Burnt Orange Report

I'm as happy as the next guy that Blanco won, but I really don't think she means anything for the Dems in 2004. She is much more conservative than any of the leading Dems and Louisiana still had 70% registered Dems when they went solidly for Bush in 2000. LA is Bush country...

A win in Louisiana means the Dems have not been shut out in the races for state houses this year.
It also means that appointees to various boards and regulatory agencies which have an effect on the everyday lives of all Louisianans will be Democrats and not Republicans.
And a sitting governor commands more media attention than a has-been or wannabe who may be more ideologically "pure" to some.

As was the case last year, Louisiana provided an upbeat coda to a mostly depressing fall election season.
Even though I'm a hardcore Democrat who thinks that Republicans give pond scum a bad name, I was happy that an Indo-American could do fairly well in a state which gave Nazi David Duke over 40% of the vote not that long ago.

It probably won't be that long until somebody with roots on the Indian subcontinent does get elected as a governor or US senator.

The Canadian province of British Columbia has already had a Sikh premier.
Ujjal Dosanjh took office when he was elected leader of the provincial New Democratic Party in 2000. However, he and most of his party caucus got swept away by the Liberal landslide less than two years later.

Yup, the NDP got plastered by the Liberals in 2001, 77-2. To clarify, for those of you not versed in Canadian provincial politics, the NDP is Canada's hard left Socialist party, for those who feel the Federal Liberals aren't ideologically pure enough. At least, they are supposed to be. The Saskatchewan provincial NDP has decided that expediency beats ideology, and is only center-left, not hard left. Not so, however, in British Columbia.

The NDP was first elected in 1991, and was narrowly re-elected in 1996 after claiming to have balanced the provincial budget. But, as Krugman would put it, they lied. After the election it was revealed that the province was actually hundred of millions of dollars in the red. That, and the recession that socialist policies always leave economies in, left the NDP government deeply unpopular for the rest of its second term. The sitting premier was forced out in a corruption probe, which is when the then attorney General, Ujjal Dosanjh took over. He, and all but two other NDPers went down with the ship when the voters were given a chance to render a verdict on the past 10 years of NDP rule. I was kind of dissapointed, actually -- I was rooting for a shut out, but no such luck.

Gordon Campbell, the leader of the provincial Liberal party then became Premier. However, the B.C. provincial liberals are quite different from the Federal Liberals. The BC Liberals are an amalgamation of the Social Credit, Canadian Alliance, and Progressive Conservative party supporters at the provincial level. In short, despite the name, they are the right wing party, and Campbell has been cutting taxes, spending, and regulation ever since he got in office. The public sector unions are incensed. Pretty solid guy.

Sherk

While the BC Liberal Party is not as extreme as the NDP, "it is not true that they are an "amalgamation of the Social Credit, Canadian Alliance, and Progressive Conservative" parties in BC. The Reform and Conservaitve supporters in BC have their own Provincial parties in BC. My aunt is a Minister of State in the Campbell Government, and I can assure you that she and most of the other members of the government I am aquainted with are moderate and pragmatic progressives, as well as supporters of the federal Liberal Government. My aunt Katherine would react with controlled and dignified horror if it were suggested to her that she were synonymous with the Alliance, Reform, or the PC.

Dave,

I can't claim any official connection to the B.C. government, although I have family who live in the province. Nonetheless, it is quite true that the BC Liberals are the small "c" conservative party in B.C., and are supported by voters and activists who support the Tories and the alliance at the Federal level. The social credit successor party all but formally merged with the Liberals, following the vote split in 1996 that re-elected the NDP with a minority of the popular vote. The right unified under the umbrella of the B.C. Liberals. Technically they might exist as separate parties, but B.C. Reform et. al are empty husks since their supporters and activists merged with the B.C. Liberals.

Anyway, come on now. You know full well that, whatever your Aunt's views, "progressive" is not the word to use to describe Campbell.

Look, he cut all income taxes by 25% within a few weeks of taking office, is balancing the budget primarily through spending cuts, and has vowed to reduce the amount of regulation in the province by 1/3. He might not be as right-wing as the typical Republican governor in the USA, but the man is definitely a conservative, and not at all a good fit with the Federal Liberals ... well, at least under Chretien. Martin could turn out to be a superstar, for all I know.

Sherk

I said the B.C. government is moderately progressive and it is. It is not unprogressive to live within your means (infact I wish our President were more "progressive" on this issue like President Clinton was) however the degree to which a party is progressive is measured by its priorities. I do not disagree that the BC liberals are the more centrist of the two major parties in BC, but you ascribe a moral victory to "conservatism" which you then attempt to compare by allusion to Republicans in this Country. I've no doubt that the small "c" conservatives in BC vote for Liberals just like republicans in Washington State would vote for Democrats if their two viable choices were Democrats and Greens. The fact of the matter is that the Province has two viable center-to-left-leaning parties. The kinds of radical conservatism you find in, say, Alberta doesn't play in BC. Campbell is not a radical progressive, but he is not balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable. In fact his budget contains new spending for health care, prescription drugs, education, and it contains a new comittment to fostering economic development among First Nations (Native Americans) to us. These are the moderate progressive priorities I was talking about. The campbell government is not analogous to, say, Zell Miller or Ralph Hall. They are not Liberals in name only.

I said the B.C. government is moderately progressive and it is. It is not unprogressive to live within your means (infact I wish our President were more "progressive" on this issue like President Clinton was) however the degree to which a party is progressive is measured by its priorities. I do not disagree that the BC liberals are the more centrist of the two major parties in BC, but you ascribe a moral victory to "conservatism" which you then attempt to compare by allusion to Republicans in this Country. I've no doubt that the small "c" conservatives in BC vote for Liberals just like republicans in Washington State would vote for Democrats if their two viable choices were Democrats and Greens. The fact of the matter is that the Province has two viable center-to-left-leaning parties. The kinds of radical conservatism you find in, say, Alberta doesn't play in BC. Campbell is not a radical progressive, but he is not balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable. In fact his budget contains new spending for health care, prescription drugs, education, and it contains a new comittment to fostering economic development among First Nations (Native Americans) to us. These are the moderate progressive priorities I was talking about. The campbell government is not analogous to, say, Zell Miller or Ralph Hall. They are not Liberals in name only.