i agree entirely with gman, and i wish this angle was explained more often in the media and by politicians.
It's my impression, especially talking to folks back home in north Louisiana. They preferred to vote republican, but weren't ready to elect a "colored foreigner". These are the people Jindal needs to reach. Others agree. Did Racism Beat Jindal? Adam Nossiter (AP) "... Here’s the nasty paradox: racism, an aid to so many Republican triumphs across the South, may have saved the Democrats on Nov. 15. And Jindal, the candidate who quickly staked out a French-bashing, super-patriot position, may have lost because he was found insufficiently American. It can’t be proved. The evidence is anecdotal — disturbing comments from voters, Jindal’s rapid polling drop and suggestive vote deficits in Republican-leaning parishes that had gone strongly for George W. Bush in 2000." Why Jindal Lost Christopher Tidmore (itsonlypolitics.com) "... Even more telling are the parishes that Jindal lost (or barely won) where a GOP candidate should have won by a large margin. He was defeated in Republican bastions of North Louisiana and the Florida parishes where he should have triumphed easily. Terrell, Jenkins, and (George W. Bush for that matter) carried these areas by wide margins. A conservative candidate of similar philosophy should have as well. There is only one clear reason why Jindal did not-his race. Shortly before the election, The Louisiana Weekly published the comments of Kenny Knight, David Duke's chief henchman and interim head of Duke's N.O.F.E.A.R. group (National Organization For European American Rights). Knight recommended to all Duke's supporters "to stay home". He said that N.O.F.E.A.R. "could not support Jindal." Whether Knight caused the rift (or more likely simple racism), we can never know, but the results are clear. They show that normally pro-Republican "Reagan Democrats" did not vote on November 15th or cast their ballots for Blanco."
Thanks, Martin...but I'm just flapping my gums w/ this Chaos character. He's right, and everybody who disagrees w/ him is wrong. End of story. Doesn't matter what evidence you present to support what you say...he's right, you're still wrong. Must be nice to be omniscient at such a young age.
FYI, the years 1993 & 1994 came before the year 1998. Until you can prove that this is not the prevailing mode of thought for people on 'your' side of the fence it is complete garbage, and an incredibly feeble cop-out. I've done a pretty substantial job of presenting 'evidence' (often supported by international law experts), and I don't see any of you swaying. How does that make me any worse for not 'flip-flopping'?
Oh, I wouldn't say that "my" side of the fence is any more prone to changing their minds than yours is. I just find very few of "us" who come across quite as arrogant and condescending as you do when presenting "our" viewpoints. You could take a lesson from Red. Red and I seldom agree on much, but we can keep it civil, because neither of us is condescending to the other. Golden rule, man...do unto others...
About 1998: Since everyone ignored this information that doesn't 'fit into what they want to believe', I pulled it from the other thread for you. The following is the account shared by scores of international lawyers, including Lord Goldsmith, Tony Blair's attorney general: First of all, what's that got to do with me being convicted in my viewpoint? You sure are changing the issue. Second of all, people on 'your' side don't seem to come across as arrogant and condescending because they are on 'your' side of the fence. But trust me, they are. Whether you want to admit it or not is immaterial. You're right, there is a lot that I could learn from Red. But about this golden rule...it might hold some water if I was incessantly bitching about people's attitudes towards me. When topics like this are discussed, things are going to get heated. If you don't expect that to happen, then maybe this isn't the place for you. Trust me, dude, it cuts both ways. In addition to his eloquence, people probably respect Red more than me because he's older than me. There is in incredible propensity around here for people to disregard things I say on the grounds that I'm a good deal younger than them. Petty, but nonetheless it happens.
Technically you are correct, but not practically. Iraq was hit with missile strikes by Clinton during this time and we constantly flew air-combat patrols over Iraq, occasionally hitting anti-aircraft positions that turned on their radar. All warlike acts. There was a continuing conflict in the 90's, but we were acting on behalf of a UN coalition in both the Kuwait War and the No-Fly/WMD destruction operations with broad support from our allies. However, the decision to resume hostilities was not an extension of the Kuwait liberation, which was sucessfully concluded. The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was elective and is a US coalition operation. Quite a different animal. The same with Korea. On paper it may be a resumption after a 60-year cease-fire, but for practical purposes it will be considered a new war.
why do i care what everyone else thinks, i disagree with most republicans about plenty of things. i know what bush said, and i agree with him. i also know how liberals portray things, and they push the issue to what they think will make the war look least justified.
