I think you are reading more into this than it merits. As the NY Times pointed out on January 6:

"In its latest evasion, the House Republican leadership this week announced, with great fanfare, that it was granting "permanent" status to the existing House Select Committee on Homeland Security. All that was lacking was jurisdiction over homeland security budgeting, spending or performance."

Bobby Jindal has just been dissed.

The whole editorial is worth reviewing: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/opinion/06thu1.html

I think Jindal has been interested in education for awhile. He was President of the University of Louisiana System before he was appointed to the HHS

"I think you are reading more into this than it merits"

Still, I find something either symbolic or perhaps ironic that the Republicans are assigning a brown man to, at least in principle, oversee protection of the homeland from attacks by, well, brown men. Why wasn't he assigned to the Health Committee which could CLEARLY benefit from his considerable talents in that area?

the Republicans are assigning a brown man to, at least in principle, oversee protection of the homeland...

Are you kidding? Rabidly conservative minorities are like gold for the GOP. They're the Democrats' Kryptonite, they shatter the race script in campaigns.

Republicans are assigning a brown man to, at least in principle, oversee protection of the homeland from attacks by, well, brown men.

Or perhaps some Republicans actually understand that not all brown folk are Arab terrorists? Nahh... that can't be it. Don't they know that only Democrats are allowed to see past the color of someone's skin?

" Rabidly conservative minorities are like gold for the GOP. "

Why do they have to be "rabid"? Why not simply conservative?

Vinod,
I think you quoted the wrong sentence, no? The observation that I am making would still apply even if Jindal were a Democrat wouldn't it?

If they saw him simply as a guy, wouldn't they assign him to where his talents were greatest, i.e. health? Why put him in an area he has no expertise, one that his constituency has little to do with, if not for his skin color?

Why do they have to be "rabid"? Why not simply conservative?

Bobby 'Teach Creationism in Public Schools' Jindal is in fact rabidly conservative.

My point is that there are a million things about diff committee's needs (maybe there are no open seats on health?), qualifications (maybe there are other senior folks already in queue for it?), Jindal's aspirations (maybe Jindal wants to move on to other horizons?), his background, etc. that we just don't know....

And yet, (probably cuz the GOP is involved) you're boiling it down to "brown people looking for brown people" and "if not for his skin color".

"probably cuz the GOP is involved"

Again, my statement was one of irony not one of GOP intentions. Do I think that his assignment was politically motivated? Yes. Do I think that only the GOP makes politically motivated assignments? No. I do think however that the GOP is inclined to make MORE racially motivated moves then the Dems, but thats only because minorities mostly vote Democrat. As a comparison I expect the Dems to pander to religious conservatives in similar ways during the next four years in order to make in-roads with that group.

From a previous didn't Jindal provide tons of support to other party candiates, political as well as monetarily? From these few instances Jindal seems to be a very good politician, maybe the GOP is using him and he is using the GOP. Politicians are politicians, left, right, up, or down. Same thing with any workplace...otherwise Dilbert wouldn't be as funny.

I wonder who would qualify as 'rabidly' liberal? (and no abhi, you can't nominate yourself :) )

Do I think that his assignment was politically motivated? Yes.

The problem is one of falsifiability.

Let's suppose, for a sec that Jindal were loudly asking for a homeland security seat and was denied it.

I fear that as many critics would be crying racism that Jindal was denied as are currently claiming tokenism for why Jindal is there.

There's just no way to "win". I can accept that Race exists as an issue in some circumstances... I just have a hard time leaping to the conclusion that it's the dominant factor here.

I feel duty bound to point out that although I do not object to anything Manish has said, "rabidly" was not my word. I prefer to think of my posts as more objective than that :)

Let's suppose, for a sec that Jindal were loudly asking for a homeland security seat and was denied it. I fear that as many critics would be crying racism that Jindal was denied as are currently claiming tokenism for why Jindal is there.

That's a pretty weak argument Vinod. If someone else had made it you'd skewer them for it. Let's look at the facts:

(1) Jindal is a whiz kid, who is KNOWN for his reputation with Health Policy.
(2) Jindal was voted President of his Freshman class, implying a certain amount of political power (or tokenism)
(3) Jindal gave away a significant portion of his own money to help other candidates, and thereby has even greater political "capital" (as Bush likes to say)
(4) The Republicans need an answer for Obama (who admittedly may be receiving a treatement similar to Jindal on the other side.)

Race is definitely not the ONLY factor but it would be naive to think it wasn't a major factor in his appointment. To turn the tables on the "left" by saying that they'd cry racism if he wasn't on Homeland Security is unfair.