Anyone want to make a bet as to which political party Keith Bardwell belongs to?I thought I'd do a little research, and here's what I found. This is the Louisiana Secretary of State info concerning the incumbent history of Keith Bardwell:
Justice of the Peace, Justice of the Peace Ward 8, Parish of Tangipahoa | |
|---|---|
| E. Keith Bardwell, Republican, Exp.Date:12/31/14 | 23288 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732 |
| Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/08 | 23288 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732 |
| Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/02 | 23288 Bardwell Road,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 985/542-1732 |
| Keith Bardwell, Democrat, Exp.Date:12/31/96 | 224 Bardwell Rd.,Ponchatoula, LA 70454, 504/542-1732 |
(I did not put Bardwell's Republican affiliation in bold, that's how it shows up on the site...I imagine that it's in bold simply because that's his current information)
He was a Democrat from 1996 until 2008...and he bases his views on his own history of observing interracial marriages...a history that likely extends into a past previous to the days of yore known popularly as "A.D. 2008". Concerning Bardwell's position on interracial marriage, it is said:
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long...[see here]Sounds like he was a racialist before he was a Republican...unless his experience as a justice of the peace between 1996-2008 doesn't count...although the Huffington Post seems to substantiate that Bardwell's views were set when he was a Democrat:
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.If we go back all 2 1/2 years, that puts us squarely into those long-forgotten days of when Bardwell was a Democrat. Someone may say "But see! 2 1/2 years ago...he's only been denying folks for a short time leading up to his change to the Republican party"...yeah, there's also the issue that this is in the Deep South...interracial marriages don't happen too often, and when they do, people tend to be careful. Bardwell's wife fielded calls for him advising folks to go elsewhere if they wanted to marry outside their race:
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them. (ibid)It seems that this is the first couple to challenge Bardwell. Others came, and being denied, simply went somewhere else. Many others, it would be safe to assume, spoke to Mrs. Bardwell and took her advice and never bothered seeking a license through Bardwell and simply went elsewhere for a marriage license.
So, did his party affiliation matter when he was a racialist and a Democrat? Or does it only matter now that he's a Republican?
11 comments:
He is neither a democrat nor a republican, but rather an ASS!!!
That's one way to put it.
Does it matter what party he was or is? It's a shame he's racist and it's an insult to the Democratic Party.
Funny, none of the major networks said anything about his party affiliation. I bet if he was still registered as a Democrat it would be plastered on billboards nationwide.
Seems a lot of Republicans are under heat for racial remarks lately. Never heard the term 'be a good sport' before?
This p.o.s. needs to be removed from his chair!
No matter what ppl say or think about biracial marriage - it is up to the two ppl who wants to get married!
What about his ancestry? Are they at some point of India or Pakistan?
What nobody wants to remember is that it was the Southern Democrats who were segregationists. George Wallace was a Democrat. In the South, especially the rural South, find a racist, and there's a pretty good chance you've found a Democrat.
When I was a kid, in NW Fla, the Democratic party had a death grip on politics...in order to vote at all in primaries, you had to be a registered Democrat...then came a Governor from out west, who used to be an actor...It's only been since Ron Reagan worked his ass off to overturn the Dems in the deep south has the region been "red". For more than 140 years, it was Democtrat territory to it's core.
A great example on how Mr. Reagan was able to use his magic, is what he did when he was campaigning in Panama City, FL during the 1976 campaign. After his stump speach in the county auditorium, instead of moving into the crowd of people who had PAID to see him, he first went into the orchestra pit and shook hands with and spoke to the 75 (or so) high school kids (most of whom couldn't vote). Only then did he move into the audience.
Before that, Jim Crow Democrat ruled. In parts of the deep south, he still does. Hammond, LA is a very good example of it with this bigotted jack ass as a perfect example.
I'm not quite sure why his political party is an issue. A racist will be a racist regardless of their voting party or lack thereof. There are quite a few dullards out there who neither vote nor subscribe to any political party.
He is imposing his personal beliefs, creeds, mottos upon the public, instead of the laws put in place by the larger dominion.
He is quite simply breaking the law.
His party affiliation only matters in the sense of self-defense: If he had been a solid Republican for the last 20 years, I think you'd be hearing a very, very different line about the importance of party affiliation from Huffington et al.
So Bardwell was a racist Democrat until Obama became President, and then Bardwell switched to a party he knew he'd feel more at home with--the GOP. Big scoop.
Pink Slip,
I think you just demonstrated my point...Bardwell's racialism takes priority to his political affiliation.
If the Republicans can get a Black man elected to the presidency, we may seen Bardwell switch back to the Dems, or maybe to a third party.
His personal views reflect what he personally believes.
Anon said:
His party affiliation only matters in the sense of self-defense: If he had been a solid Republican for the last 20 years, I think you'd be hearing a very, very different line about the importance of party affiliation from Huffington et al.
I think you're absolutely correct on that. Whenever there is a scandal with politicians, party affiliation gets played one of two ways:
If the guy's a Dem, his affiliation *may* be mentioned, but only as an aside.
If the guy's a Repub., his party affiliation becomes a centerpiece and mention will be made of other R's that have had scandals in recent history.
I'm not affiliated with either party, but it's clear this is how it plays out time and again.
Can't he be both? This is just more bigotry.
Post a Comment