Is Anh Cao A Model For A New Republican Party?

Is Anh Cao A Model For A New Republican Party?


One of the biggest surprises over the weekend was the defeat of popular, but indicted, Representative William Jefferson for Louisiana’s 2nd congressional district.

But should it surprise anybody that voters preferred Anh Cao’s message of pragmatic politics? Because after reading even a little bit about this guy, I would have cast my ballot for him over Jefferson in a heartbeat if I had the chance.

NY Times has more:

Mr. Cao was a refugee from Vietnam at age 8, a former Jesuit seminarian, a philosophy student with a penchant for Camus and Dostoyevsky, an unknown activist lawyer for one of the least visible immigrant communities here and a Republican in a heavily Democratic district. […]

He is only a recent convert to the Republican Party, having been a registered independent for most of his adult life, and has no position — at least not one he cares to share yet — on President-elect Barack Obama’s agenda. His politics seem less a matter of ideology than of low-key temperament and a Jesuit-inspired desire to “help and serve people,” as he put it. […]

Now, Mr. Cao will have to persuade the district’s Democrats to keep him in office, but he says he is not worried. He said the district had not really had a representative, given Mr. Jefferson’s preoccupations.

Besides, he said, “I truly espouse Aristotle’s definition of virtue: To walk in the middle line.”

No doubt many GOPers will call Cao a RINO if he doesn’t toe the party line, but this is the type of guy who can bring independents and moderate Dems back into the Republican party. And I hope Obama finds an ally in Cao from time to time when they’re trying to solve difficult problems that require common sense solutions over partisan jockeying.

Fingers crossed.

  • Jimmy the Dhimmi

    It turns out that Cao is ardently pro-life. Time for you to throw him under the bus, Justin.

  • J. Harden

    It turns out that Cao is ardently pro-life.

    Oh No! Next thing you know, he’ll be in support of saying the pledge of allegience. It is a totally slippery slope when it comes to not-hating America and believing that maybe traditional values have a place is modern society.

  • Jimmy the Dhimmi

    Hey J.Harden, didn’t you know that the Constitution clearly states that a human being is defined as the entity that is viable outside the womb albeit with medical attention? It says so right in the 14th amendment or something like that. I know this because six unelected, unaccountable judges told me so. They also told me that states reserve the right to allow deliberate murder of viable children as long as their heads aren’t spatially located outside the host-organism’s body (all clearly according to the text of the Constitution, of course). What, do you hate the Constitution or something? I question your patriotism, as well as congressman Cao’s.

  • Justin Gardner

    Well, I had assumed that Cao was pro-life from the fact he was a Jesuit. But that wouldn’t be enough of a reason for me to vote against him. Especially in that district.

    Listen, nobody likes abortion, and if we could have none that would be ideal. But that’s not the world we live in, so focusing on minimizing unwanted pregnancies is key. Hopefully that’s where Cao can find common ground with his pro-choice counterparts.

    J. Harden, you mean the traditional values that constantly change throughout history? Or do you mean the traditional values that Republicans want to force everybody into? You know, as opposed to offering people more freedoms and letting them choose between new values and old values.

    Because that’s all we’re talking about…new values and old values. And just because there are new values does not mean people can’t practice the old ones. But many on the right want to limit us to simply old values even when new values are widely recognized by society as non threatening and acceptable.

  • J. Harden

    “new values are widely recognized by society as non threatening and acceptable.”

    That is why 30 states have passed marriage-protection laws.

    Look, if SCOTUS wants to divine some totally new “right” out of the ether of substantive due process (you know, like the right the sodomize your neighbor) then I’d only ask that they not fraudulently trout out a totally bogus perception of “concensus” — like you just did — as part of their make-believe jurisprudence. There is no consensus, no critital mass, no tipping-point reached — or at least, I have much more standing to assert public opinion in my direction than you do in yours. Why did 30 states feel compelled — because the left want to force their value system on the rest of us. The world was a much more traditional place 50 years ago, why didn’t we have marriage-protection laws passed then — maybe because it is not the “right” that is shoving this crap down everyone’s throat, but arrogant lefties that think gay sex is the equivalent to being black. Something that I think a whole lot of blacks have a slight problem with.

  • blackoutyears

    The *right* to sodomize your neighbor wouldn’t have to be recognized as such if idiots on the Right hadn’t made laws to punish and discourage it. Loosely, that *right* falls under the broad category of the right to do what you want to as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. Crying about the SCOTUS penchant for stemming the tyranny of the majority is douche-y in the extreme. How interesting that Mr. Harden and his ilk think that’s okay for Straight America to dictate how Queer America gets to live its lives. I wasn’t aware that oppression was a value.