different than advocating a discussion of homosexuality or global warming in schools. All are topics with many points of view.
3) Abortion : You said : in that he feels a woman who is raped should not be permitted to abort.
This is not specifically what Jindal said. You are inferring this extreme distortion from his "no exceptions" line, but is a weak attempt to attach a manufactured extreme to him. Plus, the many shades of gray within pro-life positions do not translate to losing votes. I myself am pro-choice (mainly because abortion worsens left-wing voter demographics at the expense of right-wing voter demographics), nor do I support ID, but I will STILL vote for Jindal as I like him for other things.
You think disagreeing with someone on 20% of the issues while agreeing with him on 80% will cost votes. Probably 95% of the people who voted for GWB in 2004 will vote for Giuliani in 2008, despite one being pro-choice and the other having a Jindal-type pro-life position. Why? Because one issue is not enough to reject a candidate who agrees with you on the other 8-10 issues.
I am sure you don't agree with Hillary Clinton on her Patriot Act and Iraq War votes. Will you not vote for her as a result? Will you *only* support the candidate that agrees with you 100%, rather than just 80% (Dennis Kucinnich or whoever it is)?
If you can find evidence that 50-65% of Congressmen think a woman who is raped should be forced to have the child
Again, you have not proven that his position (which are not the words you are assigning to him) will prevent him from getting 51%+ of the vote (which is your claim in this whole discussion). Again, I am pro-choice and pro-evolution, but will vote for him. He will capture many minority and Asian immigrant votes (again, which are *very* socially conservative by American standards) which previously went to Democrats.
Thus, the abortion and flag-burning positions are certainly not ones that would make him un-electable nationally (George W. Bush won twice with the same positions, and Jindal has advantages over Bush). Intelligent design may be a hindrance, but not a show-stopper (again, it was not for GWB).
Jindal can thus capture all the votes that went to Bush in 2004, plus a few more segments Bush could never have gotten. Admit that.
Your opening sentence was :
In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.
Clearly, GWB won with these positions, and even got a solid majority of votes of people making over $50,000 a year, a group Democrats fare poorly with, perhaps because you inexplicably call them 'unthinking'. Jindal can easily do the same and more. Therefore, you have lost this debate.
It is palpable that you consider him to be an extremist because 1) you don't agree with him, and 2) his race. Shame on you.
Until then you're a fraud and one who is exceptionally easy to expose.
This, coming from someone who has lost every debate here, in humiliating manner, to not just me but to others as well. Examples are :
1. Here (on Iraq),
2. Here (on leftist media bias), and
3. Here (Iraq again).
I might remind you that there are simple questions you have refused to answer even after 4, 8, and in one astonishing case, 12 requests.
Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM
opposing it when someone wants to discuss Intelligent Design
"Discussion" does not equal "taught as part of a public school science curricula". A child could grasp this distinction. How sad that you can't.
You are inferring this extreme distortion from his "no exceptions" line, but is a weak attempt to attach a manufactured extreme to him.
Please explain why "no exceptions" doesn't mean "no exceptions". If Jindal thinks there should be a rape exception (a commonly-debated exception that no serious pro-life person would be unaware of) why did he say "no exceptions"?
Because Jindal's views are much more extreme than those of George W. Bush, and Jindal will have much more difficulty downplaying them than Bush did because he has been such an extremist, your Bush analogy falls apart.
Now the best you can come up with is essentially "I would vote for him so many others would too." I might say you can do better but you've repeatedly demonstrated that you actually can't.
I never said anything about Jindal's race but now you're calling me a racist. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point, sockpuppet.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Josh,
Reading comprehension appears to be a challenge for you. Let me summarize more succinctly :
1) You said "In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.
2) We have proven that the flag-burning amendment will not cost him votes, as it is supported by 60% of Congress. You disagreeing with it does not make it a minority position.
3) We have established that there are many subcamps within the 2 main camps or abortion politics. But you have no proof that his position will cost him votes. His position is the same as Bush's.
4) Bush supports ID too. Here also, Jindal is equal to Bush. You said "Because Jindal's views are much more extreme than those of George W. Bush". Prove it. Bush's ID and abortion positions are the same as Jindal's, especially when Bush was Governor of Texas.
5) Thus, Jindal can get all the votes Bush got, plus a few more (which you are not disputing).
Therefore, your claim that he is not electable nationally, is not supported. Period. To have any chance of challenging this, you will have to prove Bush's positions on ID and abortion are more moderate than Jindal's, including when Bush was Gov. of TX (as Jindal could certainly choose to moderate when running nationally).
I hope these 5 summarized points are easy for you.
"I would vote for him so many others would too."
You claim people who oppose ID and his abortion stance would not vote for him. I have proven that wrong with my example, (as well as that of GWB's voters) so you are throwing a tantrum at your initial unthinking claim being exposed as simplistic and foolish. You also did not answer if Hillary's votes on the Patriot Act and Iraq would cost her your vote. You did not reply because you know I have a point that you can't rebut.
sockpuppet
Yawn..namecalling is the single best litmus test to tell me that my opponent knows he has lost, so I relish it. What is worse than being a sockpuppet? Being humiliatingly beaten by a sockpuppet.
Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 01:10 PM
We have established that there are many subcamps within the 2 main camps or abortion politics. But you have no proof that his position will cost him votes. His position is the same as Bush's.
Wrong as usual:
McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W...ortion.htm
This is just too easy. Bush won the election by positioning himself as a moderate, or "compassionate" conservative. Jindal has shown nothing other than that he's a hard-right ideologue. Even though their positions on ID and flag-burning (glad you're no longer seeking to make the idiotic claim that opposing ID is anti-free speech, btw) may be similar, when the average American sees someone who supports ID and wants to force raped women to carry pregnancies to turn, they will correctly infer that person is a hard-right ideologue. The American people are much more friendly to moderate conservatism than Rightist extremism.
Calling you a sockpuppet is simply stating a fact, unlike your baseless accusation of racism.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Btw, repeatedly declaring oneself the victor of an internet debate makes one look a little crazy and insecure. Just a helpful hint.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 02:33 PM
Josh,
Hey, guess what, Jindal is not 100% pro-life. He supports the 'morning after' pill. It says : "Jindal supports making what this paper called "emergency room contraception" available to rape victims. " So much for the pathetic little technicality you are attempting to cling to.
At the same time, Bush appointed Justices Alito and Roberts as steps to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I see you are avoiding Bush's more extreme positions on abortion as Gov. of TX, as you know it punctures your point about Bush being less extreme than Jindal.
You have apparently conceded that Bush's position on ID is the same as Jindal's. Also, do you consider Bush's position on embryonic stem-cell research a component of moderate, compassionate conservatism?
Furthermore, you continue to assume that Jindal will lose votes over this one issue, despite the fact that people who don't support his or GWB's abortion or ID position can, and do, vote for both of them. It is amazing that you don't see this yawning chasm in your reasoning that 'Jindal cannot win a national election'.
In summary, you still cannot provide anything to support three ill-considered assumptions.
1) You cannot prove that Jindal is more socially extreme than Bush on abortion, ID, and now stem cells, especially relative to Bush's positions as Gov. of Texas.
2) You insist that Jindal's positions will cost him votes, but cannot explain why some pro-choice, anti-ID people often do vote for a pro-life candidate (and vice-versa), or that a politician can moderate positions as they go for bigger offices (as Bush did).
3) Therefore, you still have no substance to support your emotional lash-out that Jindal is not electable at the national level. You made the claim, it is your job to support it, and you cannot.
I don't see how you can consider yourself a serious thinker while avoiding these points again and again.
That you are trying so hard to tear down someone who *may* run for President 8-20 years from now, who is intellectually impressive, and no more socially extreme than the current President is revealing of your true feelings about the man.
repeatedly declaring oneself the victor of an internet debate makes one look a little crazy and insecure.
If you recognize when you are defeated, I would not have to narrate the loud and clear actions of your own subconscious to you.
Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 04:37 PM
"Jindal supports making what this paper called "emergency room contraception" available to rape victims."
That's nice. Abortion and emergency contraception aren't the same thing (your first clue was that one is called "abortion" and the other "contraception"), so it doesn't prove anything. Sorry, try again.
Nothing in that commondreams link (odd source for you of all people to be citing) indicates that Bush thought a woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape should give birth. So again, you have failed to support your assertion that Bush and Jindal had the same position on this aspect of the abortion debate. You're batting .000 at this point.
I've established that Jindal is a pro-life extremist. That, coupled with the fact that on almost every issue he is a standard-issue right-winger, will indicate to likely voters that he is a right-wing ideologue.
And, of course, your assertion that Jindal will moderate his views is a complete non sequitur. I'm talking about the positions Jindal actually has, not some future hypothetical positions you would like to imagine he will take.
I'm not tearing anyone down. Unlike you, I don't really care what happens to Jindal one way or the other. Your emotional attachment to Jindal led you to wildly overstate the case that he would be a good candidate for national office. I'm simply poking holes in your flimsy assertions. You shouldn't get so upset simply because your starry-eyed admiration for Jindal is not widely shared.
Posted by: Josh | November 29, 2007 at 09:07 AM
Josh,
You continue to flail about in indignant humiliation.
1) We have established that Jindal's abortion stance is no more extreme than Bush's. The 'morning after' pill (RU486) is a form of very early abortion, not contraception (which is done before sexual intercourse, you know). I am surprised I have to school you on how babies are made.
From the source I linked before, which you read but are trying to hide from.
"RU486, commonly known as the "abortion pill," is prescribed by a gynecologist for a woman who has taken a test confirming her pregnancy and who chooses to abort the fetus. "
In turn, Bush appointed Roberts and Alito in order to oppose Roe v. Wade.
I've established that Jindal is a pro-life extremist.
Except that you haven't. He supports the abortion pill and is no more extreme than Bush, as I have proven.
2) I see that you no longer claim that Bush's ID position is different from Jindal's. Also. Bush's emb. stem-cell position is similar to Jindal's.
Thus, you have failed to prove that Jindal is, in aggregate, more extreme than Bush (certainly when Bush was Gov. of Texas.)
3) You continue to dodge the logical chasm where you assume that disagreement with one or more of Jindal's positions would preclude voting for him.
This is pathetic, on your part. Again, will you not support Hillary because you disagree with her Patriot Act and Iraq votes?
4) Thus, you still cannot support your ill-considered claim that Jindal cannot appeal to a national electorate. Point's 1-3 are clear as day, and you continue to dodge the simple questions that expose your logical gaps.
Unlike you, I don't really care what happens to Jindal one way or the other.
Yeah, right. Spending so much effort to paint Jindal as an extremist, to the extent of trying to make Bush look more moderate than Jindal despite so much evidence of uniformity between Jindal and Bush, reeks of the real reason you hate him.
Posted by: GK | November 29, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Why not a woman to decide weather she wants the baby or not? It makes me laugh all those discussion about abortion between males...
Just remember guys, we are not the ones who will be in labor, nor we really will be nursing the baby - all that job will be done by a Woman, and she has the right to decide. Same right as we, males, have to stick our penises inside the woman, cum and make the fetus happen. But we are not the ones who will be with the morning sickness for couple of month (ready to be hang over for several month? remember the feeling?)...
And if you send me to a religious source of the abortion opinion, I will tell you that church did not make much in this country for the mental health, nor physical health of the nation... Amen.
Posted by: WorldCitizen | January 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM
BTW, I assume, GK that you do not belong to the native Asian Indian religion...
I met a lot of Asian Indians (one of my good friends was born there in a rich family), and non of them are so pro-Us with ultra-right point of view... I would say they have very liberal, neutral views, more democratic thou...
Indo-US ties may be strong at this time due to the outsourcing, but Indo-Russian ties are getting even stronger due to the geo-political situation, resources including...
Posted by: WorldCitizen | January 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM
WorldCitizen,
Your anecdotal selections, even if they are real, are meaningless. India remains the most pro-US country in the world. It also is one of the few countries where George W. Bush had an approval rating of 62% after the 2004 election.
As far as Indo-Russian ties, they are far weaker than they were in the Cold War, and will not reach those heights again, as the USSR was unable to offer any economic progress to India, while the US does. The only people who are in denial about that are those who still can't accept that the USSR is history.
Posted by: GK | January 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM
If McCain picks him as his running mate, he can skip all the steps you outline and go straight into the Vice Presidency.
Bobby Jindal and the Future of Geopolitics
Bobby Jindal has become the new Governor of Louisiana. In order to understand why is this important to anyone outside of Louisiana, consider the following points, in combination :
1) Bobby Jindal is only 36 years old, and has become one of the youngest ever Governors in US history. Prior to this, he has served in the US House of Representatives, was a Rhodes Scholar, and was employed at McKinsey & Company. His success in so many different areas reflects deep intelligence and competence, rather than just a fluke.
2) As Governor of a medium-sized state, he has gained an Executive Branch position, and thus has already accomplished more towards creating a Presidential resume than Barack Obama, 10 years his senior, has. Barack Obama has just 4 years of Senate experience and no executive experience. Note that no US President has been elected without Executive (either Governor or VP) experience in the last 11 elections since John F. Kennedy in 1960.
3) That he could win so handily on a GOP ticket in Louisiana shows that whatever perceived disadvantages he may have had for being a Catholic, or for being non-white, were not barriers. In other words, if he can win there, he can win over a majority of America.
4) As by far the most prominent Indian-American in US politics, he has exclusivity in garnering political support from what is the highest-income ethnic group in the US. This elevates the visibility of a dark-skinned group that has a higher average income than whites, and thus reduces self-limiting perceptions of imagined 'racism' that many minorities still hold. This also grants the GOP a pathway to conduct a campaign to attract high-income, fiscally and socially conservative minorities, which the GOP presently does a shockingly poor job of.
5) India is one of the most pro-US countries in the world, and is also a rare country that is more supportive of Republican politicians than America itself is (very few people know this). Indo-US ties are the most rapidly widening economic and political ties between any two large countries in the world today, and with the Indian economy set to grow at 8-11% a year for the next 13 years, Indo-US trade will amount to as much as $400 Billion by 2020 (from $32 Billion in 2006, and just $5 Billion in 1990). Bobby Jindal is already a household name in India, and thus is superbly positioned to maximize this imminent wave of Indo-US geopolitical alignment and economic integration.
6) I repeat, he is only 36 years old. How much had any of the big name politicians of our era accomplished at that age? He has 20 years to go before he is even 56, and thus has ample time to lay the groundwork for multiple shots at the Presidency or Vice Presidency.
However, there is still along way to go, and the path is strewn with many traps and pitfalls. In order to advance to the highest echelon, Bobby Jindal has to work on the following three things :
1) Oversee the reconstruction and recovery of New Orleans into a city that is better than it ever was before. This is a monumental challenge, but success here will immediately receive nationwide applause. This is the accomplishment that he could ride to the Presidency.
2) Honing his speaking skills. While a competent speaker, he is not as electrifying at the big occasion as Barack Obama is, and this does matter immensely. This is a learnable skill, however, that almost anyone can gain through diligent practice.
3) Stay as scandal-free as possible over a very long period. One scandal can derail higher political ambitions permanently.
When Bobby Jindal rises to national prominence as a Presidential candidate at some point between 2016 and 2036, remember what you read here on The Futurist in October of 2007, and observe how a unique convergence of multiple megatrends elevated an unlikely man to the greatest heights of political power.
October 28, 2007 in India, Political Debate, Politics | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/693213/22797290
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bobby Jindal and the Future of Geopolitics:
Comments
To the Indian immigrants I would add the exo-communist Chinese communities (to coin a phrase).
They both provide important cultural insights, political influence and economic and technical skills to the nations which they enter while eroding the core values and beliefs of the Democratic and other Western leftist parties - pro-entitlement platforms, anti-capitalism views, anti-Western hatred, anti-success attitudes and racial paternalism.
Bobby Jindal and those who follow him are the Democrats' worst nightmare.
Posted by: Saul Wall | October 29, 2007 at 03:37 PM
I just noticed that number 2 in your list of three challenges is true but says something sad about human nature. Being a charming smooth talker is one of the classical signs of a high functioning psychopath which is exactly the kind of person that does well in politics but is less likely to do the right thing if doing the wrong thing can be advantageous to the person in question.
As for number 3, if he does get into scandals he might consider changing his name to Kennedy or Kerry or Clinton... something with a "K" or hard "C" sound. People with those sorts of names tend to be acquire a magical non-stick quality to all disturbing revelations. Or maybe it is just people with a "D" after their name.
Posted by: Saul Wall | October 31, 2007 at 12:07 PM
GK,
An interesting observation. One that raises an even more interesting point.
One thing I have noticed throughout my travels, is that each culture has its own peculiarities, and for the most part like to swap stories with foreigners. However very few countries actually allow the foreign culture ( or in many areas ideals and beliefs), to blend with their own.
In the US, we are extremely tolerant compared to any other country I have ever been in. Sure you have uneducated Joe Shmoe who will tease and harass the visitors, but over all, we offer harbor like no other country on earth. Very rarely does the teasing or harassing ever get so out of hand where physical violence is intiated (save for the downtown areas where not even a cop will venture without caution).
However due to this openness and acceptance, we have (in my humble opinion), lost a âsense of selfâ so to speak.
For example, many Americans have taken on Islam as a break from traditional Christian values. Many people allow themselves to emerge themselves so much in foreign culture, that they forget their host nations ideals founded by the forefathers. Heck, unless you speak Spanish, forget going to a grocery store and being able to ask for an item you canât seem to find. The ten commandments were banned from a court for cryin out loud.
Not only has America lost its sense of self, but it has lost itâs heritage as well. Nowadays, almost every value put forth by our nations founders, has been stamped as âintolerantâ, or âinsensitiveâ. Our Bill of Rights is under constant attack by those who want to ban guns. On the flip side, Freedom of Speech is abused on a daily basis because people can criticize the US directly, and get away with it. After all, we can say what we want right?
You see the problem is that the ethics, morals, and principles of our founding fathers are slowly being eroded away. Modern day ideals that would have made our forefathers roll over in their graves. What made America great to begin with (not to mention what ultimately made our nation what it was) was those ideals. Yet slowly and surely, as new cultures, ideals, and lack of responsibility has subverted our culture, America has lost itself. And I want it back. I want to be able to go to a foreign country again, and say âI am American, and proud of it!â without having it pointed out to me how badly our nation has become perverted.
So do you honestly believe that it would be a good idea to have a president who is American, but proud of their Indian heritage as well? Or would you want a president who stands up and says, âI am an American. Born and raised. Furthermore, I will restore this nation to the heights upon which the eagle of freedom initially flew!â I am not saying that such a one would be blind to the geo-political world, but that they should not compromise Americaâs belief or statutes (unlike todays party politics BS).
Posted by: brokerdavelhr | October 31, 2007 at 05:09 PM
brokerdavelhr,
So do you honestly believe that it would be a good idea to have a president who is American, but proud of their Indian heritage as well?
What evidence is there that Bobby Jindal has done this, any more than Rudy Giuliani has played up his Italian angle?
I mean, Jindal won in Louisiana, of all places, where there are virtually no Indian-Americans.
On the contrary, leftists attack Jindal as a 'sellout' simply for being a pro-US person of color.
Posted by: GK | October 31, 2007 at 05:17 PM
GK,
I actually spoke to soon in my previous post by breaking one of my golden rules- 'Study before you speak'. So I did some browsing and I found this website
http://www.bobbyjindal.com/
which gives a little more insight as to what makes this guy tick. I like the way he speaks actually. Very different from most other politicians. Can't wait to see what he does while in his fairly new position. Watched some of his speeches and read some of his plans and policies, and I must say that I actually like the guy. I hope that he does make plans for the presidency. All those values I thought were at stake might just be better served by him.
Posted by: brokerdavelhr | October 31, 2007 at 06:06 PM
There are several immigrant groups with strong support for freedom and capitalism. Immigrants from not only India but also Cuba, China and Vietnam.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear that immigrants from Mexico and South America share this ideal. I have a couple ideas as to why, nothing definite. It's also possible I'm wrong about the impression, I haven't seen a rigorous study of views on freedom by immigrant country. Anyone else think this is true and/or have an explanation for the difference?
Posted by: Jason Nichols | November 01, 2007 at 02:52 AM
Are Democratic ways leftist only?
Is Democracy left oriented only?
After reading the post and comments, esp. Saul Wall, I have a feeling that non of you understand the true meaning of Democracy.
One on hand, y'all talk about how we set up Democracy in Iraq, on the other hand you scream about "the Democratic and other Western leftist parties"...
On the other note, I like diversity in US politics, and will welcome Bobby Jindal if he has good common sense, and actually will work for every US citizen, not only for Indian-American population, like most of the ex-mexican senators.
Posted by: World Citizen | November 01, 2007 at 12:28 PM
WC:
Are you confusing the concept of democracy (small d) with the Democratic Party (big 'D')?
The US government is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy isn't actually a good form of government as it's simply tyranny of the majority. A better form includes protections for the individual, property rights and rule of law. This is referred to as âwestern democracyâ, which is a term that includes US as well as Mexico, Europe, etc. All of these are democracies of varying strengths (the strongest being the US due to, in my opinion, itâs much stronger constitution and higher levels of checks and balances of a bicameral rather than a parliamentary legislative body).
Democracy is also used in a philosophical way. The US Democratic party's philosophy is based on socialism, while the Republicans are a mix of conservative and/or Libertarian (aka Objectivist) views.
Finally, what weâre establishing in Iraq is also a constitutional republic, not technically a pure democracy. Itâs accurate to use the umbrella term âdemocracyâ to describe it.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: Jason Nichols | November 01, 2007 at 01:45 PM
Thank you Jason for the detailed description <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->I'm actually familiar with everything you described, I hope people here refresh their memory as well.
I just would like to disagree with you on this: "The US Democratic party's philosophy is based on socialism". I doubt US Democrats based their views on Socialism or Marxism, I think those are just Liberal views, not Socialistic.
BTW, I would note also that saying that Republicans are following Libertarian(individual liberty) views is a bit off beat in my opinion, because it's most of them who vote for censorship <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (check the Fox news - they all want you to "shut up") <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->I would say that Republicans are on the Libertarianism(private property rights) side.
BTW, I would also note that US has one of the weakest constitutions as well - it's so easily abused and twisted, and we saw it for many years now... <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->Posted by: World Citizen | November 01, 2007 at 05:25 PM
"World Citizen' is just about the last person who is qualified to comment on Democracy. He actually refuses to admit that Burma, Iran, Russia, North Korea, etc. are not Democracies.
Furthermore, he exhibits the classic sign of left-wing fascism. Obsession with silencing Fox News, when it is only 1 right-wing network vs. 7 left-wing networks, gives this away Fox News actually has far more Democrats as regulars than the others have Republicans as regulars.
So, why is it wrong for 50% of the population to have even 1 out of 8 news networks? If leftists are unsatisfied with 7 out of 8, and obsess over the last one, that shows that they are the ones who are opposed to free speech.
BTW, I would also note that US has one of the weakest constitutions as well - it's so easily abused and twisted, and we saw it for many years now...
er.. care to provide any examples? The examples provided had better be from an official judicial or congressional source.
Lastly, "World Citizen" ran away from inconvenient questions in the last chain. I repeat them again here, in case he now has the courage to answer :
1) BTW, 'World Citizen', what are you doing to stop the violent massacre of peaceful Buddhist monks in Burma? Of innocents in Sudan and Zimbabwe? Where is your so-called 'world community' in preventing these atrocities?
2) If you think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA to get Republicans elected, then why is not a single Democratic Senator saying this? Why do believe something that not one Democrat thinks is credible?
3) Taiwan is not recognized by the UN. Yet, it is a democratic, wealthy country. Does it deserve to exist as an independent country? Or is it supposed to be part of non-Democratic China?
4) Are you also a "World Citizen" of countries like North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, etc., where people are not allowed to vote at all?
and a new one :
5) There are countries where women are not allowed to work, expose their faces in public, or pursue education. These countries also execute homosexuals by throwing them off of tall buildings. Women who have pre-marital sex are sometimes stoned to death. As a "World Citizen", are you a citizen of such countries as well?
Posted by: GK | November 01, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Just a quick observation: #3 seems to imply that Jindal did well despite being a Catholic. Considering that Louisiana has a high proportion of Catholics, this should probably be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. See this map: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/re...on/catholic.gif
Posted by: sam | November 02, 2007 at 03:03 PM
Obama is not electrifying as a speaker ... he is a bore ... at the beginning his appearance struck people ... now that e listen we hear nothing
Posted by: bee | November 02, 2007 at 07:46 PM
I would have to say that in a way, I know where 'World Cliche' is coming from. The Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of speech. However many people often abuse this freedom by advocating illegal activities that range from drugs to subversion of our own country. I am not saying that freedoms are bad, however a little more self-discipline in every US citizen would be greatly appreciated.
Now let me define another relevant problem. The freedoms our forefathers fought so hard for, are under constant attack by the democratic party (Big D). For instance- extreme gun control, allowing illegals into the country and offering them protection from Americans when in fact they should have no rights at all, abuse of power, and just general ignorance. They are politicians who believe (and I quote Hillary Clinton in her own words) that 'No people can coexist in a society without a government to guide, and lead them'. They do not fight for the peoples rights much anymore. The reasons vary as to why. The main reason is that they are so caught up with protecting the people from their own actions (which not only infringes on the freedoms of responsible people, but gives many excuses to actions commited out of gross stupidity), that they end up creating more problems then they fix.
World Whacko,
You argued with Jason on the democrats of this county being socialistic. This makes you twice as blind. As I stated above, they try to enact a law for the common good. This however is not for common good because there is no check to it. They see a trend in a committed action (whether it be school shootings, religious issues, fireworks, or even something as small as speeding), and seek to set forth a law that would ban such activities.
This is by very definition socialism. What is worse, is that people who maintain and use fire-arms safely, do not speed excessively or drive drunk, who do not try to force their religion down other peoples throats, or abuse any of their freedoms, are then forced to obey the law that in essence, takes away their freedoms.
This all stems from lack of self discipline. Democorats (and all those who agree with them) tout that it is up to the government to stop people from doing stupid things. This is a common occurrence that I can cite many examples of it need be. However by turning this line of thought into law, it prohibits the American people from the freedoms that so many of our previous generations laid down their lives to protect.
The only solution to this is to stop passing laws (that are usually only enforced when special interest groups get involved (what makes those a**h**** so special anyway?))that will have a nationwide impact on all US citizens, and start punishing the individual who screwed up.
For instance, if someone murders another, then it is up to the courts to take their life in return (this will never happen though because the Legislative and Judicial branch have made an excuse for just about anything short of rape). If someone steals something from another, then they should be made to pay that individual back, and not be free until they have done so (in many Arabic countries, they just cut of your hand). And so on, and so on.
Which is why I like this Bobby Jindal guy. Sure I have a lot more to learn about him before I make any further statements, but thus far, he seems like 'the man for the job'. Unlike many politicians (who will only try to curb a problem, or take advantage of it), he finds the cause of the problem, and tries to cut it off at the source. WITHOUT passing ridiculous laws that punish those who do not deserve it.
Also, when was the last time the Republic Majority voted for a censorship? I want an example. Obviously if you brought it up, you must have some to share.
Posted by: brokerdavelhr | November 03, 2007 at 06:36 AM
Bobby Jindal's success, and the anger of leftist democrat party hacks at his "betrayal" points out the basic racism of modern leftists.
They require people of color to "stay on the plantation" and don't go acting all uppity independent now. Any person of color (or woman) who thinks for himself is just going to be called an "uncle Tom" or worse.
How long can the US Democratic party keep suckering normal non-ideologic, non-america haters to keep voting for them. Pity the poor independent businessperson who still thinks the US Democratic Party is on his side.
Posted by: Al Fin | November 07, 2007 at 09:31 PM
You will make for a good campaign manager. But I must say, Bobby Jindal seems to be a man of substance.
Posted by: pinkHammer | November 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Al Fin,
I do agree that racism does exist in some areas still. It is a bloody shame, and I wish that it wasn't true.
However a fire is fed by both air and wood.
In many, many of the northern cities, and all over the US now, a case of reverse racism also exists.
I cannot walk in many 'ghetto' neighborhoods and areas because I am white. When I go to a mostly African-American, or Hispanic populated area, I am called cracker, whittie, and a number of other racial slurs. 'Reverend' Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and many others often slam whites for using the word 'nigger'. Thats right I said it.
I was told by all my friends in the African American community that this is offensive because it makes them feel like they were back in the slave days. Ironically enough, both the terms 'Whittie' and 'Cracker' where terms used by slaves in reference to their abusive owners.
So we have African-Americans running around calling themselves 'Nigger'(wearing the title proudly), but God forbid a white person says it (witness Dog the bounty hunter). Yet the same people call me cracker and whittie without second thought.
Will someone please explain to me why retribution must be made? Further more, what good is it? I personally abhor the idea of slavery. I keep getting the answer that retribution, apologies, and special rights be granted to African-American's to make up for the 200 + years of slavery, and mistreatment. 1 out of every 20 people I see in a library are African-American. This means that all the libraries in the US must be racist and try to prevent them from entering! So, special college funds are made for the African American Community.
Guess what? 75% of my bosses and mentors have been African-American, and not one of them have ever needed any 'special aid'. They are all smart, hard-working, and people of great stature.
Meanwhile, my little brother was denied employment as a police officer because he would have tipped the legal scales, despite the fact that he was much more qualified.
Where is the justice? Where is the personal responsibility? Where is the balance?
In truth, there is none. If Obama is not made president, it is not because of Racism. It is because his politics were not what the people want.
Bobby Jindal gives me hope that people are responsible, and that no matter what the color of your skin is, people will vote for you if you are good at what you do.
He is currently governor of Loisianna. A place that the NAACP says is in a state of emergency because of some beating. The NAACP says that because of hangings and police brutality.
In the case of Shelwanda Riley, she bit the policeman before he used the pepper spray. This is something not shown on CNN. They just show the cop pepper spraying her. You know what? IF I was a cop, and if someone tried to bite me, I would spray them too!
In the Martin Lee Anderson Story, I watched the video 12 times, read every news paper article, and report I could find, and was not able to draw a conclusion either way because both sided gave double sided reviews. The child had a blood disorder, and according to both coroners, died of the ammonia (which is commonly used as a 'smelling salt'). The guards did not know of this condition as it was never diagnosed before. Obviously, the child was not in to good of physical shape if he collapsed after a mere few laps. Had the parents watched their child closer, they would have at least brought him to the doctors for suspected Asthma (due to the shortness of breath). I actually looked up the symptoms of sickle cell, and found that the symptoms do include weakness, pain in varying areas of the body, shortness of breath, etc. It comes in bouts that last from a few hours to several weeks. Even if the guards did what they were accused of, one could hardly call it a 'hate crime' anyway like the NAACP makes it look like. This is because there were African American guards involved as well. But, thanks to liberal media, a hate crime it has been dubbed.
Basically, I am tired of the BS. personally, I cannot wait for an African American who knows politics and does the right thing to step forward so that they can tell the NAACP just how full of it they are. Heck, even Bill Cosby had nothing nice to say about them. They are just another special interest group milking the system, and leeching our society. 'Reverend' Al and Jesse, HAH! They seek retribution and pay back where the Bible forbids it! Reverend my a**!
I just wish more like Bobby Jindal would come forward to put these groups in their place!
Posted by: brokerdavelhr | November 24, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Jindal supports a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning. He's no friend of free speech. He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth. In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.
Posted by: Josh | November 26, 2007 at 08:12 AM
Josh,
Jindal supports a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning.
So do about 60% of the US Congress, which thus includes all Republicans and many Democrats.
At any rate, the flag-burning amendment is merely a stunt to expose the anti-US fifth-columnists by making them writhe in agony.
He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools
Any proof? He is a Rhodes Scholar, you know.
and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth.
That is just an extreme left-wing distortion of being pro-life. Harry Reid is also pro-life too, BTW.
In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.
Certainly not based on his position on flag-burning, which 60% of Congress supports. He is more electable than George W. Bush, who did win 2 Presidential elections.
And the 'backward cesspool' of Louisiana has usually elected Democrats (Blanco, Nagin, Landrieu) until recently. The election of Jindal, if anything, indicates how Louisiana is now progressing from their previously backward state.
Posted by: GK | November 26, 2007 at 10:29 AM
So do about 60% of the US Congress, which thus includes all Republicans and many Democrats.
So? Jindal has a lot of company in his anti-free-speech position. He's still anti-free-speech.
At any rate, the flag-burning amendment is merely a stunt to expose the anti-US fifth-columnists by making them writhe in agony.
Any proof of this? Even if true, it means Jindal takes an anti-free-speech position in bad faith. And you think this is a defense?
He also thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools
Any proof? He is a Rhodes Scholar, you know.
You're easily impressed.
Source for Jindal's position on intelligent design:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1668433,00.html
and that a woman who becomes pregnant via rape should be legally compelled to give birth.
That is just an extreme left-wing distortion of being pro-life. Harry Reid is also pro-life too, BTW.
That's nice, but irrelevant. Proof that Jindal thinks a woman who is raped should be forced to give birth:
"I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious."
http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/ar...30075.html
So my claim about Jindal's position on abortion is not a distortion. I await your apology.
Translation : Josh believes that people of color should not be able to choose to be Republicans.
Translation: GK is unable to defend Jindal against specific criticisms, so he accuses Jindal's critics of racism. GK cannot come up with his own arguments so he retreats GOP talking points.
Certainly not based on his position on flag-burning, which 60% of Congress supports. He is more electable than George W. Bush, who did win 2 Presidential elections.
Jindal will not be able to explain away his hard-right stance on every issue. The American people are not ideologues and will reject a transparent demagogue like Jindal.
The election of Jindal, if anything, indicates how Louisiana is now progressing from their previously backward state.
You miss the point. It is only because LA is a cesspool that Jindal was able to make ethics the focus of the campaign rather than his insane hard-right positions on a variety of issues.
Posted by: Josh | November 26, 2007 at 10:46 AM
He's still anti-free-speech.
No, he isn't. That is a weak slander on your part since you have no proper argument.
60% of Congress, which thus includes many Democrats, support this motion. This is a majority, and thus a mainstream position. No one other than fifth-column anti-Americans actually covet the right to burn a US flag on US soil.
Also, you seem to be the one suppressing free speech by seeking to snuff out discussion of intelligent design. I don't support ID, but I don't think free-speech should be suppressed to block it.
Why do you?
Abortion : Distort a pro-life position with any extreme example you want, you still can't prove his position is any different than Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, etc.
Pro-life people could just as easily say that all pro-choice people love to stick ice-picks into 8.5-month fetuses. That would be wrong, but that is what you are doing.
I will apologize to you ONLY if you admit that all the Democrats mentioned in this link also believe the same thing as Jindal.
In summary, I have proved that :
1) Jindal is no more extreme than virtually all GOP Senators and some Democrats. This is proven by the fact that some Congressional Democrats also support both flag-burning amendments and pro-life positions. Thus, Jindal has no position that is not held by 50-65% of the US population, except possibly Intelligent Design.
2) Leftist fifth-columnists are hypocrites about free-speech, as they want flag burning to be condoned, but not discussion of intelligent design. I remind you of your humilating defeat when you tried to justify the suppression of Fox News.
3) Racism against pro-US minorities is becoming increasingly rampant, as a person of color who simply holds the same positions as most Republicans and some Democrats, is considered an extremist *only* because these are not 'approved' views for colored people to have.
You can't say he is an extremist unless you say 50-65% of all Congressmen are extremists. Period.
Posted by: GK | November 26, 2007 at 02:36 PM
No, he isn't. That is a weak slander on your part since you have no proper argument.
The position that burning the flag should be illegal is anti-free speech because it seeks to outlaw expressive activity.
Abortion : Distort a pro-life position with any extreme example you want, you still can't prove his position is any different than Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, etc.
Clearly you are ignorant of abortion politics. There is not one "pro-life" position, there are several. Jindal's is a very extreme one, in that he feels a woman who is raped should not be permitted to abort. Harry Reid does not share that view:
"Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid#Abortion_issues
You're sloppy. Tighten up your research.
Thus, Jindal has no position that is not held by 50-65% of the US population, except possibly Intelligent Design.
Except for the position that a woman who is raped should be forced by state coercion to give birth. Thus, of the 3 positions under discussion, Jindal is an extreme Rightist on two of them. Not a good track record for a national candidacy.
as they want flag burning to be condoned, but not discussion of intelligent design.
How foolish. Show me where anyone has said that it should be illegal to discuss intelligent design. Apparently you think excluding something from a public school science course is the same as outlawing all discussion of it. How sad.
I remind you of your humilating defeat when you tried to justify the suppression of Fox News.
You mean where I called you on your use of the ad popularum fallacy and you danced and dodged and lied? I never said Fox News should be supressed, by the way. Perhaps you should take a remedial reading course.
You can't say he is an extremist unless you say 50-65% of all Congressmen are extremists. Period.
If you can find evidence that 50-65% of Congressmen think a woman who is raped should be forced to have the child, present it. Until then you're a fraud and one who is exceptionally easy to expose. No wonder you sockpuppet in the comments sections of other blogs in a desperate attempt to get traffic.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Josh,
You are simply avoiding points that expose the gaping holes in your logic.
1) The flag-burning amendment is supported by 60% of congressmen. Jindal is no more extreme than them. Period. Thus, this is not a barrier to electability, merely something that anti-US extremists like you disagree with.
2) Your selective, ideological position on free speech, opposing it when someone wants to discuss Intelligent Design, but favoring for fifth-column anti-Americans who want to advertise their synergies with jihadis, shows you to be the one who does not favor true free speech. Advocating a discussion of ID in schools is no different than advocating a discussion of homosexuality or global warming in schools. All are topics with many points of view.
3) Abortion : You said : in that he feels a woman who is raped should not be permitted to abort.
This is not specifically what Jindal said. You are inferring this extreme distortion from his "no exceptions" line, but is a weak attempt to attach a manufactured extreme to him. Plus, the many shades of gray within pro-life positions do not translate to losing votes. I myself am pro-choice (mainly because abortion worsens left-wing voter demographics at the expense of right-wing voter demographics), nor do I support ID, but I will STILL vote for Jindal as I like him for other things.
You think disagreeing with someone on 20% of the issues while agreeing with him on 80% will cost votes. Probably 95% of the people who voted for GWB in 2004 will vote for Giuliani in 2008, despite one being pro-choice and the other having a Jindal-type pro-life position. Why? Because one issue is not enough to reject a candidate who agrees with you on the other 8-10 issues.
I am sure you don't agree with Hillary Clinton on her Patriot Act and Iraq War votes. Will you not vote for her as a result? Will you *only* support the candidate that agrees with you 100%, rather than just 80% (Dennis Kucinnich or whoever it is)?
If you can find evidence that 50-65% of Congressmen think a woman who is raped should be forced to have the child
Again, you have not proven that his position (which are not the words you are assigning to him) will prevent him from getting 51%+ of the vote (which is your claim in this whole discussion). Again, I am pro-choice and pro-evolution, but will vote for him. He will capture many minority and Asian immigrant votes (again, which are *very* socially conservative by American standards) which previously went to Democrats.
Thus, the abortion and flag-burning positions are certainly not ones that would make him un-electable nationally (George W. Bush won twice with the same positions, and Jindal has advantages over Bush). Intelligent design may be a hindrance, but not a show-stopper (again, it was not for GWB).
Jindal can thus capture all the votes that went to Bush in 2004, plus a few more segments Bush could never have gotten. Admit that.
Your opening sentence was :
In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.
Clearly, GWB won with these positions, and even got a solid majority of votes of people making over $50,000 a year, a group Democrats fare poorly with, perhaps because you inexplicably call them 'unthinking'. Jindal can easily do the same and more. Therefore, you have lost this debate.
It is palpable that you consider him to be an extremist because 1) you don't agree with him, and 2) his race. Shame on you.
Until then you're a fraud and one who is exceptionally easy to expose.
This, coming from someone who has lost every debate here, in humiliating manner, to not just me but to others as well. Examples are :
1. Here (on Iraq),
2. Here (on leftist media bias), and
3. Here (Iraq again).
I might remind you that there are simple questions you have refused to answer even after 4, 8, and in one astonishing case, 12 requests.
Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM
opposing it when someone wants to discuss Intelligent Design
"Discussion" does not equal "taught as part of a public school science curricula". A child could grasp this distinction. How sad that you can't.
You are inferring this extreme distortion from his "no exceptions" line, but is a weak attempt to attach a manufactured extreme to him.
Please explain why "no exceptions" doesn't mean "no exceptions". If Jindal thinks there should be a rape exception (a commonly-debated exception that no serious pro-life person would be unaware of) why did he say "no exceptions"?
Because Jindal's views are much more extreme than those of George W. Bush, and Jindal will have much more difficulty downplaying them than Bush did because he has been such an extremist, your Bush analogy falls apart.
Now the best you can come up with is essentially "I would vote for him so many others would too." I might say you can do better but you've repeatedly demonstrated that you actually can't.
I never said anything about Jindal's race but now you're calling me a racist. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point, sockpuppet.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Josh,
Reading comprehension appears to be a challenge for you. Let me summarize more succinctly :
1) You said "In short, he is an unthinking right-wing extremist with no chance whatsoever of attaining elected office outside the backward cesspool of Louisiana politics.
2) We have proven that the flag-burning amendment will not cost him votes, as it is supported by 60% of Congress. You disagreeing with it does not make it a minority position.
3) We have established that there are many subcamps within the 2 main camps or abortion politics. But you have no proof that his position will cost him votes. His position is the same as Bush's.
4) Bush supports ID too. Here also, Jindal is equal to Bush. You said "Because Jindal's views are much more extreme than those of George W. Bush". Prove it. Bush's ID and abortion positions are the same as Jindal's, especially when Bush was Governor of Texas.
5) Thus, Jindal can get all the votes Bush got, plus a few more (which you are not disputing).
Therefore, your claim that he is not electable nationally, is not supported. Period. To have any chance of challenging this, you will have to prove Bush's positions on ID and abortion are more moderate than Jindal's, including when Bush was Gov. of TX (as Jindal could certainly choose to moderate when running nationally).
I hope these 5 summarized points are easy for you.
"I would vote for him so many others would too."
You claim people who oppose ID and his abortion stance would not vote for him. I have proven that wrong with my example, (as well as that of GWB's voters) so you are throwing a tantrum at your initial unthinking claim being exposed as simplistic and foolish. You also did not answer if Hillary's votes on the Patriot Act and Iraq would cost her your vote. You did not reply because you know I have a point that you can't rebut.
sockpuppet
Yawn..namecalling is the single best litmus test to tell me that my opponent knows he has lost, so I relish it. What is worse than being a sockpuppet? Being humiliatingly beaten by a sockpuppet.
Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 01:10 PM
We have established that there are many subcamps within the 2 main camps or abortion politics. But you have no proof that his position will cost him votes. His position is the same as Bush's.
Wrong as usual:
McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W...ortion.htm
This is just too easy. Bush won the election by positioning himself as a moderate, or "compassionate" conservative. Jindal has shown nothing other than that he's a hard-right ideologue. Even though their positions on ID and flag-burning (glad you're no longer seeking to make the idiotic claim that opposing ID is anti-free speech, btw) may be similar, when the average American sees someone who supports ID and wants to force raped women to carry pregnancies to turn, they will correctly infer that person is a hard-right ideologue. The American people are much more friendly to moderate conservatism than Rightist extremism.
Calling you a sockpuppet is simply stating a fact, unlike your baseless accusation of racism.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Btw, repeatedly declaring oneself the victor of an internet debate makes one look a little crazy and insecure. Just a helpful hint.
Posted by: Josh | November 28, 2007 at 02:33 PM
Josh,
Hey, guess what, Jindal is not 100% pro-life. He supports the 'morning after' pill. It says : "Jindal supports making what this paper called "emergency room contraception" available to rape victims. " So much for the pathetic little technicality you are attempting to cling to.
At the same time, Bush appointed Justices Alito and Roberts as steps to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I see you are avoiding Bush's more extreme positions on abortion as Gov. of TX, as you know it punctures your point about Bush being less extreme than Jindal.
You have apparently conceded that Bush's position on ID is the same as Jindal's. Also, do you consider Bush's position on embryonic stem-cell research a component of moderate, compassionate conservatism?
Furthermore, you continue to assume that Jindal will lose votes over this one issue, despite the fact that people who don't support his or GWB's abortion or ID position can, and do, vote for both of them. It is amazing that you don't see this yawning chasm in your reasoning that 'Jindal cannot win a national election'.
In summary, you still cannot provide anything to support three ill-considered assumptions.
1) You cannot prove that Jindal is more socially extreme than Bush on abortion, ID, and now stem cells, especially relative to Bush's positions as Gov. of Texas.
2) You insist that Jindal's positions will cost him votes, but cannot explain why some pro-choice, anti-ID people often do vote for a pro-life candidate (and vice-versa), or that a politician can moderate positions as they go for bigger offices (as Bush did).
3) Therefore, you still have no substance to support your emotional lash-out that Jindal is not electable at the national level. You made the claim, it is your job to support it, and you cannot.
I don't see how you can consider yourself a serious thinker while avoiding these points again and again.
That you are trying so hard to tear down someone who *may* run for President 8-20 years from now, who is intellectually impressive, and no more socially extreme than the current President is revealing of your true feelings about the man.
repeatedly declaring oneself the victor of an internet debate makes one look a little crazy and insecure.
If you recognize when you are defeated, I would not have to narrate the loud and clear actions of your own subconscious to you.
Posted by: GK | November 28, 2007 at 04:37 PM
"Jindal supports making what this paper called "emergency room contraception" available to rape victims."
That's nice. Abortion and emergency contraception aren't the same thing (your first clue was that one is called "abortion" and the other "contraception"), so it doesn't prove anything. Sorry, try again.
Nothing in that commondreams link (odd source for you of all people to be citing) indicates that Bush thought a woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape should give birth. So again, you have failed to support your assertion that Bush and Jindal had the same position on this aspect of the abortion debate. You're batting .000 at this point.
I've established that Jindal is a pro-life extremist. That, coupled with the fact that on almost every issue he is a standard-issue right-winger, will indicate to likely voters that he is a right-wing ideologue.
And, of course, your assertion that Jindal will moderate his views is a complete non sequitur. I'm talking about the positions Jindal actually has, not some future hypothetical positions you would like to imagine he will take.
I'm not tearing anyone down. Unlike you, I don't really care what happens to Jindal one way or the other. Your emotional attachment to Jindal led you to wildly overstate the case that he would be a good candidate for national office. I'm simply poking holes in your flimsy assertions. You shouldn't get so upset simply because your starry-eyed admiration for Jindal is not widely shared.
Posted by: Josh | November 29, 2007 at 09:07 AM
Josh,
You continue to flail about in indignant humiliation.
1) We have established that Jindal's abortion stance is no more extreme than Bush's. The 'morning after' pill (RU486) is a form of very early abortion, not contraception (which is done before sexual intercourse, you know). I am surprised I have to school you on how babies are made.
From the source I linked before, which you read but are trying to hide from.
"RU486, commonly known as the "abortion pill," is prescribed by a gynecologist for a woman who has taken a test confirming her pregnancy and who chooses to abort the fetus. "
In turn, Bush appointed Roberts and Alito in order to oppose Roe v. Wade.
I've established that Jindal is a pro-life extremist.
Except that you haven't. He supports the abortion pill and is no more extreme than Bush, as I have proven.
2) I see that you no longer claim that Bush's ID position is different from Jindal's. Also. Bush's emb. stem-cell position is similar to Jindal's.
Thus, you have failed to prove that Jindal is, in aggregate, more extreme than Bush (certainly when Bush was Gov. of Texas.)
3) You continue to dodge the logical chasm where you assume that disagreement with one or more of Jindal's positions would preclude voting for him.
This is pathetic, on your part. Again, will you not support Hillary because you disagree with her Patriot Act and Iraq votes?
4) Thus, you still cannot support your ill-considered claim that Jindal cannot appeal to a national electorate. Point's 1-3 are clear as day, and you continue to dodge the simple questions that expose your logical gaps.
Unlike you, I don't really care what happens to Jindal one way or the other.
Yeah, right. Spending so much effort to paint Jindal as an extremist, to the extent of trying to make Bush look more moderate than Jindal despite so much evidence of uniformity between Jindal and Bush, reeks of the real reason you hate him.
Posted by: GK | November 29, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Why not a woman to decide weather she wants the baby or not? It makes me laugh all those discussion about abortion between males...
Just remember guys, we are not the ones who will be in labor, nor we really will be nursing the baby - all that job will be done by a Woman, and she has the right to decide. Same right as we, males, have to stick our penises inside the woman, cum and make the fetus happen. But we are not the ones who will be with the morning sickness for couple of month (ready to be hang over for several month? remember the feeling?)...
And if you send me to a religious source of the abortion opinion, I will tell you that church did not make much in this country for the mental health, nor physical health of the nation... Amen.
Posted by: WorldCitizen | January 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM
BTW, I assume, GK that you do not belong to the native Asian Indian religion...
I met a lot of Asian Indians (one of my good friends was born there in a rich family), and non of them are so pro-Us with ultra-right point of view... I would say they have very liberal, neutral views, more democratic thou...
Indo-US ties may be strong at this time due to the outsourcing, but Indo-Russian ties are getting even stronger due to the geo-political situation, resources including...
Posted by: WorldCitizen | January 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM
WorldCitizen,
Your anecdotal selections, even if they are real, are meaningless. India remains the most pro-US country in the world. It also is one of the few countries where George W. Bush had an approval rating of 62% after the 2004 election.
As far as Indo-Russian ties, they are far weaker than they were in the Cold War, and will not reach those heights again, as the USSR was unable to offer any economic progress to India, while the US does. The only people who are in denial about that are those who still can't accept that the USSR is history.
Posted by: GK | January 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM
If McCain picks him as his running mate, he can skip all the steps you outline and go straight into the Vice Presidency.