Expressed by Josh Marshall ("absolutely cringeworthy"), Andrew Sullivan ("Jindal's entrance reminded one of Mr Burns gamboling toward a table of ointments"), and others.
Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism? There's just something about this man that doesn't seem right, that you don't care to examine exactly what it is, but you know it deep down in your gut somehow. Seriously. How do you know this is not racism?
ADDED: Andrew Sullivan proffers an answer to my question: "Maybe because there is not a trace of evidence of any kind that we are. Unless comparing Jindal to Kenneth the Page or Mr Burns taps unknown wells of racist hate in my heart. I mean, seriously." I think deeper reflection is needed. Why the urge to paint him as a white white man? Where did that come from? Of course, there are unknown wells inside us all. When you have an instinctive response to a person of another race, why not seek knowledge?
February 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
392 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 392 of 392jayne_cobb said..."Seven, I can provide you with some specific instances of leftist making false accusations: Duke Rape Case -Tawana Brawley
WOW!! Keep 'em comin'!!
Chris Matthews has now said that he was the person who said "Oh, god!"
Will Ann Althouse acknowledge this or continue to harp at Olberman?
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/chris-matthews-explains-o_n_169876.html
(Crossposted to Ann's "Blame Olberman" thread.)
And, Seven Machos, I don't live here, just visit.
From Wikipedia:
[Jindal] does not condemn medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy.[35][36] In 2003 Jindal was reported to have stated that he did not object to the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape if the victim requests it.[36]
I love that bizarre syntax. Reported to have stated. Was the person who heard it the reporter's cousin's next-door-neighbor's ex-in-law?
He either stated it, or he didn't. Which is it?
Similary, does not condemn! What the hell does that mean as far as policy in Louisiana mean?
Jeeze, what a meaningless article for wikipedia. But I repeat myself.
Another long thread. So, is Jindal the new Palin?
"Let me know when some lefty comes forward with a story about how some Indian dude knocked her over and scratched a backwards J on her cheek."
Ummm, that was fake. The women admitted it to being fake. I guess facts are not relevant.
It is impossible to be racist when considering any south asian Catholic who is against abortion. Isn't it?
Snark off. Truth is that liberals hate blacks too. They just don't say so.
Seven @ 2:00
Every single time you read a story that somebody is painting swastikas on cars or dormitory doors, you can be sure that it's a leftist nut trying, in some warped way, to act on principle.
Seven, I was just pointing out the Ashley example of something re. Obama that no left-wing wacko has yet to do re. Jindal.
I wasn't planning on getting into a whole false accusations deal. But since you insist that all such cases are perpetrated by lefties, here's one that wasn't: the case of Francisco Nava.
Titus, Love you, and all that, but, um, I already knew that Ashley admitted that her story was fake.
Regardless of what people think of Governor Jindal...they apparently like what they see from President Obama more and more every day:
Democracy Corps conducted dial testing of the speech with 50 Independent and weak partisan voters in Henderson, Nevada, followed by focus group discussions with voters who shifted toward support of Obama’s economic plan after seeing the speech.
The dial group participants were evenly divided among Obama and McCain voters.
These swing voters reacted strongly to Obama’s message. Despite having a Republican tilt, 68 percent of these voters came into the speech approving of Obama’s job performance.
After the speech, these already high marks moved even higher, rising to a remarkable 82 percent.
In fact, Obama saw gains nearly across the board, on both personal traits and confidence in his handling of most major issues.
In particular, the president strengthened his position on fiscal issues, gaining 26 points on taxes and 18 points on the federal budget.
For some reason, I see attacks on Jindal that clearly stem from his social conservatism.
Frankly, my annoyance with Jindal is that he is a big government Republican. He is a true neocon, before it took on its war monger meaning.
What would he do as a social conservative as President. The worst possible outcome is appointing a Supreme Court justice that would lead to overturning Roe v. Wade. Then, a large number of states would still have legal abortions and less than half would ban abortions
A anti-gay marriage amendment would fail, etc. The fear of Jindal's social conservatism is real but the reality would be much less benign.
Personally, I'd rather see a fiscal conservative and social libertarian as the GOP candidate.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "racist". Are Marshall et al. "racist" if they use race as one of the sticks that's handy to beat up people they don't like? If so, there are a lot on the left who are both racist and sexist.
Or are they only "racist" if it's race hatred that's the initial driver?
Personally, I think most on the left are in the former camp. No compunction about being as foul-mouthed racist as any Klansman ever was, as long as it's being directed at anyone they disagree with.
I totally agree, Ann. I said as much in my own blogpost last night -- finding the reaction to him that WASN'T about his speech, tinged with the racism of "the unknown".
Just the fact that certain people remarked that it was disconcerting to see an Indian man not speaking like Apu but with a Southern accent (as I read on DK), tells you something.
Cheers,
Victoria
David Brooks Interview:
LEHRER: Now that, of course, was Gov. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, making the Republican response. David, how well do you think he did?
DAVID BROOKS: Uh, not so well...I oppose the stimulus package because I thought it was poorly drafted but to come up at this moment in history with a stale 'government is the problem, we can't trust the federal government,' it's just a disaster for the Republican Party.
The country is in a panic now. They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill. But the idea that we're just going to... That government will have no role, the federal government has no role in this, that in a moment when only the federal government is big enough to actually do stuff- to just ignore all that and just say 'government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,' it's just a form of nihilism.
It's just not where country is it's not where the future of the country is. There's an intra-Republican debate: some people say the Republican Party lost its way because they got too moderate, some people say they got too weird or too conservative.
He thinks they got too moderate. And so he's making that case. I think it's insane. I just think it's a disaster for the [Republican] Party. I just think it's unfortunate right now.
I had a liberal friend posit to me that people who didn't like Obama didn't like him because of his "otherness." (Obviously he was awesome, so "otherness" had to be the driving factor.) I'll have to let him know that I figured out why he doesn't like Jindal.
I'll have to let him know that I figured out why he doesn't like Jindal.
That's easy. Otherness is only acceptable when it's tinged with guilt.
For them, this guy is more Millionaire than Slumdog.
Cheers,
Victoria
Well, aside from the idiot fringe that's convinced Govs. Jindal and Palin are the future of the Republican Party, it seems a consensus is growing: the Governor gave a lousy, lousy speech, and it just cost him his grandstanding front space in the run-up to 2012, in the same way Palin's disastrous veep run cost her hers.
Who's coming to the forefront now as a GOP leader, though? It's not Steele; he continues to sound like an authoritative hack, like the Republican answer to Terry McAuliffe (did the GOP really NEED an answer to Terry McAuliffe?). Certainly not weak sauce like Mitch McConnell or Eric Cantor, both of whom have looked like impotent (sans the sexual implications of the term) in dealing with the fiscal crises.
Haley Barbour has a shot, but there have been an awful lot of dirty money scandals in his past. Voters might overlook that in Mississippi, but will they in the Northeast, Northwest, or Mid-West? I don't know.
Charlie Crist is being decried by some as a sellout, but he's very smartly positioning himself as an intelligent centrist. Still, that's what killed Sen. McCain in 2000, so...
Tim Pawlenty likewise is positioning himself as a right-of-center pragmatist. The only thing holding him back are the constant comparisons to Dan Quayle, which he makes only too easy.
So really, I am deathly curious -- who is in charge in the GOP? There has been a dearth of leadership since the election, and nobody's really stepping up to the plate. Who can do it? Who can actually pull it off?
(This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know.)
"Isn't Althouse the same one who saw the N word on the kids pajamas in the Hillary 3AM ad? Sounds like the old professor has a few issues."
Not "issues." Powers of perception. Now, watch out. I'm looking at you.
Are you insane? The reason Jindal got panned is because the speech sucked. It had no alternative vision for America beyond the stale 30-year old chant of "No Taxes / Government Bad!" And it was delivered in a style that conjures up a vision of Droopy Dog on 'ludes with a Southern accent.
Racism...talk about flailing about. Maybe you should do something more productive with your time than pedal idiocy like this.
There is nothing more ecumenical and post-racial that being dull and dorky.
(This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know.)
No offence, but in February 2001 no one knew who was "in charge" of the Democratic Party or what would be its future -- a highly-embarrassing sex scandal plagued its ex-leader and his defeated heir.
Why should people be so concerned with our "leadership" (which sounds vaguely fascist to me) struggles?
Anyway, it's EARLY EARLY DAYS. Everyone is still in play, including Palin and Jindal.
Seriously, the way some people talk, it's like they are scared of the Republican juggernaut getting organised, and fighting back.
If I were a Democrat, I'd just relax for a while.
Cheers,
Victoria
vbspurs said..."I totally agree, Ann. I said as much in my own blogpost last night -- finding the reaction to him that WASN'T about his speech, tinged with the racism of "the unknown"."
Based on what...your own personal opinion? A minute number of people who post comments on blog sites?
I've read through five newspapers today and a number of political internet sites haven't found a shred of evidence that the negative reaction to Jindal's speech was "tinged with the racism of the unknown."
All of the negative commentary was based exclusively on the poor delivery and content.
Palin is wise to have stepped back to Alaska for the time being. Right now, the News Media is in its Cheeleading mode for the Fuhrer, so anyone including a talented lad like Jindal, was going to get panned last night. That said, I have one conclusion watching Bobby Jindal and Bobby Jindal's hands last night:
It was a very, very good night for Sarah Palin.
What a cowardly post. If you think Josh Marshall, or Andrew Sullivan, or any other commentator who thought Jindal sucked (this is a long list, btw) has said something racist, call it out.
Say plainly, "Josh Marshall is a racist" and show what they said.
But asking "oh but how do we know they are NOT racist, they don't seem to like Bobby Jindal, and he's not a white person hmmm coincidence" is the weakest form of cheeky non-argument possible.
Pretty funny !
No he spoke like he was speaking to a child.
He repeated passe Republican taking points that were FAILURES when tried over th passed 8 year.
I feel bad for anyone sticking their heads in the sand so far that they would buy this latest perversion of reality.
Oh yeah - the creeping out of the shadows like DRACULA wearing a BAD stripped tie that looked like it came from a prep school discount bin did not help him start out very well.
LOL
silly base repuglicans - your time has passed you by
Palin is wise to have stepped back to Alaska for the time being.
That's EXACTLY what I said last night, in a related post, Section9. One of my readers had mentioned earlier this month that he was disappointed she had backed out of CPAC. But in fact, I think it's precisely the right strategy at the moment.
Like Bush, they love to skew whatever she does in as negative an angle as positive -- and this time it would've started the "galavanting around, not governing" meme.
Cheers,
Victoria
The state of the union is Ben Hur in the chariot race. All the pageantry and buzz is there to make any actor seem larger-than-life. The follow-up is Kirk on a sound stage.
And poor Jindal the guy in the red shirt.
Well, you gotta admit, jff... Jindal doesn't look like those fellows on our currency.
Does he.
silly base repuglicans - your time has passed you by
Funny how some people always think that 'their time' is never going to end and that their time is the pinnacle of all achievments.
Michael said...
bagoh20 - I haven't read or heard anyone (at least in the press) saying they felt Jindal "revulsion."
Got a link?
umm, Your link would be this blog right here that you are commenting on, right here, this one.
Althouse - re: some people's 1st look revulsion at Jindal
Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism? There's just something about this man that doesn't seem right, that you don't care to examine exactly what it is, but you know it deep down in your gut somehow. Seriously. How do you know this is not racism?
Pretty simple, Ann. It ain't racism because watching Padma on Top Chef is better than watching the cheftestants, whereas with Jindal it helps to close your eyes and just listen to him.
Same phenomenon differentiates "instictive racism" from someone just having good taste when a non-black views a black and is not of a mind all blacks are repellent or attractive but declares some blacks are visually appealing to them (Obama, Lebron James, Ray Allen, Usain Bolt, Queen Latifah, etc.) while other blacks (Cynthia McKinney, Stephone Marbury, Jesse Jackson, etc. ) aren't.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/25/video-jindal-take-2/
Ace linked to Malkin... Jindal this morning.
I thought he was great in that clip.
And I thought the bit about how someone was trying to claim that he couldn't turn down part of the money LA could get without turning it all down meant he had some ideological shortcoming was precious. All or nothing, eh?
I liked his answer to that, too. I'm not speaking to whether or not he made the right decision on that, because I don't know, but he obviously knew what the issues were and had a reason for making the decision he made.
I for one, didn't bother with either.
Me neither. At least our fearless leader didn’t interrupt a new episode of Chuck with his yammering this time! As long as he interrupts shows I don’t want, it’ll be ok, but stay away from Monday and Thursdays, kay?
...but to come up at this moment in history with a stale 'government is the problem, we can't trust the federal government,' it's just a disaster for the Republican Party.
Gack.
Why? As if it would be *good* for the Republican Party to come out and say that the Federal Government is the answer? That would be *good* for the Party?
There's just something about this man that doesn't seem right, that you don't care to examine exactly what it is, but you know it deep down in your gut somehow.
I know precisely what it is - it's that he's a liar. A lying, lying liar who lies. He lied about Obama's plans, he lied about the stimulus, he told the "rail line from Vegas to Disney" lie that's been debunked multiple times. He's a smug, condescending, dishonest, tragedy-pimping liar
But you just go right ahead and act like it's all racism. It just shows you don't understand anything. Your lily-white ass wouldn't know racism if a dictionary open to the word came up and headbutted you.
bagoh20 said..."umm, Your link would be this blog right here that you are commenting on, right here, this one."
You actually consider the comments via the people here part of the real "press"??
Good lord...
Jindal sounded like a cross between Mr. Rogers and Alberto Gonzales.
Shanna, isn't Chuck the best show ever?
I haven't watched television forever, but just started watching shows on Hulu.com. And *then* I only watched Chuck because I happened to look up Adam Baldwin after re-watching all of Firefly. There will never be another Jayne... but I love Chuck.
Too many comments to read all of them but, has anyone suggested that Ann's bringing this up could signal her own racism? I think this is geek prejudice we're seeing here. Prejudice against people who walk sideways with their ties too wide and too long and their jackets unbuttoned and with high geekbot voices. But then, I could be black...er...wrong. Sorry.
Well, the truth is that right now private enterprise ISN'T solving the problem. The banks aren't lending. The housing industry isn't building. The health care industry isn't cutting costs (and neither is the insurance industry). And this is after literally decades in which the whole low tax/deregulate mantra was the dominant paradigm.
Say what you want to about Government, but the tax cuts and deregulation of private industry implemented by the Bush administration have not produced the prosperity that they were supposed to. Rather, we have quite the opposite.
So it's time to move forward down a different road.
As someone else put it, it can hardly be called racism when Jindal has most frequently been compared to the whitest character on television today, Kenneth from 30 Rock.
I'll ask: in what way is attempting to inscribe whiteness onto a non-white person not racist?
I suppose all those lefties who threw Oreos (black on the outside, white in the middle) at Michael Steele when running for Governor of Maryland weren't being racist either.
Didn't actually watch the Jindal speech (Season 1 of "Chuck" on Blu-Ray wasn't going to be as funny as Obama justifying his spending bills....just more entertaining), but it must have been given horribly. The content of the speech didn't seem that bad when I skimmed the transcript.
synova said..."Gack. Why? As if it would be *good* for the Republican Party to come out and say that the Federal Government is the answer? That would be *good* for the Party?"
And your solution would be what? That the "government" step aside and let Americans pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Allow wall street to handle things on their own? Let the banks deal with their problems without any form of oversight?
Right now, it's the responsibility of our government to do whatever is necessary to put things back in order.
Just because the administration YOU supported for eight years blew it...doesn't mean we abandon dismiss the possibility the new one might do a better job.
*Can I assume you'll also be forgoing your Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, all handled by the "government?"
Next up; "What's so racist about watermelons on the White House lawn?"
Obviously, it's due to some shortcoming by liberals.
Who wants to play Guess the Racist?
"No, Bobby Jindal's ineffective response was not part of that new approach — everyone seems a little embarrassed about that."
Or:
"As an admirer of Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, I have to say that he was not impressive in responding to Obama."
These instinctively revulsive remarks were made by...who?
Jindahl's problem has nothing to do with race.
His problem is that he was trying to push forward the same dogma that has failed utterly.
It would be like a guy who was assigned by the medieval church to try and make a speech defending the earth-centered universe once Galileo had proven it false.
Don't blame Jindahl, blame what he is up against trying to defend, when the consequences of its failure are plain.
The fundamental problem I have with people is that they admire any politician. Politicians are by their nature vote-grubbing scumbags. They are worthy of our opprobrium and derision, but definitely not adulation and admiration.
Eli - the problem is that Jindal doesn't know what he's trying to defend. Instead of spouting the usual tired Republican cliches, he should have taken the opportunity to educate the American people on some basic economics. He could have dispelled the big lie of "we got into trouble because of unregulated capitalism". But he's not bright enough for that.
When people compare him to "Kenneth the Page" I see no valid argument for racism. Maybe if anything, it is a kind of "Regional Prejudice", but nothing to do with race. It still does not change the fact that it was very poor...same stale talking points and exaggerations, and especially weak in tone. We already had a leader treat us like 8 year olds for 8 years...no more please
I suppose all those lefties who threw Oreos (black on the outside, white in the middle) at Michael Steele when running for Governor of Maryland weren't being racist either.
Link?
Alex,
We didn't get into it because of unregulated capitalism, but rather by inadequately and poorly regulated capitalism.
Speaking of racism:
The mayor of Los Alamitos is coming under fire for an e-mail he sent out that depicts the White House lawn planted with watermelons, under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."
And this is a classic:
Grose confirmed to the AP that he sent the e-mail to Price and said he didn't mean to offend her. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.
...with Jindal it helps to close your eyes and just listen to him.
He has a very nice voice. True.
As for Obama's supposed attractiveness... I don't see it. He's only *marginally* less geeky looking than Jindal. Attractiveness wise, when he married Michelle he married way up. Mixed race people are often incredibly beautiful because it seems they get the best of each race... it didn't work that way for Obama.
I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all, and with Obama that is definitely the case.
A month or so into the new President's presidency, AND IT BEGINS. I seriously love our crazy, nutty country. We should argue about this stuff. It's important!
If I were gaming things for the right, I'd say:
1. Don't cave so easily. Remember Obama's horrible week in the campaign where he had a really bad debate and all that Rev. Wright stuff came out? He overcame the uh uh uh debate and this is not even a campaign. So, chill out, people.
2. The branding is beginning for Jindal, in earnest. Don't accept it. Push back. HARD. No one thinks he's stupid just because he isn't a good speech giver. That's important to remember.
3. So, when did actual accomplishments become less important than image? Oh, wait, that's been going on forever.
4. Who cares if he had religious experiences that seem strange to 'outsiders'. Big deal. It's accomplishments and governing ability that matter.
5. I'd interview a few SA American kids, not a lot, don't overdo it, just a few, about what it means to have someone like BJ as governor. I know that biography stuff is bs, but people like it in any party. It humanizes.
If I was gaming it for the left, I'd say:
1. You better hope the stimulus works, or that the economy recovers naturally so that you can take credit for it. The public is in no mood for anything else. It's the economy, stupid!
2. I don't really have anything else, because Prez Obama is actually pretty polished. And, his wife and kids are darn cute, so you can't help but look at them and smile.
Ahhh, good times.
(I say again, I love Trooper York's funny 'histories. Hilarious.)
Eli Blake said...
Alex,
We didn't get into it because of unregulated capitalism, but rather by inadequately and poorly regulated capitalism.
3:54 PM
Except the big lie in the blogosphere and on liberal talk radio is 'unregulated capitalism did this to us'. When I hear a caller say that and the host just says "yeah".
this knee-jerk response to Obama ont he part of the RNC is the most hilarious, uncomfortable thing I've ever seen.
i thought the 2008 election couldn't be topped for entertainment, but we're in for a doozy in 2010 and beyond, hahaha
As a middle of the road person, really I am, can the republicans just once not have an ID-question evolution candidate?
Maybe it isn't racism. Maybe his speech was awfully delivered and he came across as a treacly dork.
DBQ has announced her hopes for having Chicago blown up before, this seems to be a regular thought process that she goes through.
Oh, the Angry Right! So silly!
It is funny, right? To joke about that?
I for one didn't much like Gov. Jindal's speech. The jist of it was fine, attacking Pres. Obama's claim that the government can spend its way out of our current problems. Logically, I think that Jidal had it over Obama, hands down.
But I just didn't like the delivery. He wasn't exactly smirking, but it almost felt that way. The good-old-boy with the Oxford sheen on top just didn't work for me. His race may have made it worse, but I don't think so. I think it was this weird combination of insanely brilliant, polished, preppy casual contrasted with the southern good-old-boy that really bothered me.
I think that if Gov. Jindal would remove his southernisms, mentions of Katrina, etc., he would be much more effective on a national scale. If he were to be try to compete directly with Pres. Obama, I think he would come out better. He is more polished, more articulate, and notably smarter.
We discussed earlier that part of Gov. Palin's problems with the MSM, etc. is that she is an anti-elitist. She disdains the intellectual and cultural elites in this country, just as they do her. But Gov. Jindal can please them because he has all the right stuff. He dresses right. He is more than smart enough. He went to the right schools, etc. He just needs to pander to them, as Pres. Obama does.
Grose confirmed to the AP that he sent the e-mail to Price and said he didn't mean to offend her. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.
Oh for Heaven's sake. No one is going to buy that weak explanation. If Grose was unaware of the stereotype, then he must have been living in a box for his entire life. Of course it was racist and he knew it.
You know... I don't *get* the racial stereotype that Blacks like watermelons.
Sure, I know about it. Watermelons and fried chicken. But everyone likes those things.
As a joke, though, watermelons planted on the white house lawn is only "funny" because of the stereotype. Sort of like no one would make a "joke" about pick-up trucks on blocks on the white house lawn if Palin got elected if there wasn't a red-neck stereotype to attempt to be clever about. (Nor would there have been a hoochi-hoop-gate.)
Answer: Byron York and Ramesh Ponnuru. Two of the many right-wingers who possessed "instinctive revulsion" towards Jindal.
But wait! You have new orders!
"[T]he people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style. Because if you think — people on our side I’m talking to you — those of you who think Jindal was horrible, you think — in fact, I don’t ever want to hear from you ever again. … I’ve spoken to him numerous times, he’s brilliant. He’s the real deal,"
- Rush Limbaugh, the current Republican party leader.
Synova - "As for Obama's supposed attractiveness... I don't see it. He's only *marginally* less geeky looking than Jindal. Attractiveness wise, when he married Michelle he married way up. Mixed race people are often incredibly beautiful because it seems they get the best of each race... it didn't work that way for Obama."
Are you once again low on meds?
What in the world does any of this drivel have to do with anything?
A discussion of Jindal's response, and whether race enters into any of the criticism...and you're posting comments relating to whether Obama is really "attractive" or not?
Alex,
You get liberal talk radio? Out here all I can get is three stations that have Rush when he's on. (plus six that have country music, plus two in Spanish and one in Navajo). We do have NPR so I can listen to classical. You can't even find a rock station out here.
However, we still need to tighten regulation. And more to the point seperate the regulators from those they are supposed to regulate (i.e. don't just take Bernie Madoff's word, because they know he has a reputation).
garagemahal, here's a link to a meta-analysis of the oreo story, looking at both the story and the attempts to discredit it.
http://www.themediareport.com/nov2005/mm-history-rewrite.htm
The event takes up a large portion of the man's Wikipedia page as well....I thought it was well-known enough (even if disputed by the bastions of the left-o-sphere) that I didn't need to source the story.
It also doesn't explain why stripping away the ethnicity of Gov. Jindal and ascribing the Left's template of a Republican (white, southern, religious) in its place is somehow not racist.
As much as I like Althouse and some of you, this is probably the worst post and comment thread ever. Listen to Jindal's speech or read it or whatever...it was comically horrific. If that's a racist conclusion, then I eat pussy.
Dave,
How is it you missed the point of that post entirely?
But aside from the actual topic, I'll respond. You might dig a little deeper than wikipedia. During Bobby's first run for governor, the New Orleans Times-Picayune interviewed all the candidates regarding their positions on social issues, in 2003 (published Sept. 26, 2003):
Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?
[Kathleen] BLANCO: I am pro-life with these exceptions: rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
[Jay] BLOSSMAN: Every human being deserves the right to life. We have an obligation to lead the effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I would sign any bill that reduced the number of abortions.
[Hunt] DOWNER: I am 100 percent pro-life.
[Randy] EWING: I am pro-life with exceptions for special circumstances. I voted for a bill that prohibited public funding of abortions with exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.
[Richard] IEYOUB: Abortions should be allowed only if the life of the mother is at stake.
JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.
[JE, Jr.] JUMONVILLE: To save the life of the mother.
[Buddy] LEACH: Politicians in the Legislature should not be involved in a decision that should be between a woman, her spouse and her God. I support parental consent requirements.
--end of transcript --
Note that others specifically stated their exceptions, while Bobby clearly says "no exceptions."
those of you who think Jindal was horrible, you think — in fact, I don’t ever want to hear from you ever again. … I’ve spoken to him numerous times, he’s brilliant. He’s the real deal
But let's not anyone say something stupid, like Rush is the head of the GOP or anything. Just because he tells his listeners not to believe their own lying eyes and ears - HE has talked to Jindal and that oughta settle it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oird4IzRnJw
Are you guys serious? Did any of you watch the speech? How do the Kenneth Parcell comparisons not immediately jump in your mind.
This guy is a Republican that was elected governor of Louisiana. Louisiana! That's not supposed to happen.
Joaquin, you're ill-informed. Louisiana is a conservative state, and regularly elects Republican governors.
I agree with ZPS. I haven't been here in a long time but the same nitwits are still posting nonsense. Except that in this case Althouse led them to it and they ate it right up. Or maybe that's the usual?
When you have an instinctive response to a person of another race, why not seek knowledge?
Bullshit, Althouse.
Where was your hokey reflection when Obama first hit the stage and all your commenters were throwing conniption fits?
Epic fail with this post, Professor.
If anyone thinks I didn't talk about racism with respect to Obama, they are massively wrong.
I'd give Sullivan a pass on this one -- he's come up with so many other vicious posts and jumping-to-conclusions-before-being-deleted pieces of snark over the past 4 1/2 years that if he wanted to go all out and accuse Jindal of being an pseudo-Klansman or some other evil southern euphemism, he would have done so more directly.
On the other hand, if by this time in 2012 Sully's accusing Bobby Jindal of being Trig Palin's real father, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Althouse, it doesn't matter what you did or didn't discuss about racism and Obama. The problem with this post is that you make a sleazy, illogical insinuation. If you can't actually point to racism in the reaction to Jindal's speech last night, then it appears to me that you're just stirring shit. It's shameful.
Dammit, Dave. Don't bring facts into this.
I think seeing this reaction as racist is a stretch. I've been impressed by Jindal in every venue I've seen him, until last night.
Racist, no. Lookist, maybe. He's a fairly attractive man, but he's not a babe and he's not a jock. Are ethnic-Indian men more likely to be slight of build and have reedy voices? Is that what you're talking about? Maybe, but the reaction to Geithner has been just as merciless. Gandhi was slight and soft-spoken. And when he said first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, he meant his ideas. I don't think anyone ever laughed at his presentation.
Why do you think Palin was such a hit? She's been trained to make love to the camera, she carries herself well and we know the rest.
Jindal does not move with ease, he would have been better off sitting on the Rex Krewe float.
Last night's speech was horribly staged, I think they had the camera at a bad angle for his eye contact with the viewers, his speech was lame, and that line Americans can do anything was hokey.
Clinton came back from his awful keynote address back in the day. If Bobby Jindal is smart, he'll get some media training. Some will Geithner, for that matter. But please, these put-downs are not racist.
Daniel - "Except that in this case Althouse led them to it and they ate it right up. Or maybe that's the usual?"
Sure is.
Just look at the headline: "There's an awful lot of instinctive revulsion toward Bobby Jindal."
An "awful lot" meaning...she read something by Josh Marshall, who thinks there is...so, hey...there must be.
I've spoken to and emailed any number of people today about Jindals response and not one person said anything about "race" or "revulsion." They all said the same thing: His presentation was poor and the content of his response was less than credible.
*Maybe Ann can provide all of the other links to such "instinctive revulsion."
Who are all these weirdos?
I'm a little surprised that some commenters seem to assume Althouse posts are meant to be earnest or honest.
In the past she's retroactively admitted to lies in a post regarding what she made for dinner. These details were only ancillary to the post, but she just made up stuff to create an image. How can readers not understand that she lies w/o a second thought? It must be part of her so-called art.
I've always thought that part of the appeal here was trying to figure out when and why Althouse is deceiving or misdirecting her readers. And, of course, the commenters can be extremely amusing.
Why the urge to paint him as a white white man? Where did that come from?
Well, it could be that they want to recast him as something other than a non-white, to erode his ability to point up the ridiculous racism of quotas, affirmative action, race-baiting, etc. etc. used by liberal activist groups.
Or it could just be that Jindal looks and behaves like a nerd and nerdiness occupies about the same space on the coolness (or uncoolness) spectrum as total whiteness does. Indeed, nerd culture has been characterised as hyperwhite. The fact that the nerd ranks are in many places dominated by Asians, South Asians, and Jews, rather than Whites doesn't really change the fact that people associate nerdiness with whiteness.
Racism is a pretty egregious charge, one that's enormously destructive and enormously offensive. And we ought not throw it around lightly.
Of course, there are unknown wells inside us all. When you have an instinctive response to a person of another race, why not seek knowledge?
Well, you could do that. On the other hand, you could just take people as they come. A White man can hate a Black man without it being a manifestation of racism. A Black man can hate a Korean man without it being a manifestation of racism. A Korean man can hate a Japanese man without it being a manifestation of racism. Not everyone is going to like everyone. And sometimes people just have a visceral reaction against someone that has nothing to do with race.
Beth,
I hate to correct you, because you are right on most of your points, but Jindahl was the first Republican governor of Louisiana since reconstruction.
You are right that it is a conservative state though, the Democrats that it has elected Governor were conservative Democrats (let's remember that in the finest Dixiecrat tradition, Louisiana voted for Strom Thurmond along with Trent Lott's Mississippi in 1948.) And like Thurmond and Lott, most of them moved to the Republican party. Most of the old Dixiecrats have since become Republicans (the ones who are alive anyway.)
If you can't actually point to racism in the reaction to Jindal's speech last night, then it appears to me that you're just stirring shit. It's shameful.
Or, hey, you can just make something up. Worked for Obama. Now we can't talk about spades for fear of being tarred as racists.
Althouse, you fucking lying racist.
A discussion of Jindal's response, and whether race enters into any of the criticism...and you're posting comments relating to whether Obama is really "attractive" or not?
Low on meds or not, at least I pay attention.
I was responding to Cedar's remark that the problem with Jindal is that he's goofy looking, and that, not race, explains the reaction.
And that may well be part of it. How you look matters in politics.
Also how you sound. Jindal has a nice voice, which Cedar mentioned. Obama does, too. And while Obama has been ooo'd and aaah'd over for being so attractive, he's just not. It might well be his voice that makes people think he doesn't look like a grown up Urkel. (The grown-up Urkel looks way less goofy than Obama.)
So that was on topic. Michael.
My gushing about Chuck, OTOH, was entirely off topic.
That's an extremely good point, but have you considered that your reaction to Marshall and Sullivan might actually unconscious racism as well?
More importantly, perhaps my reaction to your reaction is unconsciously racist.
Or, here's the real kicker: what if my questioning my own reaction is the product of racism? Maybe I'm racistly suspecting that I'm racistly suspecting you of racistly suspecting unconscious racism.
Or maybe not.
I'll grant, questioning one's own feelings can be useful. "Do I feel differently about so-and-so because s/he's (whatever)? Would I feel differently, or be more understanding or forgiving if s/he wasn't (whatever)?"
Questioning other people, unless you are very close to them, or unless you have some pretty overt clues, strikes me as unproductive.
Questioning other people, unless you are very close to them, or unless you have some pretty overt clues, strikes me as unproductive.
You mean, like 'macaca?'
I notice Annie deleted my comment. Apparently, pointing out how she's wrong isn't acceptable, but outright racism by commenters here is A-OK in her book.
But remember, it's DEM DHIMMICRAT LEEBROOLZ who are the REEL RAYCISTSTS, right, Annie?
Haven't read all 288 comments, but Chris Matthews said this morning that the Republicans had "outsourced" their response to Bobby J.
Outsourced? An Indian-American. Outsourced.
Racist?
No, he's a Democrat. Only Republicans can be racists,silly.
From Inwood - Mathews comment is both racist and stupid.
What does that have to do with Jindal giving a poor response to Obama's speech?
The entire racist thing going on here is nothing more Ann stirring up shit via something he read by Marshall.
Do YOU think people saying Jindal did a poor job...was racist?
How about he spoke in a creepy voice ? How about he spoke like Mr. Rogers? How about he told lies (hi speed rail does not exist) ? How about he said if Katrina happens again = kiss your butt again ... Government can not and should not help your butt. Let's not even discuss it was his party and his President that left people to die in New Orleans.
This is not racism. This is a person with a bad message and bad delivery.
Racism itself is not what is being claimed here.
We (I and others, maybe Ann) are saying that there is an unconscious repulsion to Jindal that goes far and beyond away from the actual awful delivery of his speech.
Why is that? What is so egregious about this man, that it create such a firestorm of blogposts?
When did a rebuttal speech, ANY REBUTTAL SPEECH, get this much ink on TV and on blogs?
There are two elements at work:
- Left-leaning folks want to tear down any possible rise of a strong Republican contender. It's a concerted effort by old and new media alike.
- Bobby Jindal is technically a minority, who furthermore has a brown complexion, but one that doesn't play by the "victimhood" rules. He isn't a Democrat, and he is a conservative religious man.
People like him pose an existential threat to the idea that minorities tend to be more amenable to the Democratic Party, because their lives are bettered by leftist principles of government help and community organising.
The reaction you see is hinged on how bad stylistically he delivered his speech. That's true. But it's a pretext to insult and degrade him PERSONALLY.
Haven't we always been told by Democrats that racism is sub rosa these days? It's not out in the open.
That's I think what Ann was getting at. And if she wasn't, I am.
Cheers,
Victoria
Wow, really? So you can't compare him to a white dude. Of course, you can compare to anyone ethnic. I guess then you can't compare him to anyone. Fair enough, let's drop the comparisons and cut to the chase. Then let me say this: He came across as a lightweight all of his own making. His little speech-to-the-class tone was pedantic and affected. He showed no new ideas. He continued to peddle the whole "all government = bad" fallacy just on no further proof other than the fact that his Party's administration bungled the Katrina response. He spoke basic untruths (as in "the best / only way to generate jobs is cut taxes", a notion that has been debunked over and over and over again by all the economic evidence available, and we can point to countless economists who will tell you so).
Then again, my noticing these things in a guy who's of some sort of ethnic background maybe makes me a racist. Though I am South American myself. Or maybe - just maybe - it's easier to accuse critics of racism instead of looking at the poor performance of our own.
I'm betting on the latter.
Didn't any of you know by now that this is the age of flowery style over substance. Stunner. Hope & Change in the new age of bullshit.
He continued to peddle the whole "all government = bad" fallacy just on no further proof other than the fact that his Party's administration bungled the Katrina response.
For Jindal specifically, I don't think Katrina plays out quite that way. Seeing as he probably won his last election in part because the Democrats in charge at the time, at the state level, screwed things up so badly. It helped him tag them with rank incompetence, alongside corruption.
This entire discussion is superficial and pointless. This is a media bruhaha over the most unsubstantive and irrational criteria for what makes a good leader, much less a leader that uphold conservative values. At this point, if Helen Keller was running for president and was hot with DD's she could sign language and mumble her policies that dog shit is the next currency standard and people not only would run out onto sidewalks looking for their newfound cash, but would elect her mute and deaf hotness because she didn't gambole to a table of ointments like a doddering sod. What a load of crap and I swear that I would gay bash that facile knee-pad abusers Sullivan into a pulp for his idiocy.
Though I am South American myself.
Why should that make you an ethnic, in the sense you intended it? From what I can see from your photograph, you are as white as I am.
BTW, what language do you speak? I am fluent in both Spanish and Portuguese, having lived all over South America.
Cheers,
Victoria
Lovely, Methadras. Countering perceived racism (which was just actually criticism) with homophobia. Classy.
As far as the looks comment, maybe you are right. I mean, we all know there ain't much more to Sarah Palin.
As far as the looks comment, maybe you are right. I mean, we all know there ain't much more to Sarah Palin.
And you counter homophobia with sexism.
Cheers,
Victoria
'gamboling toward a table of ointments'?
Ah, soon he will be speaking about how we must pick up the white man's burdens so as to uplift these poor people from their onerous primitivism and make them civilized, by Jiminy!
Very much like Donald Low's opinion of Mr. Burns:
"The liberal patronage which Scotland has extended to this self-taught bard reflects honour on the country. If Mr. Burns has flourished in the shade of obscurity, his country will form a higher expectations from him when basking in the sunshine of applause. His situation, however, is critical. He seems to possess to great a facility of composition and is too easily satisfied with his own productions. Fame may be procured by novelty, but it must be supported by merit. We have thrown out these hints to our younger and ingenious author because we discern faults in him which, if not corrected, like the fly in the apothecary's ointment, may give an unfortunate tincture and colour to his future compositions."
Ah, yes, lets not have that 'tincture and colour' be so unfortunate, hmm? Let us take the ever so high position of 'correcting' him so that he may not do that and find some true path to what he does... ahhhh... yes, indeed. He is a novelty, this poor Jindal chap, without merit by the opinion of Mr. Sullivan, but still able to find a true path by his vision from on high.
So good of Mr. Sullivan to look forward to uplifting those that are interesting but, unfortunately, meritless... so gracious of him to put his wisdom above all others. And soon, I am sure, the halo will be found over his head glowing ever so bright... because only the anointed can use the ointments, no?
Rachel Maddow - smart. Meg Whitman - smart. Hillary Clinton - smart. Todd Whitman - smart. I could go on, on both sides of the aisle. We've all heard Mrs Palin speak. That's all I am saying. She was chosen because she was young, she broke the stereotype, and she made the ticket look better (and no I wasn't referring to physical characteristics, which i really don't give a crap about, but the fact that she was chosen for image value and not content)
but the fact that she was chosen for image value and not content)
Only someone who so misunderstands the American experience could write something this shallow.
As an immigrant myself, I am flabbergasted at your superficial reading of what it is, that attracts Sarah Palin to Republicans, and makes her worthy of interest.
She's a throwback to America's earliest pioneers. Her lifestory is about individualism required to overcome a rugged tundra, one who embodied ideals of nationhood by her very survival of it.
That she did it coming from a working-class family, put herself through college, raised a large family, didn't abort a child others consider defective, and has an encouraging husband that would be any feminist's dream, is just that much more special.
It is one of the great modern sadnesses that so many Democrats cannot see any of this.
Cheers,
Victoria
Oh, I see you made your profile private now, Marcelo. That strikes me that you have something to hide, or maybe you're not that truthful to begin with.
You can counter that with telling us what country in South America you come from. You never know, maybe I lived there and could understand your pain as an ethnic.
Only someone who so misunderstands the American experience could write something this shallow.
Oh, put a sock in it, Victoria. You have about as good an understanding of the American experience as Bernie Madoff has for business ethics. Don't condescend, because you really don't have the bona fides to back it up.
We've all heard Mrs Palin speak. That's all I am saying.
She sounds normal to me, but I grew up in Minnesota, also. Apparently a bunch of Scandinavians from Minnesota moved to Wasilla, once. There's a neat picture of Sarah with a bunch of people dressed up in Viking costumes on the internet someplace that I rather enjoy.
Other than that... what Victoria said. :-)
She was chosen because she was young, she broke the stereotype, and she made the ticket look better (and no I wasn't referring to physical characteristics, which i really don't give a crap about, but the fact that she was chosen for image value and not content)
Well, what do you mean by content? If McCain wanted someone young and female, I don't think Palin was his only choice. What drew him to her above all others was probably the fact that she'd made her name in Alaska by opposing members of her own party and calling them out for corruption. For perhaps obvious reasons, that resonated with where McCain wanted to position himself. It flattered his self image as an anti-corruption reformer -- McCain-Feingold and all that -- willing to take on his own party when he thought they were wrong.
This is, true, image of a sort. But it's an image with real substance behind it. She didn't just look like an anti-corruption reformer willing to take on her own party. She was one. And McCain didn't just talk the talk about reform either -- he actually managed to get a probably-unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill through Congress over the objections of his own party.
Incidentally, by reading Rachel Maddow's entry in Wikipedia, it seems that she and I were at Oxford at the same time -- but I don't recall her at all.
Already tipping my hand about my eventual move to America, I went out of my way to befriend the Rhodies, too.
I think I would've remembered her.
somefeller... it's mythology.
Mythology, or the national mythos is not real. That's why it's a mythology. And while it may not be real, it is exceptionally powerful.
Victoria, as an immigrant, has every right to that mythology.
And as far as I can tell, she got it right.
Apparently a bunch of Scandinavians from Minnesota moved to Wasilla, once.
Ohhh, that makes sense now, Synova.
I read that having been born in Idaho, she had contact with family members who were from there and from the Midwest.
Even so, neither her brother Chuck nor sister Heather speak with an accent as broad as she has.
It reminds me of a Scots-born cousin of mine, the only one who speaks with a Scottish accent, despite his mother, father and siblings all speaking like me.
Mythology, or the national mythos is not real. That's why it's a mythology. And while it may not be real, it is exceptionally powerful.
Victoria, as an immigrant, has every right to that mythology. And as far as I can tell, she got it right.
Actually, Synova, I think you are right regarding the power of national myths. I'm a Texan after all (going back many generations), and this place produces more mythos per square mile than most places. And I also agree that immigrants can lay claim to that mythos and others in this country.
However, I respectfully disagree that Victoria got that or much else right, and that lack of judgment, analytic talent or general standing to justifiably put on any air of superiority (I support the idea that "it ain't braggin' if it's true" - but it ain't true here) is what I was talking about.
The reaction you see is hinged on how bad stylistically he delivered his speech. That's true. But it's a pretext to insult and degrade him PERSONALLY.
..and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. He really was horrible. I was interested to hear him and was surprised. Maybe he's not always this bad. He can't be, I can't see him being elected based on this example of public speaking.
I feel sorry for the guy. The circumstance was a hard act to follow on an international stage.
Victoria - I'm from Argentina, for what it's worth. Though the South American part was a tossaway line, especially considering my previous point which was "let's look at the content of what he said and not at the comparison", and it's not hinting at the whole "i've suffered hatred" part you seem to infer... Just pointing that i come from a diverse background myself and a country that is not known for a lot of racial stereotyping or hatred, so that wasn't what moved me in dismissing Jindal's address, that's all. Just the content of it.
As for the turning off the profile - well let's just say I don't enjoy certain types of emails, so therefore I chose to turn it off after a couple of those. And that's it from me, enjoy the conversation and let's keep it civil, folks...
Victoria, as an immigrant, has every right to that mythology.
And as far as I can tell, she got it right.
Heh, thanks Synova. :)
Actually, I wasn't speaking about how all people perceive the American mythos. The point was being made of why Sarah Palin was chosen as running-mate.
The now departed Marcelo claimed it was because of image content, his argument about that centering on her looks.
My point is that Sarah Palin's lifestory pushes Republican buttons. I wish I could take you all back to 8/29/09, during her Daytona rollout.
The universal appeal of this woman to just about every Republican I know in person and online, was staggering.
For US, it had NOTHING to do with her looks, or "vagina" as the odious Joy Behar put it. It had everything to do with her embodying American ideals which makes you proud that there are still people like her out there.
Just pointing that i come from a diverse background myself and a country that is not known for a lot of racial stereotyping or hatred
Marcelo, thanks for your relevation but with respect, I have NEVER met a more race-conscious people than Argentinians.
EVER.
I suspected from your name you were Argentinian or Uruguayan, but I am astonished you would write something so unimaginably false, because Argentinians (especially of a leftist bent) themselves are acutely aware of how racist their people are.
Tell the one Argentinians love to say jokingly, about how you got rid of your indians, Marcelo.
Or how about the jokes you tell about Brazilians. The ones which begin and end with bananas.
Cheers,
Victoria
vbspurs - "When did a rebuttal speech, ANY REBUTTAL SPEECH, get this much ink on TV and on blogs?"
When was the last time it so poorly delivered?
Jindal's volcano remark has some fuming -
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal took a swipe at federal spending to monitor volcanoes in the GOP response to President Obama's address to Congress.
That has the mayor of one city in the shadow of Mount St. Helens fuming. "Does the governor have a volcano in his backyard?" the mayor of Vancouver, Washington, said. "We have one that's very active."
vbspurs said..."Incidentally, by reading Rachel Maddow's entry in Wikipedia, it seems that she and I were at Oxford at the same time -- but I don't recall her at all. I think I would've remembered her."
Geee, maybe she really didn't attend. I mean, if YOU "don't recall her at all"...
Far be it for me to stick up for Vic (for one thing she can carry a very large stick on her own when she needs to), but
You can't send someone an email from their profile. I just checked mine and there is no email address on it.
Michael:
I noticed that on Jindal's speech too.
Granted, Washington, Oregon and N. California are already blue but the idea that he seems to think we should quit monitoring volcanos is at best ignorant and at worst a pretty open suggestion that the residents of a region of the U.S. that doesn't agree with him should all drop dead.
I guess if he runs for President he won't bother to campaign in Portland.
In fact, if the Governor of Louisiana wants to quit monitoring volcanos in the Pacific Northwest, I wonder if he would also be open to eliminating the hurricane tracking center.
Sarah Palin - A "throwback to our pioneers."
We're now approaching the Twilight Zone.
Blue Fielder said..."I notice Annie deleted my comment"
I did not. You asshole. Apologize. I should now delete everything you write, because you lied.
vbspurs said..."Incidentally, by reading Rachel Maddow's entry in Wikipedia, it seems that she and I were at Oxford at the same time..."
AND
"BTW, what language do you speak? I am fluent in both Spanish and Portuguese, having lived all over South America."
Good lord...just a tad full of yourself?
Tell us more...and more,,,and more...we need to know.
Actually I don't know either of those jokes, though for sure I've heard my share of ignorant jokes all over the world. And if you know Argentina more than casually, you would know that racial crimes / bias have never been an issue (although let's face it, class - especially after Peron pitted rich vs poor - has been, but that's for another discussion) and the country is very racially integrated.
As for the email thing - well, I stupidly had both my full name and the "show email" option on it. No more. Enjoy the Jindal discussion, that's all from me (I swear!).
Ann - "I did not. You asshole. Apologize. I should now delete everything you write, because you lied."
Prozac anyone?
Marcelo said...
Lovely, Methadras. Countering perceived racism (which was just actually criticism) with homophobia. Classy.
[rolleyes]
"And yet here you are, Muta, reading what she has to say. Really, who is the person with problems?"
You're right, I do. But it's like watching a car wreck. I know I should turn away, but I just can't help myself. Watching Ann make a fool of herself is just so irresistable. I guess it's just an unknown well I have inside of me.
the country is very racially integrated.
Argentinians are not a difficult people to understand. Almost preternaturally aware that they are white, and therefore rare in South America, they have a crudeness in expressing themselves on racial matters that would be the envy of Southerners in 1920s America.
I have met leftists in Argentina who are obviously repulsed by Captain Alfredo Astiz. But many of them make a fetish of mentioning his white-blond hair, blue eyes and North European face. It's like a love-hate relationship with the race that defines them, and makes them feel superior to other South Americans.
Incidentally, I like Argentina. But your racist reputation was not earned for nothing, che.
I'm off to read "Civilizacion y Barbarie" again. See you around, Marcelo.
Cheers,
Victoria
I think Jindal's speech was awful, and I'm of Indian descent. Is it possible to be racist against people of my own race?
Jindal is just beginning to get his feet wet on the national level. He ia still in his 30s for crying out loud.
Obama will be a hard act to follow though, and Jindal is not nearly as smooth and cool... but he's as genuine as Obama and he's probably even smarter than him.
Althouse said: I did not. You asshole. Apologize. I should now delete everything you write, because you lied.
I love it when you talk dirty and dominant.
Damn, that was something Titus would probably have said. This place is getting to me.
I think Jindal's speech was awful, and I'm of Indian descent. Is it possible to be racist against people of my own race?
Perhaps you should ask the guy who was talking to Joe Biden, who was Indian himself, if it's okay to say "the truth" about them, because after all, there are a lot of Indians who work in 7/11s.
Here's the thing. Jindal's speech was poorly delivered.
But whenever there was a negative reaction to a speech by Obama, Democrats accused those who thought it was a bad speech, of some kind of unspoken racism at work to make them think that.
Either it is true that some part of us is racist, when we criticise a person with dark skin, especially if the person doing so is not a member of that ethnicity, or it's not.
And further, is it true that a person of the same ethnicity is an "Uncle Tom", a traitor to his race, if he agrees with those doing the criticising?
Which is it?
It can't be wrong when Republicans infer this, and right when Democrats do.
as opposed to seven nachos saying nothing at all and not profoundly.
..oh spinter in the ass of humanity...
You can't send someone an email from their profile. I just checked mine and there is no email address on it.
Heh, thanks, Eli. I only just noticed your reply.
Forgive me, but I don't believe that was the reason Marcelo made his profile private. As you say, there is no email line in profiles.
I suspect he was discomfitted by a strange lady clicking on his profile and viewing his photo, but then also perhaps noticing his argument was weakened as a result.
Eli,
You are incorrect. Dave Treen, elected in 1979, was the first GOP governor of Louisiana since reconstruction. Buddy Roemer was elected as a Democrat in 1988, switched to the GOP in 1991 but lost relection that same year (David Duke got the GOP slot and we held our nose and voted for Edwin Edwards instead), and then Mike Foster, Republican, was elected in 1996 and reelected in 2000. Foster was Jindal's mentor.
So, three of the last six governors were GOP. Three were Dems, with one switching to GOP near the end of his term.
Your undersized penis has shaped your personality. Stop trying to compensate.
vbspurs : Either it is true that some part of us is racist, when we criticise a person with dark skin, especially if the person doing so is not a member of that ethnicity, or it's not.
You are leaving out the possibility that people who accuse others of liking or not liking a person because of their race may themselves be racists.
When someone tries to see racism in places where it doesn't exist, they are showing they view the world through a lens of race, not one of equality.
Apparently, pointing out how she's wrong isn't acceptable, but outright racism by commenters here is A-OK in her book.
Bullshit, Blue Fielder. I've made more than one highly critical remark in direct terms and directly addressing Althouse in this thread, and they haven't been deleted.
I'm betting there's more going on with your comment, BF.
So, what did Jindal actually say about volcanos?
I'm so accustomed to our intellectual betters, the liberals, misstating anyone's actual statements and opinions that I'm assuming the remark about "federal funding" was actually a remark about "stimulous pork-fest funding".
Same on the horror of Jindal ignorantly opposing high speed rail.
The ID bill that doesn't actually require anyone to include ID in a science curriculum is another example of the same.
It is one of the great modern sadnesses that so many Democrats cannot see any of this.
Victoria, that you believe that any of those pioneer adventure tales should trump policy and political philosophy tells me you lack some fundamental understanding of the American experience. I don't care if she has Susan B. Anthony tattooed on her ass, Palin will not govern in a way I can support, and she does not share my values.
Already tipping my hand about my eventual move to America, I went out of my way to befriend the Rhodies, too.
I think I would've remembered her.
Well, she must not have been there! Quelle scandal! You should inform World Net Daily - they'll put someone right on the story.
Beth, first they're not tales, they're pioneer facts. People carved out a life out of nothingness in this country, modern-day Alaskans being the closest thing we've got to that time.
I know you know, in fact, you teach. But I am reminded by your phrase of "tales" about that college professor who gave a class assignment about Palin's RNC video as being "total fiction".
Second, I am absolutely aware that you and Palin do not coincide politically. That's fine. Nor am I saying you were one of those disgraceful Trig-conspiracists who tried to ruin this woman PERSONALLY. Still trying, in fact.
But if Obama's story is, as so many people tell me, inspirational then so is Palin's.
If he pushes people's buttons because of it, I personally understand, but when I attempt the same explanation for Palin, Republicans are mocked.
Well, she must not have been there! Quelle scandal! You should inform World Net Daily - they'll put someone right on the story.
There weren't too many purple-haired out-lesbians who were Rhodes scholars at Oxford. Instead of saying something like, "Vic your circle was very narrow!" you come out with the same inference that the troll did. I think that's disappointing, Beth.
So, what did Jindal actually say about volcanos?
I'm so accustomed to our intellectual betters, the liberals, misstating anyone's actual statements and opinions...
that you thought to take a couple of minutes and google the transcript? No? Huh. And by "intellectual betters" you meant to be sarcastic, I assume.
He said, "While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.' Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C."
I think that's a pretty stupid thing to say when you've just asked the Feds for lots and lots of money to protect your own state against hurricanes and wetlands destruction. Do you think Jindal wants to eliminate the Hurricane Hunters flights? Nope. It's not wasteful to know there's a hurricane heading your way, but apparently it is wasteful to monitor volcano activity. Huh. Yep, he's a Rhodes scholar!
If you want to know more about exactly what the ID bill does to bring Creationism into my state's classrooms, you can find lots to read about it online. If you're fine with that kind of policy in your state, great; but I want it thrown out in mine.
Victoria, you just made a point of how you sought out Rhodes scholars in advance of moving to the U.S. Of course I'm going to tweak you on that "I think I would have remembered her" statement.
As for tales, they are tales. It's the Palin mythos. It doesn't mean anything about truth or fiction - it's about how you, among others, build a pioneer myth out of this woman. She ain't driving a covered wagon. I agree she's heir to the First Wave feminists -- but I won't stop having a little fun poking at the myth. Don't take it too seriously; I have no respect for any politician's mythos.
When someone tries to see racism in places where it doesn't exist, they are showing they view the world through a lens of race, not one of equality.
Indeed. It is the reason that I'm no fan of Affirmative Action or census questions about race. To me, people are people. To others, they are skin colours, genitals and accents.
I have no respect for any politician's mythos.
But you are more inclined to devalue the mythos of those you disagree with. Those others who are really partisan go so far as to try to destroy them.
Indeed. It is the reason that I'm no fan of Affirmative Action or census questions about race. To me, people are people. To others, they are skin colours, genitals and accents.
I don't think Althouse would agree with us. She started this thread by accusing people of being racist who clearly weren't. It got me mad. I think many liberals have this internal bigotry about lots of things. Sometimes it comes out as accusations, sometimes as a patronizing attitude. I was so irritated I accused Althouse of being part troll on twitter!
I was so irritated I accused Althouse of being part troll on twitter!
Jason, I've been in and out of Althouse for a while, so forgive me if I don't recognise you from way back but...how long have you been reading Althouse?
Her posts are not like those of others. They are not examples of her personal beliefs on a topic. They are written to expand the angles of a given topic, by letting her commentariat challenge received wisdoms.
Allegedly.
Those others who are really partisan go so far as to try to destroy them.
I agree partially. I don't like the "politics of personal destruction" that we've seen over and over. But I also recognize that politicians are just as capable of destroying the lives of their constituents, that I don't care get too wrought up about unfair and mean rhetoric in campaigns. If they can't handle a rough campaign, they can't handle office. I don't admire foul campaign tricks, I don't support them, I don't sign on for that kind of thing. But I do see it as more of a two-way street than you probably do.
In other words, yes, he was talking about the stimulous pork-fest, and not, as it happens, about disbanding the USGS.
I'm shocked.
Really.
how long have you been reading Althouse?
I've been reading for awhile, haven't even looked in the comments section until recently. It's a whole 'nother world.
They are written to expand the angles of a given topic, by letting her commentariat challenge received wisdoms.
Well I challenged it. And I'd like to say to all the liberals out there who like calling people racists: There's something wrong with you and we know what it is. Inside you're nothing more than a modern day lynch mob.
But I do see it as more of a two-way street than you probably do.
Agree.
I guess what irks me is the motivation said to be behind each demonisation.
We know that politics is dirty. We know you shouldn't get into it if you can't handle it. But it seems to me that crying racism is an added protection afforded to some which other politicians undergoing this trial of fire do not have.
It transforms normal opposition, into something far more evil and damnable.
Not when calls about racism are justified, you understand. But as a way to discredit any opposition, however on point it is.
He listed the USGS's work monitoring volcanoes as an example of wasteful spending. Stop trying to re-write it.
I reread it in context, Beth, and he's clearly talking about provisions of the stimulous bill.
I don't know how you can transform that into a general policy statement that the USGS should not monitor volcanoes and that the federal government should not fund volcano watching.
It turned out to be exactly what I expected in context... Jindal talking about provisions of the stimulous bill that had dubious worth as economic stimulators. And it gets twisted into some sort of "Bobby Jindal wants people in Seattle to burn."
That makes as much sense as claiming, that because the porkulous extravaganza doesn't include military funding that Democrats hate the Army.
I've been reading for awhile, haven't even looked in the comments section until recently. It's a whole 'nother world.
It's funny you say that, as I read there are some Althousians who read the comments only, or the actual blogpost only later.
E.G.: I re-read this blogpost again just now, and I am struck by a point Professor Althouse made about Jindal being likened to especially white guys like this Kenneth guy.
I think that's a really important point that is getting lost in the personal Althouse attacks by Sullivan etc.
"Why the urge to paint him as a white white man? Where did that come from?"
Probably the critics will mention that his regionalism and conservative religion made the connexion evident, but she is going for something deeper here.
There is a programme on IFC called "The Whitest Kid You Know".
Someone described such kids as:
"The whitest kids I know all sort of look like Ashton Kutcher, listen to Jack Johnson, think Dane Cook is funny, and dig Adam Sandler movies."
I think what many people don't like about Jindal is that he doesn't talk like Apu, doesn't look like he could break into a Bollywood dance routine, and therefore isn't cool.
What I BELIEVE she is saying is that he fails to live up to some kind of stereotype they refuse to acknowledge they have deep inside themselves.
He's just another vanilla white geeky guy, and therefore, fair game.
Cheers,
Victoria
I don't know how you can transform that into a general policy statement that the USGS should not monitor volcanoes
I am not doing that, Synova. You seem to be missing the point: Jindal is using the USGS funding in the stimulus bill to illustrate wasteful spending. The USGS spending is not wasteful. In using the "volcano monitoring" funds to criticizes the stimulus, he's making a lame argument, and it's particularly lame in light of his experience with natural disaster.
Alex,
Interesting but the Magic Negro for Obama was first published in the LA Times by a Democratic commentator. Talk to them, not the Republicans. Of course the Willie Hopper in 1988 also first came from the Dems (Al Gore to be exact). That did not stop the Dems from trying to blame the Republicans for that either. I guess if you lie enough it becomes fact? but then that is the Democratic way.
Sweet Jesus.
Bobby Jindal delivered his speech last night in the same cadence that Kenneth the Page uses in 30 Rock. No one is "painting" Jindal - it's an obvious comparison, and an apt one. And a funny one.
He talked to his audience like they were children - Kenneth the Page is known for the same thing.
What a bunch of pointy-headed nuance. Pffffft.
Sometimes, the vortex is tiresome. This is one of those times.
Beth,
Compare your description of Jindal with the history of Obama. He also is bored, never stuck with any of his jobs, in fact never really did any of his jobs, and yet he got elected president. And he is not much of a people person either. He is definitely a huge ego guy. sounds much the same to me.
He also is bored, never stuck with any of his jobs, in fact never really did any of his jobs, and yet he got elected president.
Details?
I hope Ann sees this, but Kenneth the Page appeared on the Jimmy Fallon show, talking about this.
Kenneth the Page Responds
Victoria said: "Argentinians are not a difficult people to understand. Almost preternaturally aware that they are white, and therefore rare in South America, they have a crudeness in expressing themselves on racial matters that would be the envy of Southerners in 1920s America."
My Aunt by marriage and who is about my same age, was born in Argentina. Her parents,now deceased were opponents of Peron and removed themselves in a fit of self preservation to the US in the late 50's early 60's. We still have relatives in Argentina and visit occasionally. The family is of Italian descent...refugees from WWII for various ..ahem..reasons. I see Marcelo as coming from similar ethnic roots. European refugees from WWII.
Granted, Washington, Oregon and N. California are already blue
Think again. This area of N. California is 70% + Republican. Seriously people. Look at a map. San Francisco is in the MIDDLE of the State, not the north. Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington... RED. Unfortunately... we are all out voted by the urban areas, but don't be deceived into thinking that the states are homogeneous.
IS this for real? How about waiting until they carry around Curious George dolls at Jindal's rallies before you call them racist. Or maybe comparing him to a chimp. That would be racist. How perfect for the GOP ... trot out a few minorities and then call everyone who criticizes their POLICY a racist. I guess if we called him the antichrist or a halfrican american that would be OK. Sure, that's serious conservative thought compared to what's being batted around today in the party.
I don't think Andrew has much right to complain after he passed on completely unsubstantiated accusations of racism against Arnold Kling. Goose, gander and all that.
Interesting theory posted by Daniel Larison on his blog, that Jindal's speech was bad because it was designed to have been given in very different format- at the 2008 GOP convention:
"Now that I think about it, Jindal’s response was structured like a party convention speech, and all that was missing was the endorsement of the party’s presidential candidate. There is the introductory personal story, repeated efforts to play to the crowd’s old-time favorites, deliberate insertions of talking points that match the presidential candidate’s slogans (I can’t be the only one who groaned when Jindal talked about cutting out such-and-such a number of earmarks from the state budget) and the inevitable catchphrase that links an otherwise jumbled speech together with a theme. In this case, apparently it was that “Americans can do anything,” which is something most Americans may like hearing, but which hit my ears as painfully as if it were an icepick. I don’t expect public officials to eschew confidence-building rhetoric (indeed, the President could probably stand to have a bit more of that in his public remarks), but this unusually saccharine expression of optimism is not only at odds with the public mood, but it is just insulting.
Incidentally, the party convention structure explains the tone and cadence Jindal was using, and it explains why so much of the speech was about him. Convention speakers, especially if they are giving high-profile, primetime speeches, are supposed to use their personal biographies to illustrate the theme of the convention or the theme of the day, and the speeches are all supposed to be either upbeat and celebratory or energetic exercises in denouncing the folly of the other party. Jindal chose the latter. Matthew Gagnon at The Next Right objected to the lack of wonkishness and policy details, as well he should, but if you imagine that this speech was taking place in St. Paul in September its vacuity and irritating pacing would have been right at home. Remember, Jindal never had the chance to give a speech at the convention because of the hurricane, to which he very capably responded as governor, so it is quite possible that any convention speech he had ready to go was dusted off and reworked a little and turned into last night’s disaster. So, yes, the McCain campaign continues, and Hurricane Gustav has claimed another victim."
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/02/25/do-republicans-know-that-the-election-is-over/
"Why the urge to paint him as a white white man? Where did that come from?"
But if one compared him to a darker man, that too would be deemed racist (e.g. 'Why the urge to compare him only to other non-white men?'). Jindal gave a terrible speech. Anything's possible, but there's no substantive reason to claim that racism is at the bottom of the negative reviews directed towards him.
It was Chris Matthews muttering into the mic, probably in anticipation of the steaming pile of GOP talking points that was about to spew forth from Jindal, after a year of Republicans screaming wide and far that they were opposed to the ideas at play without offering any new plans of their own. Charming move guys, and please keep it up. If y'all want to aim the gun at your own feet, I'll gladly keep feeding you bullets.
Like Jindal, I was the first child of Indian immigrants (though I was born in Canada) and I was appalled by his performance. I'm sure some people don't like Jindal because of his race, but dismissing all criticism with innuendos of racism is lazy and irresponsible. Jindal's policy positions are reason enough to want him far from the Oval Office.
But maybe I'm just self-hating.
dfd
Dave oh Dave...earth to Dave...
"does not condem", "does not object"
His pro-life voting record is 100%.
http://www.lifenews.com/state2559.html
I am an Indian American, and I thought Jindal was terrible. I guess that makes me a racist...oh wait...
Re: Beth:
"He also is bored, never stuck with any of his jobs, in fact never really did any of his jobs, and yet he got elected president."
Details?
Certainly. For example, he was a state legislator for what, 8 years? But only in his last year (2003) did he actually advocate for any legislation. And the legislation he did advocate for, he apparently got largely because he was Emil Jones' protege, and Jones made him the front man for everything. For seven years, he sat pretty much idle. He didn't always show up (who does?) and even when he showed up, he sometimes (famously) just voted present.
For years, he was a professor at University of Chicago. Or at least, his campaign talked about him as a professor. He might have been a lecturer or something -- I don't know. Either way, one thing academics are expected to do is think original thoughts and publish them -- to participate in the academic community, really. In all his years as a professor, he published no serious academic work. In fact, the only original work I recall people finding during the campaign (other than, of course, his two books about himself) was an oped in some news paper in Chicago. It might have been the campus newspaper.
For a short time, he was head of the Annenberg Challenge, which was intended to disburse money to improve education in Chicago. The fund did send out money, but it failed in its goal. To be fair to Obama, this probably isn't the fault of his laziness or inattention -- these kinds of things rarely work anyway -- but it certainly didn't suggest he was an achiever.
Lastly, for four years, he was a senator. It's hard to be a leading senator when you're junior, and he wasn't, at all. The only legislation he passed was, if I recall correctly, some anti-nuclear proliferation legislation that everyone already agreed on and some ethics reform so toothless that no one objected. Even after 2006, when party leaders pushed all kinds of significant positions to him -- he was chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs (with responsibility for oversight of operations in Afghanistan), and a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations -- he was lazy and ineffective. He skipped most meetings of the Committee on Foreign Relations (chaired by Biden, as it happens), and Biden called him out for it, during that brief period when Biden was playing at being a serious candidate. Mismanagement in Afghanistan was another talking point Obama deployed during his campaign, but he didn't hold a single hearing on Afghanistan until mid-2008, after Clinton started criticising him for mouthing off without having done any of the work.
And now, he's playing to type. He'll step in at the end and claim credit -- at the signing ceremony for the stimulus, he emptied the stage of all legislators, so none of them could detract from his glory, even though he seems to have played little or no role in shaping the stimulus, other than setting the approximate dollar limit.
Sullivan hates anyone who professes to actually believe Roman Catholic or conservative Christian doctrine (i.e., homosexual behavior is wrong). Fair enough. Why not say so. Even though Palin never was anti gay and there is little evidence Jindal is hostile to gays other than being against gay marriage (the same as Obama I hear), Sullivan feels he is on jihad and anything to discredit Palin and Jindal is fair game. Racism? Well, was Sullivan misogynistic in going after Sarah Palin? In tactics certainly, but not in motivation. The motivation is in destroying those indiviudals before they become a threat.
There is a field for providing your e-mail on your blogger profile.
And now, he's playing to type. He'll step in at the end and claim credit
Oh, you're right. That does sound like Jindal.
His speech included a line about how "we" had reformed education in New Orleans - the "we" was the Blanco administration before him.
Most people seem to agree that it was all about the visuals.
People responded negatively because their biases are based on color and stereotypes.
How dishonest to say otherwise!
there is little evidence Jindal is hostile to gays other than being against gay marriage
He ended the executive order preventing discrimination against gay people in the workplace; he's appointed a "Marriage Commission" - nevermind that he's supposedly an opponent of big government, but marriage apparently needs a government commission! - and one of their charges is to look into gay adoption. That one's still undetermined, but I don't expect it's findings to anything other than hostile to gay people.
"And now, he's playing to type. He'll step in at the end and claim credit"
Oh, you're right. That does sound like Jindal.
Bodes well for Jindal's presidential aspirations, then, if not for the country.
You've nailed it.
I hate the entire race of Mus musculus, which is why Jindal's Mickey Mouse impersonation stirred my ire so greatly.
So... the instinctive "urge" to paint him as a "white man" might be seen as racist? Perhaps painting Jindal as Apu instead of Mr. Burns would have been the way to --
Oh wait. Oh dear. Apparently there's no way to avoid the charge of racism.
Balfegor,
Someone local posted a comment that Jindal is falling prey to what we call Creole Tomato syndrome:
they're the best, most wonderful tomatoes in the world, and they only grow in particular Louisiana soil. But they don't ship well. They lose their smell and flavor in transit.
I am an Indian American, and I thought Jindal was terrible. I guess that makes me a racist...oh wait...
The argument is predicated on his speech having been terrible, yes?
Then I hope to see you back here when your fellow ethnic gives an awesome speech.
Won't take long. Promise. See you soon.
vbspurs - I'm laughing at you GOPers. Keep throwing Jindal at us, I can't wait for 2010 the Democrats will get 300 House seats and 65 in the Senate. Heck, by 2016 there won't be a single GOPer left, good riddance!
I'm eagerly waiting for you to write a blog post condemning Michael Steele's racism reflected in this interview on ABC:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Steele_offers_Jindal_slum_love.html
Psst. Sullivan is a conservative.
"Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism?"
Can't tell you how gratifying it is to see a loser like Althouse reduced to just making shit up out of the vacuum that fills her head. Oh wait, how can I be so confident that I'm not manifesting sexism?
What is it with Sullivan and ointments
Well, I can tell you that I've got Indian friends, spent time in India, and my reaction was to the sheer silliness of his delivery and the bankruptcy of his content. One Indian couple I know watched Governor Jindal's speech and both he, who has been in the states for 10 years, and she who only left her home in Northern India for the first time to live here a year ago, thought it was strange and off-putting, not to mention they're reactions to his comments about India.
What is it with Sullivan and ointments?
Post a Comment