this is a HUGE political risk (for him and NO - a republican wouldn't hold it against a democratic urban mayor not to get his endorsement, but a democrat sure would) with little upside in endorsing Jindal. The bottom line for me is that his incessant pandering to the unchristian coalition and to other extremist elements outweigh what I admit are better policy ideas (although vastly overrated by his supporters) than Blanco's. I understand he is now the hero of pat robertson's tv network. And if he is elected, his handlers will not be ignored - we'll see something on the abortion front (which will be struck down) or a small step toward a theocracy early in his tenure.
Ray Nagin recently returned $19,000 in supporter contributions after a routine supporter dinner amongst owner/CEO/Presidents of Chemical and Engineering companies from around Louisiana met with him at Mr. B's in New Orleans. From the sounds of a copy of the letter accompanying the returned checks, it seems as if Nagin returned them because an overall policy strategy session turned into a sit-down where requests for specific, individual problems were spoken about and relief then sought. Nagin didn't like the idea of a "quid pro quo", so he immediately returned amost $20,000 dollars worth of $$$... JD, what you just don't get is what I've crowed to you since my first day here...Political Parties, while still playing a significant role on all levels of government, are soon to be things of the past. They can't encompass the ideas and ideals of any and all voters with just two of them in the forefront. The ones waiting in the fringe are just too fanatical. Nagin understands what I understand, and what you don't quite get...WHAT MATTERS MOST IS YOUR IDEAS, NOT YOUR PARTY.
Cut the partisan bs.............Jindal can turn this state around........and if you don't see that .................you are blinded by the dirty campaigning of Ms. Blanco
I agree - I'm all for what Nagin did - I voted for him and will again. Jindal is another story - he isn't handing back checks to the unchristian coalition - he is performing their every request.
What am I supposed to see - his love affair with pat "Charles Taylor is an upstanding human being" robertson should convince me he can turn the state around?
I haven't seen any comments from Kathleen Blanco distinguishing her from such positions. As far as social issues go, this has been a pretty drab campaign, both Blanco and Jindal posturing to see who can be more pro-life. As far as social and cultural issues go, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them. As for the Christian Coalition backing Jindal, I think it has more to do with tying into their national platfrom, and erring on the side of caution and going with the Republican. Most politically savvy Christians will not lose a wink of sleep if Blanco is elected governor. Nagin probably sees what most of the rest of us see, JD; that Jindal is far more likely than Blanco to "rock the boat" and give this state the serious, top-down shakeup it needs to get out of the economic doldrums and stop the hemorrhaging of jobs and people to surrounding states. He is offering a bold new vision, a different way of doing things. Blanco will not be much of a change; if she is elected, things in Louisiana for the next four years will stay much as they have the last 20 years. And we really cannot afford that. I must say, I really am dismayed by the tone of your post, JD. In effect, you are saying you believe that any evangelical Christian, or in this case, devout Roman Catholic, cannot be trusted to hold public office in this country because they will try to move toward "theocracy," as you say. I'm curious, I have read Christian Coalition material in the past, as well as the material of the other major social/cultural conservative groups, and while they talk about a lot of good things, like a return to sound educational practices, more police officers on the streets, faith-based initiatives, and the like, nowhere have I ever seen the Christian Coalition support any kind of legislation that would try to install a state church or an official state religious doctrine, which is the good ol' Webster's definition of theocracy. They would like for the U.S. Govt. and groups like the ACLU to stop pretending that govt. must exist in a moral/philosophical/religious vacuum and just come out and acknowledge the fact that we are a nation with a Christian majority and that we were indeed founded so long ago on Judeo-Christian principles, and junk this ridiculous concept of "secularism." Religious neutrality should instead be the goal. The fact that you honestly believe that, should Jindal be elected, he will be taking his orders straight from Rome is ridiculous and paranoid, and smacks of the malicious stupidity that was spoken about JFK's candidacy and "true allegiances" back in 1960. Jindal has repeatedly said on the abortion issue that he is not interested in throwing state money down an empty pit, fighting a fight he knows he can't win. He is interested in reducing the number of abortions in this state by getting more aggressive about abstinence education, wider availability of certain contraceptives, and a greater social support system for young women who find themselves in such a condition. There will be no theocracy in Louisiana if Jindal is elected. The doctrinal differences alone between the Catholic Jindal camp and the mostly evangelical Protestant Christian Coalition would shatter his coalition. You know this as well as I do. I just hope you are not one of those mean spirited people on the left-leaning side of the political spectrum who is just besides himself and full of paranoia and fear because Christians have the temerity to get organized and involved in politics to try to be a force for good in our society, as is their Constitutional right. But I suppose anytime a Christian dares let the G-word or the JC-word slip from their mouth in the public, you want them gagged for "forcing their religion on me." :dis: :dis: :dis: Now, for me being on the right of the political spectrum, I too, believe in the old advice of "You can judge a person by the company he keeps." I too, have my "red flag" groups, and their endorsement of a candidate is usually a cause for concern. For example, I know if Handgun Control, Inc. endorses a candidate, then I need to start examining his record on the 2nd Amendment and I need to get worried. But unlike you, I actually look at the candidate and see if he is actually a good guy with good ideas, and see whether or not he's actually his own man, with some minor differences from my politics, or if he really is just a pawn for the World Leftist Political Front. If the good outweighs the bad, he gets my vote. With both Jindal and Blanco, the good far outweighs the bad. But Jindal has to be the guy because of his fresh perspective and problem solving ideas, both of which are sorely needed in this state. So put your shrill rhetoric about theocracy to rest, because you know as well as I do that is not going to happen.
