Bobby Jindal is the Republican Barack Obama (apparently)

[Stormbringer]

It's not just the Pope that exudes this mindset; it's enshrined into Catholic tradition. For example, if you're a Catholic, you can walk into any Protestant church and still receive communion. Not so if you're a Protestant in a Catholic Church. It's also notoriously difficult for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic in a Catholic Church. The mother of a good friend of mine left the church for that very reason. Then there was the Pope Palpatine's infamous comment that non-Roman Catholic churches aren't proper churches.

Things like that are why the Catholic Church enjoys a reputation as the most arrogant and inflexible of Christian denominations. It's not undeserved. So I have to wonder why anyone with any intellectual rigor would want to join such an organization that is so self-assured and pisses all over other, similar organizations.

My god, a religious institution and it's member expressing disdain and contempt for those not it's members. I'm sure glad you pointed that out because that's totally unacceptable behavior in a religious organization!

The guy believes that he participated in an exorcism and is hard-core anti-abortion, no exceptions. I've said this multiple times. I think that's enough evidence to place him in the "scary" branch of the Catholic Church.

And as I keep saying, I'm not all surprised by that. If that's the case then you're better off presenting that as evidence than going off on some goofy anti-Catholic tangent.

[Durandal]

My god, a religious institution and it's member expressing disdain and contempt for those not it's members. I'm sure glad you pointed that out because that's totally unacceptable behavior in a religious organization!

Protestant churches typically have no problems giving Catholics communion or letting Catholics marry members of their church. Formal rules such as these designed to make problems for non-Catholic Christians are pretty unique to the Catholic Church.

And as I keep saying, I'm not all surprised by that. If that's the case then you're better off presenting that as evidence than going off on some goofy anti-Catholic tangent.

Yes, I never mentioned it before that last post. Read the damn thread so I don't have to hold your hand, please.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Protestant churches typically have no problems giving Catholics communion or letting Catholics marry members of their church. Formal rules such as these designed to make problems for non-Catholic Christians are pretty unique to the Catholic Church.

True, but you're misinterpreting the reason for it. I'm fairly certain that most Protestant sects actually would be perfectly happy to exclude people, except that most Protestant sects are incredibly conversion-hungry. The main theological objective of any Christian religion is saving people from damnation. Now, because Protestantism in general is predicated on sola fide, or salvation through faith alone, their plan is to get out there and get as many people to subscribe to their mailing list, because all you have to do is believe. Because of this, protestantism is also called evangelical Christianity, with "evangelism" more or less having a root meaning of "bringing good news."

Catholicism is based on salvation through good works and faith, pretty much in that order. Hence, as an organization they mainly provide religious services like confession and absolution to people who are already members, and their method of expanding congregations is maintaining members and ensuring that those members have lots of kids who are all Catholics, and some missionary work. It's notable that it is actually a somewhat involved process to officially become a Catholic in Western Nations; I believe you have to take classes from and be certified by a priest.

Catholicism is a bureaucracy in which you exchange tithes and submission to their rules for the imaginary good of regular absolution by a priest. Protestantism is epitomized by the Gideon bible, the earliest form of spam advertising--throw that shit out there and hope somebody bites! Frankly I don't think there's anything to recommend one over the other.
These are all generalizations, though. There are Protestant denominations that refuse services to people. For example, the conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans won't even allow other Lutherans to receive Communion because they believe outsiders don't subscribe to the catechism strictly enough.

In the case of Jindal, I think the probable reason an otherwise intelligent person would buy into Catholicism is the superiority of Catholic apologia. If you're looking for a Christian sect with literature to justify itself to you philosophically, your choice is pretty much just Catholicism.

[Stormbringer]

Protestant churches typically have no problems giving Catholics communion or letting Catholics marry members of their church. Formal rules such as these designed to make problems for non-Catholic Christians are pretty unique to the Catholic Church.

Only because they consider Catholics to not be christian and thus damned to hell if they don't save them. They're doing it not because they're better but because they hope to poach from the Catholic flock. Yup, real noble of them.

Real noble of thus Protestants to found the KKK to terrorize and/or kill those of different race or creed. That's about as exclusionary as you get and in many cases Protestant churches are already self-segregated with nothing required rules wise.

Yes, I never mentioned it before that last post. Read the damn thread so I don't have to hold your hand, please.

Which is not at all a belief confined to Catholicism and is actually much more common amongst the snake-oil Protestant televangelist crowd! In fact the Catholic Church is very, very restrictive about when it grants an exorcism and in fact actively tries to debunk cases.

As I keep telling you, the anti-Catholic tangent is neither particularly accurate nor really helpful to your arguments about Jindal. You're better off actually dealing with his actual beliefs, than your presumptions about him and his denomination.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Esquire's article on him.

[Samuel]

Snipping out the massive parts about his life gets us:

Jindal in his first act as governor called two special sessions of Louisiana's part-time legislature. During those three heady weeks, Jindal fulfilled many of his campaign promises by pushing through dozens of new bills, including an overhaul of ethics laws, tax breaks designed to make the hurricane-ravaged state more attractive to businesses, and an income-tax deduction for parents whose children attend private schools.

Among the bills that passed: A requirement that employers allow workers to bring guns onto company parking lots. An authorization to perform chemical castrations on convicted sex offenders. A renaming and restructuring of the labor department (part of Jindal's workforce-improvement plan). A "Teacher Bill of Rights," guaranteeing a safe environment in the schools (more Jindal; teachers had been leaving the state in droves). A voucher plan that allocated $10 million to pay the tuitions for inner-city children to attend private and parochial schools.

It also included a 123 percent pay raise for legislators--a bit of self-dealing that Jindal, reluctant to start a pissing match with the legislature, had promised not to veto; a week later, after a public outcry, he would reverse course and kill the raise, calling his original promise "a mistake."

And then there was the "Science Education Act." Critics said the bill, passed by both houses, opened the door for teaching creationism and intelligent design in Louisiana public schools. Jindal said he would sign it when it reached his desk.

Is that remotely legal?

He is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. He is against stem-cell research, for private- and parochial-school vouchers, for teaching intelligent design.

"A couple of things," Jindal said now without hesitation. You couldn't see his fingers but you knew he was ticking them off. "One, I don't think this is something the federal or state government should be imposing its views on local school districts. . . Secondly, I don't think students learn by us withholding information from them."

States rights is back.

"I personally think that life, human life and the world we live in, wasn't created accidentally," Jindal said matter-of-factly. "I do think that there's a creator. I'm a Christian. I do think that God played a role in creating not only earth but mankind. . . ."

[Darth Yoshi]

If your information is wrong, are you really doing a disservice by withholding that information?

Is that remotely legal?

Well, to be pedantic, the legislature passed it, so unless someone challenges it, it has to be legal. Whether or not it's ethical or moral is another question.

Regardless, Jindal seems to be just another bible-thumper, whose only real distinction is that he's not white.

[Duckie]

1) Republicans Think Obama Is Someone To Imitate
2) Republicans Think Jindal Is A Republican Obama
3) Jindal Is A Bog Standard Bible Thumper Who Is Non-White

thus

So, we can basically sum up what the Republicans think the Obama mystique/Obama machine/Obama effect/whatever the hell they call it is:

"He's a politician who isn't white."

[Battlehymn Republic]

They also like his rhetoric.

[Surlethe]

1) Republicans Think Obama Is Someone To Imitate
2) Republicans Think Jindal Is A Republican Obama
3) Jindal Is A Bog Standard Bible Thumper Who Is Non-White

thus

So, we can basically sum up what the Republicans think the Obama mystique/Obama machine/Obama effect/whatever the hell they call it is:

"He's a politician who isn't white."

Aren't you leaving his youth out of the equation?

[Duckie]

Okay, yeah, he's also young and articulate. But the point is, the only real difference between Bobby Jindal and another republican is non-whiteness. The gist of the argument: That Republicans think Obama succeeded because he was a black man who was articulate and not because he was an articulate man who happened to be black; that part stands.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Well there's a little more to it than that. Governor Jindal's also done quite a bit for his age. Rhode's Scholar, he also could have chosen between Harvard Medical school and Yale Law. He also had a stint as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Hospitals, there was also his presidency of the Louisiana University system at age 28 (IIRC). He'd be a rising star no matter what his race was, (honestly I can't think of any Republicans that are his match in accomplishments) the fact that he's a visible minority just enhances his electoral appeal.

All this is premature though, he's got to finish his tenure as governor to get a real measure of his executive qualifications. Also of course if things go perfectly for President-Elect Obama over the next four years, Governor Jindal might choose to sit out the next election rather than run against a popular incumbent. He's got a long life and a (potentially) long political career ahead of him if he chooses. edit: There's no need to be hasty about when he runs.

[ray245]

It seems that even some Republicans is having a hard time accepting Jindal. His views on catholicism as the best branch of religion seems to annoy a number of protestants.

[Stormbringer]

Okay, yeah, he's also young and articulate. But the point is, the only real difference between Bobby Jindal and another republican is non-whiteness. The gist of the argument: That Republicans think Obama succeeded because he was a black man who was articulate and not because he was an articulate man who happened to be black; that part stands.

To be fair, being young and black almost certainly was a help to him. African-Americans are a major voting block in the Democratic Part to begin with; their vote certainly helped him be competitive with Hillary Clinton. As loathsome as she is, she didn't pull the race card in the primary for no reason. And in the general election, Obama's massive support among the African-American and Hispanic communities certainly contributed a great deal. It's not all hard to imagine that African-American voters were much more inclined to take Obama's rhetoric about inclusiveness, helping out the disadvantaged, and general social message seriously when he is half African-American (in fact more truthfully than that term usually is) rather than a crusty old white man.

His youth did help too; the Obama effect was nearly unprecedented in turning out young voters. That made a huge difference and was one of the factors that let him carry off his change message. McCain tried to play the maverick card and just might have gotten away with it too. But Obama's image and genuine appeal to younger voters was a huge help in swinging things his way. Again, youth voters were much more inclined to take Obama seriously because he is a relatively young man rather than a crusty old dude (albiet one that was once a Daily Show regular).

I'm not saying this to diminish Obama's undeniable political skill but because there are issues of race and age at work here. There was a lot of talk about the potential negative affect of Obama's race but no real mention of it's potential upsides. Nor

There's also the fact that if the Republicans are considering Jindal seriously as a contender, that may help bring down the racists in the GOP. If, or rather when, white supremacy lite becomes a political negative you'll see a race to jettison them overboard. They've already done something unusual with Sarah Palin and that may have it's affects too. Either way, these may not be much yet but they're small signs of possible big changes.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Again, I think everyone's playing up his race (though it's true he wouldn't be as high profile if he wasn't non-white). But consider the alternatives. Who else among the GOP young seem as intelligent and qualified? Sarah Palin? Eric Cantor? Tim Pawlenty? Paul Ryan?

[CaptainZoidberg]

Again, I think everyone's playing up his race (though it's true he wouldn't be as high profile if he wasn't non-white). But consider the alternatives. Who else among the GOP young seem as intelligent and qualified? Sarah Palin? Eric Cantor? Tim Pawlenty? Paul Ryan?

Obviously Mitt Romney is very intelligent (at least on par with Barack Obama, this guy was the valedictorian at BYU and was in the top 5% of his class at Harvard) and qualified, but business people aren't exactly popular in the US right now.

[Darth Wong]

It's pretty sad how the Republicans assume that Obama's appeal was 100% marketing and packaging, and had nothing to do with younger people being sick and tired of the conservative agenda. So instead of going back to the drawing board to see how they can increase their appeal by adopting new ideas, they decide they just need the right pitch man for the exact same shit they've been peddling for 30 years.

[Darth Wong]

To be fair, being young and black almost certainly was a help to him.

Sure, if you look at the positives and ignore the negatives.

African-Americans are a major voting block in the Democratic Part to begin with; their vote certainly helped him be competitive with Hillary Clinton. As loathsome as she is, she didn't pull the race card in the primary for no reason. And in the general election, Obama's massive support among the African-American and Hispanic communities certainly contributed a great deal. It's not all hard to imagine that African-American voters were much more inclined to take Obama's rhetoric about inclusiveness, helping out the disadvantaged, and general social message seriously when he is half African-American (in fact more truthfully than that term usually is) rather than a crusty old white man.

And blacks are less than 15% of the population, while a third of the population admitted racial prejudice in polls.

His youth did help too; the Obama effect was nearly unprecedented in turning out young voters. That made a huge difference and was one of the factors that let him carry off his change message. McCain tried to play the maverick card and just might have gotten away with it too. But Obama's image and genuine appeal to younger voters was a huge help in swinging things his way. Again, youth voters were much more inclined to take Obama seriously because he is a relatively young man rather than a crusty old dude (albiet one that was once a Daily Show regular).

And Obama's youth dovetailed nicely with the "inexperience" attack preferred by both McCain and Clinton.

I'm not saying this to diminish Obama's undeniable political skill but because there are issues of race and age at work here. There was a lot of talk about the potential negative affect of Obama's race but no real mention of it's potential upsides.

Good thing you're here to set the record straight by doing the exact opposite, and classifying his race as "almost certain" net advantage by mentioning its upsides and ignoring its downsides.

There's also the fact that if the Republicans are considering Jindal seriously as a contender, that may help bring down the racists in the GOP. If, or rather when, white supremacy lite becomes a political negative you'll see a race to jettison them overboard. They've already done something unusual with Sarah Palin and that may have it's affects too. Either way, these may not be much yet but they're small signs of possible big changes.

Why would you say this? They've had Condoleeza Rice for a long time and that did nothing to get the racists out of the party.

[Stormbringer]

Sure, if you look at the positives and ignore the negatives.

I never said that it was with out downsides but over all it seems that they were among the factors that contributed to his victory.

And blacks are less than 15% of the population, while a third of the population admitted racial prejudice in polls.

And a huge chunk of them vote Republican already and are in forever red states. It clearly didn't hurt him overall and the edge he had among African-American voters and Hispanics was a huge help in some states. Elections aren't so much about the party base but the undecided and unmotivated. In this case, Obama's ethnicity was a positive factor in convincing people to got out and vote for him.

And Obama's youth dovetailed nicely with the "inexperience" attack preferred by both McCain and Clinton.

Which failed miserably. Obama was the reason for a huge wave of new voters and that's hardly a negative factor. Simply because he was attacked on an issue doesn't mean that it was automatically a negative.

Good thing you're here to set the record straight by doing the exact opposite, and classifying his race as "almost certain" net advantage by mentioning its upsides and ignoring its downsides.

I'm talking about why he won, of course I'm going to focus on the positives. But of course every conversation about race must be uniformly negative and about the woes and travails of the minority.

Why would you say this? They've had Condoleeza Rice for a long time and that did nothing to get the racists out of the party.

I didn't say it was going to be immediate or even the next few election cycles. It's going to be a longer term process but the fact that the Republican Party is willing to consider black candidates as viable is a step in the right direction.

[Battlehymn Republic]

The party itself may be for race-baiting and against affirmative action and funding social programs, but I think the base is more racist than the establishment itself. Colin Powell had been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate back in the '90s.

There's also the illegal immigration thing, but it's hard to say; nativists are xenophobes, but the plutocrats want cheap labor.

[Darth Wong]

Sure, if you look at the positives and ignore the negatives.

I never said that it was with out downsides but over all it seems that they were among the factors that contributed to his victory.

And blacks are less than 15% of the population, while a third of the population admitted racial prejudice in polls.

And a huge chunk of them vote Republican already and are in forever red states. It clearly didn't hurt him overall and the edge he had among African-American voters and Hispanics was a huge help in some states. Elections aren't so much about the party base but the undecided and unmotivated. In this case, Obama's ethnicity was a positive factor in convincing people to got out and vote for him.

And Obama's youth dovetailed nicely with the "inexperience" attack preferred by both McCain and Clinton.

Which failed miserably. Obama was the reason for a huge wave of new voters and that's hardly a negative factor. Simply because he was attacked on an issue doesn't mean that it was automatically a negative.

Good thing you're here to set the record straight by doing the exact opposite, and classifying his race as "almost certain" net advantage by mentioning its upsides and ignoring its downsides.

I'm talking about why he won, of course I'm going to focus on the positives. But of course every conversation about race must be uniformly negative and about the woes and travails of the minority.

You're quite the tap dancer. But the fact remains that you made a rather bold claim: that Obama's race was "almost certainly" a net positive. And you have provided no real reason for anyone to agree with you. You cited a few mechanisms that might work in his favour and assumed that the ones which were against him must have been insignificant because he won: a particularly pathetic form of illogic.

Why would you say this? They've had Condoleeza Rice for a long time and that did nothing to get the racists out of the party.

I didn't say it was going to be immediate or even the next few election cycles. It's going to be a longer term process but the fact that the Republican Party is willing to consider black candidates as viable is a step in the right direction.

I think it would be rather naive to think that this idea represents an actual change in the collective thinking of the party, as opposed to a political strategy idea.

[Stormbringer]

You're quite the tap dancer. But the fact remains that you made a rather bold claim: that Obama's race was "almost certainly" a net positive. And you have provided no real reason for anyone to agree with you. You cited a few mechanisms that might work in his favour and assumed that the ones which were against him must have been insignificant because he won: a particularly pathetic form of illogic.

Oh please. They weren't mechanisms that might work in his favor; they did work in his favor. You only need to look at the evidence posted to this very board in the election threads to see that. The poll data shows pretty reliably that they did indeed help him. He garnered a significant amount of minority support, which helped him in many southern and/or rural states. His youth was a big factor in both the primary and the general election; it was a huge part of why his mess of change worked. And those poll numbers from this very board attest to that.

I think it would be rather naive to think that this idea represents an actual change in the collective thinking of the party, as opposed to a political strategy idea.

Mike, to have the Republicans in a position where they'll actually consider a black candidate in the first place is change. For the Republicans to distance themselves from the racists, even risking them staying home, is a significant changes from them courting those same racists. It doesn't have to be sincerely meant for it to matter in the long run. Sidelining the racists, whether because it's to your advantage or because of genuine principle, the fact is they'd still be sidelined.

[erik_t]

It might be enlightening to look at how much Obama gained on Kerry vs the racial makeup of the state, or the south-ness, or both. I think that might give us some insight as to how race affected Obama in a positive or negative way. Unfortunately we really never have statistics worth considering. It'd be better off if we had like 10,000 states so we could actually accumulate a meaningful volume of data.

God knows how those poor Canadians manage

[Duckie]

It might be enlightening to look at how much Obama gained on Kerry vs the racial makeup of the state, or the south-ness, or both. I think that might give us some insight as to how race affected Obama in a positive or negative way. Unfortunately we really never have statistics worth considering. It'd be better off if we had like 10,000 states so we could actually accumulate a meaningful volume of data.

God knows how those poor Canadians manage

It's buried in 538 somewhere- generally Obama outperformed Kerry everywhere except places both southern and relatively blackless, such as kentucky, oklahoma, et cetera.



Now, we have to throw out former or current incumbent states- Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas and Arizona are not very indicative of the data. Generally it appears that McCain overperformed in upstate new york and rural michigan, where there was actually a good chance he might have contested the latter had this not been a landslide.

Notice, however, that Obama did marginally better everywhere except in a scant few states that are white, rural, and generally, to not tapdance around it, full of racist rednecks.

Problem- This map comes from June, before the economic collapse and while Obama was not campaigning in Michigan or Florida, thus the slight red tinge to them. I wish I could find the full map from after the campaign. They even had one that was county by county, which we could then compare to the ethnic makeups.

Further, since this map comes pre-obama's nomination, it has Hillary Clinton sabotaging the results in places like Michigan, Florida, New York, and Arkansas where she is popular since it doesn't measure on 3 axes, just "Obama (projected) vs Kerry".

[CarsonPalmer]

[quote="Darth Wong"]
I think it would be rather naive to think that this idea represents an actual change in the collective thinking of the party, as opposed to a political strategy idea.[/quote]

I guess the only thing here is that even if the change is made only for political strategy, it still can change the base. The party might not want to change, but if Jindal becomes a leader, it might begin to change the makeup of the party, even if that isn't the intention at all.