I’ll bet Bill Clinton’s name was listed as “William Jefferson Clinton” when he got his Rhodes, too. Do you think this is proof he ‘changed’ his name to Bill for political reasons?
I’ve never met anyone who says Arabs are white, and it doesn’t make them all morons. The problem is that you’re using “white” and “Caucusoid” as if they mean they same thing.
White means people who have fair skin and European ancestry. The most restrictive definitions make it northern or western European ancestry and exclude Jews.
Caucusoid, if I’m on target, is closer to the definition I gave earlier. One is used (apparently) by sociologists, and one is used by the public at large. It’s mostly a skin color thing, Jindal plainly is not white.
Back to the topic, Ivorybill gives an impressive resume that generally matches what I’ve heard about the guy before.
I think his social positions alone disqualify him as having any chance to be a candidate with any broad populr appeal, particularly among young people. He is psychpathically anti-choice even in cases of rape or incest, he’s anti-gay (something which I think is now becoming a handicap for any politician seeking younger votes), he’s for that stupid flag-burning amendment and he’s extremely bad on environmental issues as well. Jeus, juts look at this menu of policy positions. His heath care stances are horrible, he wants to make the PATRIOT Act permanent, voted yes on warrentless spying, voted yes on allowing intelligence gathering without civil oversight, a 0% rating on SOCAS from Americans United…the list goes on and on with this prick. This is as mean a set of positions as you’re ever going to find. This is not a recipe for catching fire and attaining broad, popular appeal. This is Rick Santorum with an ethnic last name.
Any propsective “Republican Obama” is going to have to reach beyond these kind of knuckle walking, fundie pleasing policy positions. You can’t be Obama without being cool, and you can’t be cool if you’re this much of an authoritarian Bush bobo, right pandering, Young Republican tool.
Any Republican who wants to do what Obama has done (or even what Reagan did) is going to have to cut loose from the religious right and from any support for neocon policies.
Yep. He only won his reelection bid for his second term in Congress by something like 80%.
He took the governor’s race in just one election (Louisiana has one big general election with as many people who qualify duking it out and then have a runoff), winning 54% of the vote among a four-man field made up of two Democrats and two Republicans.
Again: you’ll get more traction arguing against his policies than arguing that he has some character flaw that dooms him.
Wasn’t that what Diogenes was doing?
All I did was talk about his policy positions. I didn’t say a word about his character, and winning in Lousiana (where I’m oroginally from, by the way, so I know a little something about it) is not the same as winning a general election. His ridiculously backwards, mean-spirited and uncool policy positions will never get him any kind of broad support outside of blood red states like LA.
Emphasis mine.
Emphasis mine.
Actually, it does. Sorry. 
(smilie added to try to sound less hostile)
And they do, at least among people who study such things for a legitimate living, to separate them from people who manage to make a living from fringe groups.
And if those people spend a summer at the beach, they are no longer fair skinned and are therefore no longer white? I think the technical term for the people you describe is “Honkies.”
Then what is he? And Obama’s mother was white. What does that make him?
This sort of discussion is why many people give up and claim that race is a social construct, though there are genetic, physiological, and biomedical differences between the groups in general. It is probably a topic for its own thread. Personally, I consider “whiteness” as being more cultural than anything else, which makes the Indians and Pakistanis I know whiter than me.
See the snip I posted in my reply to Miller above.
Save for the pandering tool part, I guess?
More of the same.
As an independent, I get just a bit weary of the insults directed at people - - both from the left and from the right - - based solely on their political positions. Is it not enough to point out that you disagree with his policy positions? Do you have to go full-throttle with all the adjectives?
So, you’re saying that any analysis of Jindal’s policies is invalid if a person draws a negative conclusion about Jindal on the basis of those policies?
Nice try, but no sale. I gave a whole post about nothing but policy positions and his positions aren’t cool. You wanted a policy analysis, you got it. I know nothing about huisp personality or his “character” (though I can guess from these positions), and I don’t care. I’m telling you his policy positions alone are too narrow, too out of step, and too mean to appeal to a broad base.
I’m saying that you can disagree with a person’s policies and draw a negative conclusion about your desire to have them elected to office without insulting him/her/it.
Policy positions say a lot about a politician. It’s ridiculous to say they don’t. And I think you’re trying to sidetrack the discussion because you don’t want to defend his cretinous policy positions.
Please. I’m a political scientist. What you provided was not “policy analysis”, but rather your vehement rejection of policies with which you disagree.
Again, it’s possible to disagree with a person’s political position without also calling them names.
If I think a person’s positions are repulsive, why shouldn’t I say so?
Not if they’re a dick.
That’s not what I’m saying.
Why would I want to defend his policy positions? I’m Indy, remember? I’m just sick of political discourse that demonizes the opposition just because they’re the opposition.
True, it wasn’t really an analysis, but it was a response based on policy, which is what you asked for and what you’re avoiding trying to addresss.
I didn’t call him any names, and all my characterizations have to do with his policies, not him personally.