Talk Elections

Jindal Excites GOP
As a Possible Running Mate
Louisiana Governor
Of Indian Descent
Has Youth and Zeal
By COREY DADE and ELIZABETH HOLMES
June 5, 2008

BATON ROUGE, La. -- Before Sen. John McCain could begin speaking at a town-hall meeting here Wednesday, he first had to quiet a crowd gone wild for Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal -- a politician who not long ago would have been inconceivable in Louisiana.

 
Associated Press 
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, at a McCain campaign event Wednesday
Gov. Jindal, a child of Indian immigrants who has a gift for oratory, is the first minority to govern Louisiana since African-American P.B.S. Pinchback held the office for 35 days during Reconstruction.

The similarities between the 36-year-old Gov. Jindal and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are tantalizing to many in the Grand Old Party. After only 143 days as the nation's youngest sitting governor, Gov. Jindal's name is being bandied about as a potential running mate for likely Republican presidential nominee Sen. McCain.

"The governor has been able to reach across the aisle and get things done for the people of Louisiana, help the folks in New Orleans in the recovering from the storm," Sen. McCain said of Gov. Jindal, during a news conference.

"That would be something that I could show the American people as a way that people from both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, can sit down and work together."

Sen. McCain didn't talk about his process for selecting a running mate, and Gov. Jindal insists he's not campaigning for the slot. Sen. McCain has met repeatedly in recent weeks with Gov. Jindal, as well as Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The McCain campaign has said nearly two dozen people are being considered.

Whatever happens, Gov. Jindal, an Ivy League intellectual with a reformist's zeal, has come to represent for some party leaders the youthful streak and problem-solving approach to government they believe are critical to reinvigorating a Republican Party adrift under a deeply unpopular president.

"Bobby Jindal...is somebody who could be touted as part of the next generation of national Republican leaders. And they should be touting him," said one of the governor's mentors, U.S. Rep. Jim McCrery, of northern Louisiana.

Sen. McCain has visited Louisiana four times in the past several months, a tacit admission that the Bush administration's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina remains a memory he must address for many Americans.

That's especially true at a time when Republican wedge issues such as opposition to gay marriage and illegal immigration appear increasingly less effective, even in places like Louisiana.

 
Gov. Jindal has succeeded in the state at gaining the backing of social conservatives and pro-business fiscal hawks, while appealing to moderate suburbanites -- the formula many Republicans believe Sen. McCain must achieve to win the presidency.

Gov. Jindal has done it partly by making clear he personally embraces social conservative orthodoxies such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage -- but soft-pedaling them in public. While running for governor in 2007 (he narrowly lost an earlier bid for the office in 2003), he rarely raised such hot-button issues on the stump. Instead, he campaigned largely on free-market themes such as cutting taxes to stimulate growth, and a populist pledge, honed from his days as a state and federal technocrat, to solve problems. Gov. Jindal, a double major in public policy and biology at Brown University, who passed up acceptances at both law school and medical school to be a Rhodes Scholar, won the election running away.

But that strategy may be hard to pull off in the glare of a national candidacy when his views on issues such as abortion and religion in schools would certainly be meticulously examined. The Louisiana governor, who converted to Catholicism from Hinduism in college, is against abortion in nearly all circumstances and supports teaching "intelligent design" in public schools. As a congressman, he voted to build a fence at the Mexico border.

"If you look at him in a glimmer, he looks like a golden guy, the next face of the Republican Party," said Julie Vezinot, spokeswoman for the Louisiana Democratic Party. "But more will come out about him and that he voted in lockstep with the Bush administration."

In office, Gov. Jindal has pushed a nuts-and-bolts agenda. On his second day as governor, he began revamping regulations that had severely hampered the state's recovery from Katrina. Then he pushed through one of the strictest ethics laws in the nation. Since then he has won approval for five tax breaks for businesses and upper-income taxpayers, and spent more than $800 million on crumbling levees and infrastructure. His latest initiative to improve work-force training takes a page from the playbook of a big-city Democrat and gives it a free-market twist: realigning vocational-school curriculums to meet the needs of big employers.

Gov. Jindal's signature program is a revamped approach to rebuilding the wrecked Louisiana coastal parishes. When he took office, the state had spent less than half of $26 billion in federal funds for hurricane rebuilding. Another $15 billion for housing, businesses, schools and local governments sat unused. He consolidated programs under a single agency, which imposed stricter performance penalties on contractors and streamlined processes. The state's biggest program, which will award roughly $10 billion in rebuilding grants to homeowners, is on pace to give all homeowners their grants by August.

Gov. Jindal dismisses the idea that he is a "Republican Obama," but close advisers and other party officials embrace the idea. As for his party's troubles, Gov. Jindal said Republicans have "lost their way."

"The party lost its discipline when it came to spending," he said in an interview. "It began to defend practices we used to say were wrong when other people did them, like corruption and earmarks."

On the circuit, Gov. Jindal can attract the kind of youthful, star-struck adoration typical of fans of Sen. Obama. Mary Beth Crifasi, an 18-year-old from New Orleans who plans to major in political science at the University of Mississippi this fall, came to an appearance of Gov. Jindal and Sen. McCain in New Orleans on Tuesday night. Wearing a Bobby Jindal T-shirt with pearls and a cardigan, she stood on a chair so her father could take a picture with the governor in the background.

"He's so personal and just very healing, very down to earth," she said. "He's a great guy."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121263051303347203.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox

Eh. I like him but not for VP.

Please take him!

He would be an awesome VP.

Jindal is utterly terrible so no.

You certainly can't complain about Obama's "inexperience" if you put him on the ticket.

Piyush Jindal would sorta take a lot of the steam out of those 527 ads (that are probably already in production) attacking Barack Hussein Osama.

Just why would Jindal be qualified to be president at the present time? 

Jindal would have been Governor for over four years now if it weren't for racism.

We should definitely consider Jindal, but not for 2008... the man is not even 40 years old, and has only been governor for less than a year!! If the GOP chooses him, I've lost all respect to our party, because then it's so obvious that we're trying to offset the race card. Save Jindal for 2012 or 2016...he'll still be young

Why?  McCain is going to reject those ads the second they come out... if they do... and probably vehemently so... having Jindal on the ticket could easily prevent that from happening at all.

As for "inexperience" Jindal has at least as much experience in government as Obama.  He was the head of the commission in 1999 to determine how Louisiana should best spend its tobacco settlement.  He was the Louisiana Sec. of Health and Human Services.  The Executive Director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.  The Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Two term member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  And he has actually served in his current office, unlike Obama who immediately started running for President the second he was elected to the Senate, over possibly the worst Senate candidate of this decade.

Obama's experience?  "Community Organizers" and two term member of the Illinois State Senate.

And even if McCain did die and Jindal had to take over, he still would have had at least sometime as VP.

yeah, just like Bob Corker "rejected" the Harold Call Me ad, yet the RNC kept running it. McCain has too much integrity to run a Rove/Atwater type campaign: some of those supporting him however, do not.

Exactly.  I am not worried about McCain running an honorable campaign.  I am worried about those he cannot control. 

And that my friends is why stating that putting Jindal on the ticket makes it so we can't attack Obama's "experience" if Jindal is on the ticket is a terrible argument.

There is a big difference between having a rookie starting quarterback (Obama) and a rookie second string (Jindal).

but Obama has a way better arm.

McCain has an even better arm, has more experience and has better instincts in the pocket :P

Jindal would be a blessing to the Democrats.

I would love Jindal as VP.  Piyush Jidal doesn't sound at all Arabic.  I think most Americans can tell the difference between Arabic and Indian names (or maybe I'm giving most Americans too much credit).  Besides, the few people who will take the B. Hussein Obama thing into consideration would vote for the "terrorist" on the bottom of the ticket rather than the top.

I doubt most Americans could locate the Middle East and India on a map, let alone differentiate between regional name differences. The American people are very stupid; hence the art of manipulating them exists within politics.

One year of sitting around and basically attending state functions is fine experience to be president?

See Eliot Spitzer for how long "some" time as VP can be, (though Paterson had plenty of prior experience in the State Senate.)

Please don't use the word "rejected" in quotes as I have reasonably direct knowledge that he actually did reject it and his campaign wished the RNC would butt out and take their losing messages somewhere else.

(it should be noted that Ford did just marry a white woman though :P)

Yeah, pretty much.

you are.

Agreed. Comparing the 2003 Gubernatorial map to the 1991 Gubernatorial map and seeing all those counties in northern Louisiana that voted for both David Duke and Kathleen Blanco makes it reasonably clear.

Same goes for Ford in Tennessee, of course, regarding racism. Not that it was the primary reason for his loss (Tennessee is just a fundamentally Republican state at the federal level now) but given the margin of his defeat (less than Jindal's in 2003) it clearly was enough to decide the election on its own.

Sarah Palin.  it won't happen but it would be a bold move.

Just why are Palin or Jindal qualified to be President at this point in time again?  To be perfectly honest, I am more qualified than they are to be president at this point in time. Really!

As a sidebar, Jindal believes in "creationism," which is off-putting. I just don't trust creationists. I think they have defective reasoning powers. I just do.

Thie guy is a bio major too. But he did say it during a debate so perhaps it was a pander? Scary that actually helps you get elected. Says a lot about the state of this country.

Also, Jindal is only 37. He's just over half McCain's age and would probably be the youngest person to ever appear on a presidential ticket.

Not that it will happen, but, Ford Jr would be a better choice than Jindal. It's obvious that Ford does not particularly like Obama and that I guess he probably realises that if Obama wins, after Lieberman is removed from the caucus he will be next target of the Kosssacks. Having Ford on the ticket would steal a portion of Obama's base (both in demographicaly and in terms of age), grab moderate Democrats, piss off the nutroots in both parties and be the clearest way to dissasociate himself (and prevent) from the sleazier side of GOP operations.

Of course, I'm talking about a 500/1 longshot and in reality Ford will probably grudgingly endorse Obama while keeping his fingers crossed for a McCain victory and making sure that the Tennesse Dems and the DLC don't overly exert themselves during his election. Ford will also be looking to being on the ticket in 2012 and making a good case for being Hillary's or Warner's running mate in 2012. I think Jindal (like Palin) would be both groundbreaking and appproved by the 'base' but the point is that McCain doesn't need a generic candidate, or even an 'approved' candidate, he needs to demonstrate his independance from the GOP - and to that extent Lieberman is the best candidate.

However, if McCain were to choose a generic Republican Condi Rice would be his best shot. It's a pity Collin Powell isn't more hawkish, or that he was less sympathetic to Obama, because he would have also made a good running mate.

Powell is a smart, smart man. He knew that they had messed up with the WMD's and he promptly took himself out of the administration in 04. His reputation is fine but everyone else associated with the white house has their reputation tarnished. I just wish he would have stood up more to Bush, but then again he was the odd man out in the white house.

The difference between Piyush and Hussein is that one of them is a name for a certain Iraqi dictator.

Yeah.  And the other one sounds like a thick, snotty, sneeze...

;D

Ah...ah...Piyush!

Jindal isn't white or an evangelical so zero chance of the GOP picking him.

Pay increases for corrupt legislators.
Creationism in public school biology class.
Forced castration of sex offenders.

Bobby Jindal is pretty much dead to me.

Bobby Jindal represents the worst of republican ideology.

Jindal vetoed the pay raise, so would people stop posting that he didn't. And I have no problem with castrating sex offenders (well not personally doing doing it...) I don't see what the controversy is.

Every single post on this thread that criticized Jindal over the pay raise (Including my post) was made before Jindal changed his mind.  When these posts were made, Jindal was still for the pay raise.

And he remains in favor of castration and creationism.

Jindal is a sick man who should not be governor let alone POTUS.

He won't be the running mate. He's too inexperienced. Romney will be. Look at my analysis on my 2008 prediction.

Bobby Jindal is the best argument against immigration from south asia there is.

     Agreed. I recently found a link with terrifying implications (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)). Best case scenario is that we evolutionaries are holding even & worst case scenario is that we're losing badly to the creationists. This is a truly sobering finding.

Another thing we "evolutionaries" have going for us is that a majority of college graduates believe in evolution of some kind. Since the younger generation is going to college in very high numbers, I have hope for the future. I have no problem with people thinking evolution is guided by god, well because they could be right, but it is just astonishing that we would have to debate that evolution occurs. To me it is just as much a fact as gravity.

Even better than me?

One of the major problems that hinders the acceptance of evolution is simply that it is not a reasurring, comforting belief.

An all powerful, benevolent, thinking creator that rewards its creations with life after death fills the heart with warmth.

The thought of our existance being a mathematical improbability where we are constantly controlled on some level by evolutionary psychology (with a noticable pressure towards some segments of the population simply not breeding and disappearing from the gene pool) and constantly lead towards an inevitable finish line where our molecules are broken down, dispersed, and recycled into peat moss just isn't as comforting, regardless of how clear the single-celled organism -> multi-celled organism -> lower-intelligence beings -> higher-intelligence beings flowchart looks.

Yeah its the "god delusion" I guess because even if we have a creator, it is not in the form any of us can imagine. Now if people want to find warmth and comfort with belief in creationism then that is fine, as long as it is not taught in schools.

One of the major problems? Yes, I realize theories like this will have other (intellectual) caveats, but I think you've hit the main nail on the head, really.

     I agree totally. The reason I felt the need to post that is that polls have at best shown the numbers holding steady over the last 15 years, even though the number of college graduates undoubtedly increased a lot in that time.

     In the link, it says that in England, 97% of priests & ministers don't believe the universe was created in six days & that 80% don't believe in the existence of Adam & Eve. So theistic evolution is clearly not uncommon in other parts of the world.

     Another thing that's striking is that according to the poll linked to in this topic (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=78192.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=78192.0)), 16% of Americans are atheist/agnostic, which is up from the poll referenced here (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1/ (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1/)). However, no movement towards universal public acceptance of evolution suggests that the public is slowly congealing into two extreme factions: creationists & atheistic evolutionaries.


     My English teacher, who is a hardcore fundamentalist atheist, once said that he understood if other people wanted to believe in God, because the idea of passing into oblivion when we die is terrifying. Jean-Paul Sartre expresses a similar idea in Being & Nothingness (I haven't read him in a while though, so it's possible that I confused it with another book of his).


     I'm curious (I've been writing too long to try to think right now :P), but what other major problems do you have in mind?

The same problems that all philosophical assertions about what cannot be directly observed have. That one can not really "know" what is being talked about, only reason that this is how it probably is and construct theories with some predictive power. It is still quite possible that some intelligent being designed the world.

The "other" major problem is that a belief in creationism is instilled in extremely young and impressionable children the same way that "grass is green" is.  It is very hard to go against that kind of societal pressure and early teaching, even against significant evidence to the contrary.

     I see your point. I will point out that creationists are much more problematic in this area. They predicate their belief in an unobservable event on a part of the Bible (a book that has been constantly changed by people throughout history) that runs contrary to recent scientific developments, which is predicated on the unobservable existence of a divine being.

     My point being, it's better to just not seek a metaphysical truth. Metaphysics has always fallen short in that it is predicated on the unseeable & unknowable, which is not satisfying proof.

     I believe in atheistic evolution. Is it possible that God had a part in it? Absolutely. Is it possible that God created the universe in six days? Yes, though I don't feel such a belief is as justified as it once was in light of recent developments.


     That is another thing that bothers me. It always gets under my skin when some creationist says that s/he believes it over evolution "because it can be proven." I never try to argue with someone like that because I know that that person doesn't know what s/he's talking about & was just indoctrinated to think that.

     That's also the source of my main fear that creationism will never be truly discredited in the public circle in the United States.