Mutineers, we have our first brown Governor. 🙂 Join me, as I bold my favorite parts of the NYT article which declares this history-making outcome.
Bobby Jindal, a conservative Republican congressman from the New Orleans suburbs and the son of immigrants from India, was elected Louisiana’s governor Saturday, inheriting a state that was suffering well before Hurricane Katrina left lingering scars two years ago.
Mr. Jindal, 36, defeated three main challengers in an open primary, becoming this state’s first nonwhite governor since a Reconstruction-era figure briefly held the office 130 years ago.
With more than 90 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Jindal received 53 percent, above the 50 percent-plus-one threshold needed to avoid a runoff in November. He will be the nation’s first Indian-American governor when he takes office in January.
Have I popped champagne? Yes, I have. No, I don’t believe in teaching Intelligent Design, I certainly am not an advocate of getting rid of a woman’s right to choose and I still support hate crime legislation.
I can guzzle bubbly despite all that, because there’s something else stirring within me– recognition that someone who looks like me did something so significant, combined with an uncomplicated thrill over the fact that Bobby made history.
There are so many valid reactions to Jindal; I know about them because thanks to Amardeep’s post, we have hosted a lively discussion regarding his background, his policy positions and the greater implications of his politicking, for “the community”. Amardeep’s thoughts resonated with many of us who are conflicted about Louisiana’s new Governor. The good news is, there are no wrong reactions.
Each of us is allowed to feel how we do, so while some of you gnash your teeth, I’m happy for him and by extension, us. Better than that, the next time some little kid decides that they want to be in government when they grow up, their immigrant parents now have a visual, a template, a precedent to latch on to, much the same way my English minor was suddenly acceptable once Jhumpa won.
There is much to do, much which is owed to the great state of Louisiana and her people; this is just the beginning of that story and I idealistically hope that it has a happy ending. What Jindal can do (and really, whether he can do it) remains to be seen. But I don’t think it’s disrespectful or inappropriate to raise a glass to him tonight and wish him a sincere congratulations.
Doing so doesn’t mean we buy in to his positions lock stock, neither does it mean he’s like, the greatest thing EVAR. It just means that we are happy for someone who accomplished something extraordinary. Congratulating Bobby is something I humbly think we should do, because ideally we should each choose generosity of spirit over bitterness and rancor. Choosing the former and congratulating a winner doesn’t lessen us or diminish our passionate convictions, it just demonstrates our tolerance, equanimity and good faith that we will allow a person’s actions to speak before we do, negatively and presumptously.
Yes protect our borders from terrrorists but don’t wall off hardworking immigrants.
This isn’t about the desi “community” at all (for one, no such thing exists). This is about right or wrong. It is implicit that people are welcome to have their opinions, but doesn’t mean that all opinions are created equal. And I take the view that any support of Mr. Jindal is dangerous, and anything else is wrong. Gubernatorial politics are not a place for moral relativism. There is clear right and wrong, though people are allowed to take the wrong view.
I’m elated for those of you who see this from the perspective of firsts and celebrating the power gain of one who looks like us. Have your party, pop your champagne and dance the night away. Once all that is done, please realize that Jindal is just a politician and is not the messiah or bane of Louisiana. He’s a Bush-bot, another Gonzales, Rice or Hastings, so judge him accordingly – throw him the same amount of love or scorn, no more and no less.
It is terribly sad that many here voted for him because he looks like them and not because they share a political philosophy. Slightly more depressing was that Jindal used his skin color to be everything to everyone during his campaign. Posterity asked about specific examples of racism towards African-Americans: on the Jena 6 march, Jindal appealed to the northern Louisianan (predominantly white conservative) voter base by referring to protestors from outside Louisiana as “outside agitators” – read this analysis by my friend Oyster to figure out why that phrase was a slap in the face to civil rights and the black community here. Yet, black voters (mostly Democrats) in Orleans Parish (southeastern Louisiana) turned out for Bobby because they weren’t going to vote for an Independent white businessman with a very limited platform, a Conservative/Independent businessman who lives in a very white gated enclave in New Orleans or a Republican-turned-Democrat buffoon whose history shows no cooperation with the black community. As I said in Amardeep’s post, looking like a black businessman while sounding like a conservative white redneck and having opponents that made him look like a young Jesus himself got Jindal his vote.
Even while I felt the teeny-tiniest twinge of pride last night on learning of his victory, I had to put that aside and think about what is good for my state. Because it isn’t about me. I have to wonder about the future of tens of thousands who live here in abject poverty and under the threat of a Homeland Security bureaucracy that refuses to see hurricanes and crumbling infrastructure (levees, pumps, hurricane protection) as bigger threats than a terrorist attack conducted by people they have profiled and, ironically, think look like Jindal.
Bobby Jindal voted against re-establishing FEMA as separate from the Department of Homeland Security, skipped a crucial committee hearing on FEMA Hurricane Preparations in 2007, skipped a critical vote that would have established an independent probe to investigate the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, voted against a $3 billion hurricane aid package for Louisiana, believes in teaching creationism and/or “intelligent design†in the classroom, voted to reduce Medicare funding by up to $20 billion, and recently skipped a vote that would have overturned Bush’s SCHIP veto that would pay for children’s healthcare in poor states like Louisiana. How does that sit with you? Forget him or what he looks like – he was elected to be a public servant to the state of Louisiana and the records state otherwise. Yes, the Democrats aren’t labeled the Douchey Dems without a good reason, and they wouldn’t have done any better without a plan, but let’s now judge Jindal because he’s a
used car salesmanpolitician and that’s that.Look, this is an INdian American blog. So it is well within the scope of this blog to trumpet a FIRST milestone. People here know me by my regularly spelled handle and I do not care for his politics. A first is a first. I think we can be happy that a guy who looks and dresses like an FOB used to look back in the day won in a time when image is a lot. That is a minor victory in itself. He can hide his connections through his behavior all he wants, but a lot of local whites will look at his visual appearance and they will momentarily forget his name wsa changed to Bobby and his religion is not Hinduism. In politics, I noticed logic sometimes is trumped by what people perceive. Now we do not have to be happy for the guy personally or even root for him. Yes he is far from perfect and I actually feel more negatively about his name change than a lot of you. The religion conversion didn’t even bother me as much until I heard about the name change. So I thought to myself why should I feel happy about a guy who is trying to de-Indianise himself as much as possible. This has nothing to do with not attending Bangra parties. I personally do not attend any of those Indian events. This blog is pretty much my Indian outreach in my daily life other than relatives.And I know other Indians who are like me. Still for some reason, I feel uncomfortable with Jindal’s attitude in this aspect. But then you look at his visual appearance and it fits the FOB stereotype from the 80s. Interesting that no one suggested a makeover in a media friendly Image conscious political age.
Even my relatives admitted there was some fear of reaching out too much to the Indian community when he ran last time which I found troubling as he got a lot of support from Indian Americans. They claim he improved in that area this time. Only locals like Maithri would be able to give us a more objective view on that aspect.
Image is a lot. What is troubling is why the Democrats can’t come up with a single strong minority candidate in that state. And I have gotten into some heated discussions with my fellow liberals. I think Jena 6 was a wakeup call that White Democrats weren’t a whole lot better when dealing with race in Louisiana. Especially the older ones.
Is it a recent trend for some American Catholics to disavow evolution? I went to a Catholic school starting with middle school and we were taught evolution without any reservations. Most of my Christian friends are Catholic. How does such a smart guy exposed to different philosophies at a young age be so thickheaded about evolution? This ID thing wasnt something he was taught as a kid. But he believes in after putting some thought into as an adult. I coexist fine with many deeply religious smart people. But it just makes me wonder how a grown teenager can look at any organized religion and believe in the literal interpretations of it and change over to that religion with such fervor. It may not be a definitive statement about them, but it does make me wonder about their state of mind. Are they too intent on wanting surety in their lives and not good at dealing with grey issues? How will that reflect in their policies? I can understand if you were raised in a fundamentalist Christian household and it is natural for some smart people to kind of want to believe in creationism.
Maitri — thank you.
He’s a Bush-bot, another Gonzales, Rice or Hastings
You mean those guys ran for elective office too?
From a Wiki article on this guy: Congressman Jindal has stated that he is “100 percent against abortion, no exceptions”[5]…..he supports an abortion ban without exceptions for the life of the woman, the health of the woman, rape, or incest
In 2006, Jindal sponsored the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761), a bill to eliminate the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling over the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, which prompted the watchdog group Republicans for Environmental Protection to issue him an environmental harm demerit.[16] Jindal’s 2006 rating from that organization was -4, among the lowest in Congress. The nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters also censured Jindal for securing passage of H.R. 4761 in the House of Representatives; the group rated his environmental performance that year at 7%, citing anti-environment votes on eleven out of twelve critical issues.
Jindal has an A rating from Gun Owners of America.
While at Oxford, he wrote an article for the New Oxford Review claiming he personally witnessed a friend being possessed by a demon.[4]
Hitler made history too.
This is a good start. I would vote for this guy (Jindal). If anything he is not conservative enough for my taste.
Hi Rajesh, what would make this guy conservative enough for your taste?
Hitler made history too.
Do you have the scoop on how Jindal rounded up the Jews?
I don’t agree with Jindal’s opposition to abortion, but it hardly matters in terms of pressing issues for LA. Has there been any state where an anti-abortion governor was able to successfully curb abortion through legal means? Even something like parental consent laws are often stuck down by courts the moment they are passed.
As for his religion, would some of those question his motivation be as quick to judge had he converted to Islam? Granted, a Muslim candidate would have zero chance in Louisiana, but I can imagine the mainstream press would be up in arms about the LA voters who are too narrow-minded to elect a man with an administrative record of Jindal’s simply because of his religion. But, since he converted to a faith that has a far small base in the brown community, it is other browns that feel they can throw bricks at him. Contrast this to Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected to Congress, and aside from buffoons like CNN’s Glenn Beck, few questioned his motivations for his religious choice.
Or, how about Barack Hussein Obama? While his father was a non-practicing Muslim, traditionally Islam is passed down the father’s line. But, since Obama is himself a Baptist, could people call his conversion from his father’s religion a matter of political opportunism?
As for whether or not Jindal was trying to race-bait, even if he won an NAACP Image Award, it would not matter. Blacks are so solidly in the Democratic camp, and are so quick to castigate a black who consider switching parties, it is pretty much a waste of time for Republicans to court their vote.
For all the high-minded talk of how brown folks should reach out to African Americans, that outreach does not seem to be reciprocated. Obama received a great deal of brown support when he ran for Senate in 2004, and then his campaign turned around and tried to play a protectionist card against Hillary Clinton, calling into question her dealings with Indian companies.
And for all the prejudice exhibited by some Indians towards black people (which I don’t deny), how many blacks have been beaten up Indian gangs in a public school? Has an Indian doctor refused to treat a black patient, or has an Indian software engineer refused to work alongside a black officemate?
Now, how many Indian cabdrivers, gas station attendants, and convenience store owners have been mugged by a black assailant? When that clown Sharpton was calling Indian and other South Asian cabdrivers racist, how many black folks told him to cool the rhetoric? Plenty of African immigrants who drive taxis in DC engaged in the same behavior, but they seem to have been exempt from such criticism.
Look, Jindal won because the voters of LA are hoping that someone can try to get the state back on track. The federal government has shown little interest in repairing New Orleans, because it will not bear any electoral cost should no improvements be made. Jindal knows that if he can’t make some progress on rebuilding New Orleans, or addressing many of the other issues that effect LA, he will be a one-termer.
KXB said: You mean those guys ran for elective office too?
No, they’re BBB. Blessed by Bush, just like my new governor.
==
Wow, the differing reactions this win has generated within my own family. My mom doesn’t see what’s wrong with Jindal “whitifying” himself, while my dad doesn’t think of the man as anything more than smarmy. My white husband asserts that there are no set rules to adhere to while being Indian-American, while I bemoan the consequences for Lousiana and my brother doesn’t call because he and I both know we don’t want to have this conversation. I find it all terribly hilarious.
In closing, I’d like to remind conservatives all over this nation who deem us stupid/corrupt/whatnot: now that we’ve elected the “right” governor, please to be coughing up the promised flood protection dough. Plzthnxbye. (Not like I’m holding my breath.)
Now, I have worse things to worry about like a runoff election for City Council between two of the worst people to touch this position (if ever there were a brakes-screeching soundtrack associated with rebuilding and moving forward, this is when it ought to be played) and the possible State Representative (from my district) win of a spawn of William “$90K In My Freezer” Jefferson. We have problems, oh, do we have problems. But, remember, America, you’re no different from us, you just have your paperwork in order.
Peace.
History is replete with heroes whose policies were neither universally liked nor fair to certain segments of society but, nonetheless, they were significant milestones in the larger context of human progress. Mahatma Gandhi is a perfect example.
Not to compare Bobby to Gandhiji, Bobby Jindal’s victory does elevate American society to a new level of color blindness. The desi diaspora will never have the critical mass of African Americans, for example, to be able to command a sizable constituency and hence gain some measure of political power. Therefore, acceptance by the broader public is our only hope.
I am with the commenters who are able to separate Jindal’s politics from the social significance of his victory.
i’m glad most of you despise jindal despite his brownness. it’s a step toward colorblindness. i have similar feelings toward obama, whose policies will also disproportionately hurt POC. but i think their presence is good for our republic, and in jindals case, because it counters the vile racist stereotype of POC being naturally leftist.
and it is that stereotype that i think annna is taking aim at. the notion that jindals racism is evidence of him wanting to be white is itself racist, if for no other reason than it self-awareness. or as anna put it:
“Well, if he’s unfair to AfAms, then that would contradict some of that “white-washed piyush” palaver and indicate that he’s about as desi as a lot of our parents.”
If you’re so passionate about politics, DON’T discuss it with family members…you could end up in a huge fight and bear a grudge against each other for years…politics just ain’t worth it, the relationship is more important.
Bobby Jindal’s policies must seem extreme to democrats who have jesse jackson and barney frank as standard bearers. The first indian american in the house of representatives was a republican. Now the first indian american governor of a state is a republican.
[ 109 · off-color on October 21, 2007 01:23 PM · Direct link Hi Rajesh, what would make this guy conservative enough for your taste?] He needs to be stronger in policy against the illegal tide from south of the border. I will wait and see.
What I get from most of these posts is because Jindal puts America’s interests and that of Louisiana first, this means he wants to be white
“Well, if he’s unfair to AfAms, then that would contradict some of that “white-washed piyush” palaver and indicate that he’s about as desi as a lot of our parents.”
Sir Manju,
His innuendos re: African American has nothing to do with being Indian origin. He is a very conservative Republican whose core base are diehard “African American baiting” crowd, and so are his godfathers, and inner circle. It starts from his days, as Secretary of Health in Mike Foster’s (then Louisiana Governor) cabinet.
NYT pointed out he has no African American on his staff, you never see him in pictures with them sharing his podium, he did not share his victory with them – this in a state where nearly 30% of the population is African American. This said, as Maitri pointed out New A’wlins Demorcrats backed him this time.
You can spin all you want.
Read Maitri comments carefully, even if you do not agree with her politically, she is one of the few commenters who actually know about Louisiana politics, and is in Louisiana. I have lived, worked, and studied in Louisiana. I think I understand the framework there. It entirely driven by black vs. non-black divide, and Bobby Jindal belongs to the later.
Well, congrats Bobby, but he is no template. Template by definition is: example, guide, mold, blueprint, pattern
He is for on the right field (whether you like him or not) to be a template.
Actually, just for the record, the first Indian American on Congress, Dalip Singh Saund, was very much a liberal Democrat who, among other things, was rather eloquently outspoken on civil rights issues.
And for all the prejudice exhibited by some Indians towards black people (which I don’t deny), how many blacks have been beaten up Indian gangs in a public school? Has an Indian doctor refused to treat a black patient, or has an Indian software engineer refused to work alongside a black officemate?
Now, how many Indian cabdrivers, gas station attendants, and convenience store owners have been mugged by a black assailant? When that clown Sharpton was calling Indian and other South Asian cabdrivers racist, how many black folks told him to cool the rhetoric? Plenty of African immigrants who drive taxis in DC engaged in the same behavior, but they seem to have been exempt from such criticism.
Couldn’t agree more. The unreasonable self-flagellation among some ABDs when it comes to desi/black relationship always boggles my mind. The inversion of the victim/perpetrator relationship is so hurtful. It’s a fact that blacks are disproportionately responsible for hate crimes against desis. But that’s not the problem. The problem is the complete lack of public condemnation of such violent and racist acts by black leaders.
I meant: He is so far on the right field (whether you like him or not) to be a template.
Bobby Jindal’s policies must seem extreme to democrats who have jesse jackson and barney frank as standard bearers.
Yes Barney Frank is a fa*. Haha! Lets make fun of gays.
It’s a fact that blacks are disproportionately responsible for hate crimes against desis.
Do you have numbers to back your incredible assertion? Please post them on here.
I should have bolded the ‘ hate ‘ part. If they were just violent, criminal acts I wouldn’t hold the black leadership responsible.
Boooooyyyyyaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!
He might be the only person who can fix Lousiana. Good luck, bro, you’re gonna need it.
Or, how about Barack Hussein Obama? While his father was a non-practicing Muslim, traditionally Islam is passed down the father’s line. But, since Obama is himself a Baptist, could people call his conversion from his father’s religion a matter of political opportunism?
Obama was never Muslim. He was raised as a Baptist by his grandparents and mom. He never converted to Baptism from Islam. Please dont make up shit.
🙁
KXB says Do you have the scoop on how Jindal rounded up the Jews?
He sure is doing great rounding up the rednecks though, don’t you think?
KXB, you’re right, this guy needs to be pretty savvy. he will figure out ways to further himself in his political ambition – that is all that it boils down to, pure personal political ambition. all this discussion about issues and whatnot is really irrelevant. Its just disgusting for me to see desis using narrow conservative socially harmful agendas rising up nice and quick. So that way, i really dont see what there is to celebrate in the rise of a brown sahib. Let’s see how many terms he hangs out in LA before he can please the gods in their heaven to bless him to join them in their saunas in DC.
I wholeheartedly agree with the poster who states that Louisiana is driven by the black vs. non-black divide. Racial politics in that State are utterly binary. When my Mexican-American cousins moved to Arcadia, Louisiana from South Texas, a white family that befriended them told them that the white community there would accept them as “honorary whites” as long as they did not ally themselves with the black community. They were basically told “you decide: are you Black or White?” They decided to be White in order to get ahead business-wise. (This was about 20 years ago when there was no sizable Latin community in Louisiana.) It seems that many of the racist Whites (and there are many) in Louisiana have adopted Jindal as an honorary member of their tribe. Therefore, it seems clear to me that Jindal’s victory in Louisiana is completely sui generis and reflective of the bitterly divided racial politics of that state. The significance of his victory is very limited and hardly generalizable to the national political scene.
there is another reason i dare say to continue this debate. i am privy to the next gen of marketing and the role internet chats play in directing marketing dolla. there is no wrong reaction, as long as there is a reaction and it can be accompanied with a niche demographic. leadership is not about creating change as a singularity – it happens through participation. sm, ub, ud, dp et al are all the voice of a vocal, ethnocentric demographic with disposable time. people are listening – not necessarily to the content – but to the buzz and the volume. So speak up, and shout it out loud – especially if you disagree. civilization is a state where we can disagree on ideas and yet share the same living space. this was on my mind, and wanted to unload.
kush:
thanks for knighting me. the point is none of this race baiting contradicts his indianness, as many indians have similar attidudes. his politics are wrong b/c they’re racist, religious, and anti-women not b’c they’re inauthentic.
now, i understand he’s working within the american context. so is maitri and her politics, does that mean she’s trying to be white? he names his kid slade and maitri accuses him of desperately wanting to be white, but somehow excludes herself from this label despite a white husband.
why deny people of indian origin our full humanity. we can be as racist, sexist, religious, and homophobic as everyone else, if not more so. nothing inauthentic about that.
to join the dots – it isnt exactly intelligent design that y’all are seeing more non-ethnocentric desi representation in popular media.
I looked this up yesterday – but Louisiana Governors have term limits – so he can go till 2016 if he also wins in 2012. Louisiana Senate terms expire in 2010 (Landrieu) and 2012 (Vitter) and then the seat Landrieu holds, again in 2016. So he has a natural opening for Senate in 2016! He could run for President in 2020, while in the Senate.
Alternatively, he could run for Senate against Vitter in 2012, and then run for President in 2016, though Senators of either party have had less luck getting to be President than have Governors. Now if that happens, it would be really big.
On the big issue at debate here – I just don’t know how to feel, all the analysis is great, but in the end with something this big you have to go with your gut. I agree it is big, it’s just articulating how I exactly feel about it that’s difficult.
BTW – a total side point – but for a native born Louisianan he sounds nothing like Landrieu. I can understand what he’s saying without trouble – Landrieu’s drawl is so heavy (amongst other things) that I really notice it – with him I mostly don’t. Is that only to my ‘DBD’ ear?
If he wants to put America first, then he would be questioning the apppointments of morons like Gonzales who set the country back. He wouldn’t blindly follow Bush’s policies which have put America back. You can be conservative and still find room to not follow a moron like Bush. Is there any evidence he lobbied Bush and Chertoff to do the right thing in Louisiana. I will admit Blanco dropped the ball big time. But there were so many corrupt contracts doled out by federal agencies too in the reconstruction phase and he never seems to take a strong stand against that. Is that putting America first?
And his non belief in evolution and the fact that he seems to want alternatives taught in school is just a step in bringing the country back to the Scopes trial days. That’s not America first.
Anyway, I dont think he will be as bad for the state as the DEmocrats make him out to be. I looked through http://www.dailykingfish.com/frontPage.do and it seems a little too obsessed with demonizing Jindal while ignoring the weaknesses of the local democrats. Such partisanship bores me. Not all of us believe in that kind of rhetoric.
Obama was never Muslim. He was raised as a Baptist by his grandparents and mom. He never converted to Baptism from Islam. Please dont make up shit.
Considering all the theories surrounding Jindal’s conversion, I fail to see how Obama’s faith is off-limits. Again, most Muslims consider you to be a Muslim, if you your father is a Muslim – whether or not your parents stay together. He may very well have been raised Christian, but a Muslim would probably view that as against custom. Secondly, considering that he used to be just plain old “Barry” Obama, it seems he is quite selective of which parts of his African heritage he chose to highlight. He seems to be just as concerned with playing up and playing down those aspects of his background that have differing values with voters.
all that it boils down to, pure personal political ambition
As opposed to all those who enter politics “for the children”?
All the comments of him whitening himself are irrelevant, he has made his choices as far as his personal and spiritual growth and those choices are something I don’t feel I should judge him on. But on his policies and public stance his record speaks for itself and I can decided if I want to support him no matter if he is brown, black or purple polka dotted. This comes down to a question of am I willing to support someone who is desi despite the fact that his positions don’t jive with my own? The answer is a resounding no, any benefit out weighs the harm he may do. If you feel like the following are positions you can get behind then by all means support him:
This is his voting record: Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006) Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005) Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted YES on deauthorizing “critical habitat” for endangered species. (Sep 2005) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) Voted NO on establishing “network neutrality” (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006) Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges NO on allowing Courts to decide on “God” in Pledge of Allegiance
the fact that an asian american son of immigrants was elected to a position of executive power in the deep south in a state where his co-racialists are trivial in numbers says something about america. race will probably always matter, but how it matters makes a world of difference.
al_chutaiya, you’re a lawyer, i know you can read. re-read the last sentence see if i implied that race doesn’t matter. but thanks for arguing against the strawman while i slept.
I would have voted as Jindal voted on each and every issue. I like the guy more and more.
now, i understand he’s working within the american context. so is maitri and her politics, does that mean she’s trying to be white? he names his kid slade and maitri accuses him of desperately wanting to be white, but somehow excludes herself from this label despite a white husband.
🙂
zing!!!!
well there you go, as long as people are aware of his positions that makes sense. Someone else can add to his record, I’m sure there are areas not covered in my list. The wording on the positions are similar to what is in the record. So that “NO on allowing Courts to decide on “God” in Pledge of Allegiance” can be read as supporting God in the pledge as in line with most religious conservative.
Somebody mentioned that Jindal does not have any Blacks on podium with him. I see at least two in his victory speech on this video. His mom looks very ‘creolish’ and his daughter seems like an uncontrollable brat. I have seen more brattish behavior by little indian kids than any other ethnicity.
http://blog.nola.com/tpvideo/2007/10/bobby_jindals_entire_victory_s.html
Maitri marrying a white guy just means that she found a guy she loved, not that she rejected Indian guys or her own identity. Bobby changing his name legally even before he was a teen. That’s more about himself. If it wasn’t Bobby, he would have found some other western name even if he claims it was because he always liked Bobby. And I think with Jindal, people look at a trend in his actions. Each fact by itself wouldnt probably cause any controversy. I know a few indians who changed their names. I know a few who converted. I know many who are REpublican. Also it’s casual stuff that picked up my interest like when asked about how comfortable with handling diversity he is , he mentions different examples of everything but his own family background. How tough would it have been for him to tell the reporter “are you kidding me. My parents are Hindu. I think that gives me a different perspective of other faiths.” and then he could have added the other examples. Just all these things put together makes people wonder. Not any one of the factors alone.
For the life of me, I will never understand someone at his level of education voting no on stem cell research. Although it is fully expected without question given his stance on other issues and the fact that he is in Louisiana. But, still. It’s the equivalent of Dr. Watson declaring African-Americans genetically predetermined to be unintelligent. It’s infuriating.
Tomorrow Jindal will mutate into another Dinesh D\’Souza and will become biggest idol of deepoo, the rationalist.
Bobby changing his name legally even before he was a teen. That’s more about himself.
NO!!!! people keep saying he legally changed his name as a pre-teen, but this seems like one of an urban legend that has attained a status of truth by being repeated over & over http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/16jindal1.htm Officially, however, he remains Piyush; that is the name on his Louisiana driving license, which he used as identification while casting his own vote in Kenilworth, the Baton Rouge neighborhood he grew up in. And it was as Piyush that polling officials at Kenilworth Middle School in Baton Rouge had him listed.
and the main reason i knew to be skeptical of the ‘legal name change’ is that that is the argument the dems used for referring to him as ‘piyush.’
Re 111 & 135:
KXB, most Muslims would consider you to be Muslim if you had a “Muslim-sounding” name or came from a Muslim family. I think that’s fairly common for members of most faiths. There aren’t any implicit assumptions based on which religion a particular parent subscribed to (in contrast to say, orthodox Judaism, where in cases other than conversion your mother is required to be a Jew) other than the generic patriarchial ones you see in almost every faith.
So two wrongs now makes a right?
here aren’t any implicit assumptions based on which religion a particular parent subscribed to.
i’m confused as to what you’re trying to say shaad. does not islam use patrilineal identity as opposed to a matrilineal one? this is why muslim men may marry jews and christians who do not convert, but muslim women may not, so the children will be muslim in any intermarriage.