Bobby Jindal is a Tool

If anyone had any doubts that Bobby Jindal would be nothing more than a tool for the far right, they should fear no more. Jindal put all doubts to rest today with his very first floor speech in which he spoke in opposition to the challenge to the Ohio electoral votes. Invoking his immigrant heritage, he charged that all of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus - who were united in their challenge - were bringing shame upon the House of Representatives.

I don't have a transcript yet - his office told me that they won't have a prepared statement and suggested (erroneously) that I should go to C-SPAN.

By the way, those who spoke to challenge the Ohio vote spoke eloquently and articulately about how our electoral process is flawed and broken. Those who spoke in opposition made it clear that they aren't interested in discrepancies - only in glossing over the results.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that some people won't see the connection so at risk of being obvious, here's a more detailed explanation of why Jindal is a tool. There are some topics, like affirmative action or the Japanese internment, where white folk are at a disadvantage speaking about since they are essentially talking about programs or systems in which they are either not the victims or not the beneficiaries. Enter the tool - a conservative from a racial minority - who has the advantage of being able to speak to the issue as a minority, express the majority's point of view without a perceived loss of credibility.

Jindal follows in a long line of minority apologists for conservative ideology - Dinesh D'Souza or Michelle Malkin, to name just a few of the headliners. They take positions that are essentially against racial minorities but use their backgrounds to legitimize their position.

I guess we can anticipate more of the same.

Comments

[Dimsdale]

Ah, the old "a conservative (insert race, gender etc. here) cannot be (insert "free thinking" or "independent" or "insert race, gender, etc.) enough because of their conservatism. So much for agreeing to disagree and being tolerant of other's opinions! Calling him a "tool" merely publicly displays your ignorance. This is a lowest common denominator insult, and unwarranted.

You speak of the Ohio votes, but what about Washington state, where it can be definitively shown that the election was stolen by Gregoire? Funny we don't hear about that from the "tools" of the left.

I take exception to your statement "Jindal follows in a long line of minority apologists for conservative ideology - Dinesh D'Souza or Michelle Malkin, to name just a few of the headliners. They take positions that are essentially against racial minorities but use their backgrounds to legitimize their position."

Clearly, they never speak as "Indian-Americans" or "Filipino-Americans" (respectively). One look at either Malkin's or D'Souza's web pages would clearly demonstrate this: nowhere is their heritage mentioned. If you are going by their obvious East or South Asian appearance, that is one thing, but accusing them of using it as a way to make her opinion is flat wrong. They have real credentials, and don't need the crutch of minority status to be heard. Only liberals such as yourself make their race an issue, presuming that minorities are obligated to follow old stereotypes rather than consdiered thought. Conversely, liberal minority groups are always quoted as representative of thier race, which they obviously are not. Kind of like what you are doing on this very blog! Are we to assume that "angrydesi" represents all Indians simply because he presumably is one himself? Shall we brand Barack Obama a "tool of the Democrat party" simply because he is black and liberal? That is analogous to what you are doing here.

Assuming that Jindal does what you and other liberals routinely do to get attention is simply wrong, and even the most cursory search on the net demonstrates this.

Be man enough to admit it: you are against Jindal because he is an Indian who "dares" to be a conservative, and you use your own Indian heritage to tear him down. Try criticizing him in a substantive way rather than a racist way.

Maybe "angryultraliberaldesi" would be more apropos.

Namaste!

[Joe]

Well said. And Desi's use of his own heritage to tear down Jindal is all the more despicable.

The chip on Desi's shoulder must be the size of a basketball. He is clearly somewhat intelligent, but somehow he's unable to understand that whatever event caused him to feel slighted or 'angry' is just that - an event. Unable to move on with life, Desi is doomed a life of bitterness and anger. Eating away at him little by little, this chip he carrys alienates Desi from increasing portions of society.

[Robert]

I don't think I even have to comment on the last comment, absurd as it is. I will however make a couple of points about the first comment and Bobby Jindal.
First of all, anyone who looks at words mentioned on a website as proof of whether or not race is an issue for a politician is missing the point, and is playing into the hands of conservative strategy. Race is apparent (as you mention but gloss over) in someone's appearance MORE than anywhere else. When South Asians see Bobby Jindal's face on TV without knowing who he is, what do you think their first reaction is? There's a reason the conservative political camp embraces people like Jindal or Alberto Gonzales. Their minority status is a huge aid to conservatives as they attempt in any way possible to reach out to minorities. I'm not going to lie, Democrats certainly don't mind the fact that they have people like Obama at the forefront of the party as they try to continue winning 90% of the African American vote (though I would argue that Obama is a far more complicated case given his background, and that's a separate topic). But that doesn't take away from the fact that, as angrydesi has put it, Bobby Jindal is, in the true sense of the word, a 'tool' of the right wing.
I also challenge the first commenter to expound upon what exactly was unfair about the Washington election. Don't be upset because you lost a recount. Election procedures need to be reviewed, most definitely, as the presidential elections showed more than anything else. In fact many of the same problems that Republicans claim plagued the Washington vote were apparent to an ever larger degree in the presidential elections. But frankly you don't have a leg to stand on if you're calling Washington a 'definitive' steal.
Oh, but you're right on one point. Liberals do make race an issue. That's what you have to do when conservatives suppress it. Race is an issue, and I wish it weren't, but pretending like it's not is naive.
Finally, to anyone who actually rationally believes Bobby Jindal should be holding public office, I invite you to do a little background research on his life, especially why he converted to Christianity and became a conservative politician. I think most rational people will be shocked by the accounts they read written by Jindal while he was in college. What we have in Jindal is not a politician with 'real credentials'. What we have, frankly, is a nut who has lost all touch with reality.