but what do the democrats do for indian americans?

1) racial preferences work against indians. While I can understand the descendants of slaves angle, I've never heard a good explanation for why other voluntary immigrants or children of immigrants (Hispanic + African) should get preferences.

2) taxation, likewise

3) islamic terrorism is something many more pro-indian people feel strongly about. if india's national security is a big deal to you (it isn't to me), then the dems are certainly less willing to recognize islamic terror as a problem. That *doesn't* mean Bush in particular is doing a good job, but it does mean the Dems have a larger proportion of emotional children like Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney, etc.

4) if outsourcing is an issue to you on indian grounds rather than/in addition to economic grounds, the R's are pro-trade and the D's are much more hesitant (viz. Kerry & his talk about Benedict Arnold CEOS).

soo....just about the only reason I can see that IAs vote for the Democrats is the imaginary wave of post 9/11 hate crimes. As Suman Palit showed some time back, the "hate crimes" bundled together insults and arson in the same category - and even then they were less frequent than one in a million.

Other than that, maybe racial profiling might be an issue to some...but that tends to work against IAs also:

The city subsequently enforced tough legislation against cabbies who refused to pick up passengers or drive them to their destinations...

Many South Asian cabbies -- not to forget African cabbies -- said that when they are reluctant to pick up minority passengers, they do so out of their experience. G S Bajwa, for instance, tells about how young African passengers often just walked out of the cab without any hesitation, and that he has lost hundreds of dollars a year driving to parts of Harlem and the Bronx...

Using the derogatory word south Asian cabbies often use to describe African Americans, a cabbie originally from Karachi said three kallus had got him to drive to a remote part of Brooklyn, refused to pay him $ 28, and left the cab, saying, 'Bye, bye, Gandhi'.

So - honestly asking here - besides "hate crimes", what does the D party offer you? Note that I'm *not* saying that Bush is great - he's not a fiscal conservative, Iraq without WMDs was a bad idea, etc. - but I am saying that generally right wing policies (as promoted by Clinton, say, on economic issues) are beneficial to the IA community. So why advocate leftism?

QC, It's not just about who favors Indians in particular, it's about who in general favors the greater common good. Right now the republicans, in my view, are leading the country to disaster on many fronts, the most egregious of which is foreign policy. Remember, George Bush couldn't name either Vajpayee or Musharraf when campaigning in 2000. Don't you think we could do better?

I would question whether the dems are really softer on Islamic terrorism, as you put it. The Bush team let Pakistan slide until 9/11 -- Abdul Qadeer Khan ring a bell? They knew about the whole thing, and let it go (and they're still letting it go). I have to think that a less cloistered, less ideological foreign policy team put together by a Kerry administration would do a better job.

And this is to say nothing about the war in Iraq, which is, at best, doing nothing to aid the goals of the "war on terrorism."

Finally, many Indians who are U.S. citizens have family members who are dealing with immigration. If nothing else, the abysmal job Ashcroft and Ridge have done in bloating INS/USCIS/DHS bureaucracy in the past three years is a reason to vote for a change. Apathy over immigration services makes Republicans often seem as if they are positively hostile to immigrants -- and this is bad for us, even if many of us only *look* like immigrants.

I don't think there's much of a practical difference--rhetoric aside--between the R's and the D's on issues such as outsourcing, aff. action, etc.

Which is to say, while both parties 'talk the talk' when pandering to their core supporters, they don't 'walk the walk'. The status quo on these issues isn't likely to change, given the deep differences in American society on these issues. So they aren't as decisive as GC seems to think.

The key difference, however, is foreign policy.
Briefly, I would prefer a chastened Bush to a Kerry. Will Bush focus on terrorism, Iran, N.Korea and not Iraq-like sideshows? A Bush presidency focused on a manageable combination of idealism and realism seems like a better bet than Kerry's brand of realism.

American policy in South Asia is key to the war on Islamist terrorists. While Bush is far too enamored of Musharraf, Kerry's fondness for realism in foreign policy will likely result in Musharraf's deification in a Kerry White House.

So, I'm not all that taken with either candidate's foreign policy. I hope Bush will detail how his 2nd term will be different, at the RNC.

Btw, given the centrality of S. Asia to American security, enlightened American self-interest means that India's security should be a "..big deal.." to American citizens.

Kumar
P.S., Come to think of it, the Repubs. are echoing the Dems. rhetoric on free trade. I'm thinking of Zoellick's (the U.S. Trade Rep.) remark that he is trying to inject a Hamiltonian note into American trade policy. As M. Yglesias notes in his blog, Hamilton was an arch-mercantilist.

Wow! All those DNC leadership councils. I'm hurt, though. Where is my council, hmmmmm? Where is the council that will nourish my delicate point of view that is being SYSTEMATICALLY suppressed by the white patriarchy? Where is the Indian American Midwesterner transplanted to New England Female Physician leadership council? Eh?

MD,

I'll for'd your plea to the DNC. Hell, I'll throw in the RNC too. Hey, maybe u can ask 'Anji' to join your request :)

Kumar