Bobby Jindal for Veep?
Timothy Birdnow
According to Conservative HQ 34% of respondents to a poll they conducted see Bobby Jindal as a good choice for Vice President.
http://www.conservativehq.com/article/7770-34-see-jindal-good-vp-pick%20
From the article:
"Here is how you responded on Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana:
34% Favorable. Would make me more likely to work and vote for the Republican ticket.
40% Neutral. Would not change my likelihood of working and voting for the Republican ticket.
23% Unfavorable. Would make me less likely to work and vote for the Republican ticket.
3% Undecided."
End excerpt.
Ugh!
Bobby Jindal would be and will be a huge disappointment to Conservatives.
Mr. Jindal has argued that we cannot go after Barack Obama lest we frighten off the independent vote. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39263 We cannot conduct a campaign without going after Obama, who is inextricably linked to his own policies. This is the classic RINO argument, the belief that you win by metamorphosis, by changing chimera-like into what your audience wants you to be. This comes from the media, the professional consulting class, and from the Democrats. It is bad advice. It presupposes that the public is hardwired in a particular view, that a person who holds some moderate views will remain thus forever. It ignores the possibility of actually teaching the Conservative viewpoing, of exciting people who have never heard it to a new way of looking at things.
Our refusal to go after Obama after the destruction he has wrought (he reminds me of a tripod from War of the Worlds) is not the act of a principled group. To tiptoe around Obama suggest we are secretly ashamed of what we believe, and don't think the Democrats and their lackeys in the media won't exploit that timorousness. THEY will thunder down upon us! THEY will attack, attack, attack! Remember the admonition of French revolutionary George Jacques Danton; "audacity, audacity, always audacity!" DAnten understood that political power was not for the timid or meek. And victory over a machine politician like Barack Obama will never, ever, come through gentle pursuasion and centrist movement. And we have every right to be angry. The public EXPECTS us to be angry; why wouldn't we, if he has destroyed the country as we claim he has? Dispassion in the face of such wanton disregard would be more than unnatural, it would be false. The public would sense that our side is merely trying to win for the sake of winning.
And bear in mind that the Veep is the Administration hatchet man, the guy whose job is to go after the opposition so as to keep the President above the fray. He needs more courage than Mr. Jindal has to offer. Also, remember when Jindal did the rebuttal to the State of the Union speech and everyone laughed at him because he looked like a teen dressed in his father's suit? Now, a man can't help his appearance, but envision Bobby squaring off against Joe Biden. Biden may be a screwball, but he'll fight, and he looks as though he has "gravitas". Don't think for a minute that the media won't resurrect that tired word should Jindal become the veep nominee.
That isn't my only beef with Jindal. He has a record, and it isn't especially good. Consider he signed a bill that banned the use of cash in the purchase of second-hand goods. How can anyone who believes in the Constitution support such a thing? The Constitution clearly gives the central government the authority to coin legal tender, and reciprocity is demanded in the Constitution. Yet there you have it. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/the_beast_comes_to_bayou.html
Mr. Jindal holds some good views, and he would be better than, say, John McCain (and there are moderates in the GOP encouraging Romney to pick Jackass John), but in the end isn't it possible to do better?
Actually, Newt Gingrich might be the man for this job. While he tends to be a Progressive Republican and his views float on any breeze, he has the skills needed for veep; experience dealing with Congress, a scrappy personality, a willingness to mix it up with the media, etc. His more dangerous aspects can be dismissed just as Joe Biden's more mercurial personality quirks are dismissed. And he would be restricted by the policy coming from above. Maybe.
But Jindal would be a poor choice, and he will be made into the new Dan Quayle. Quayle was actually pretty good, but the media painted him to be an idiot. That will happen with Jindal as well, and I doubt Romney will lift a finger to stop that besmirching.
While we shouldn't let THAT be the determining factor, I still can't help but believe we can do better.
According to Conservative HQ 34% of respondents to a poll they conducted see Bobby Jindal as a good choice for Vice President.
http://www.conservativehq.com/article/7770-34-see-jindal-good-vp-pick%20
From the article:
"Here is how you responded on Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana:
34% Favorable. Would make me more likely to work and vote for the Republican ticket.
40% Neutral. Would not change my likelihood of working and voting for the Republican ticket.
23% Unfavorable. Would make me less likely to work and vote for the Republican ticket.
3% Undecided."
End excerpt.
Ugh!
Bobby Jindal would be and will be a huge disappointment to Conservatives.
Mr. Jindal has argued that we cannot go after Barack Obama lest we frighten off the independent vote. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39263 We cannot conduct a campaign without going after Obama, who is inextricably linked to his own policies. This is the classic RINO argument, the belief that you win by metamorphosis, by changing chimera-like into what your audience wants you to be. This comes from the media, the professional consulting class, and from the Democrats. It is bad advice. It presupposes that the public is hardwired in a particular view, that a person who holds some moderate views will remain thus forever. It ignores the possibility of actually teaching the Conservative viewpoing, of exciting people who have never heard it to a new way of looking at things.
Our refusal to go after Obama after the destruction he has wrought (he reminds me of a tripod from War of the Worlds) is not the act of a principled group. To tiptoe around Obama suggest we are secretly ashamed of what we believe, and don't think the Democrats and their lackeys in the media won't exploit that timorousness. THEY will thunder down upon us! THEY will attack, attack, attack! Remember the admonition of French revolutionary George Jacques Danton; "audacity, audacity, always audacity!" DAnten understood that political power was not for the timid or meek. And victory over a machine politician like Barack Obama will never, ever, come through gentle pursuasion and centrist movement. And we have every right to be angry. The public EXPECTS us to be angry; why wouldn't we, if he has destroyed the country as we claim he has? Dispassion in the face of such wanton disregard would be more than unnatural, it would be false. The public would sense that our side is merely trying to win for the sake of winning.
And bear in mind that the Veep is the Administration hatchet man, the guy whose job is to go after the opposition so as to keep the President above the fray. He needs more courage than Mr. Jindal has to offer. Also, remember when Jindal did the rebuttal to the State of the Union speech and everyone laughed at him because he looked like a teen dressed in his father's suit? Now, a man can't help his appearance, but envision Bobby squaring off against Joe Biden. Biden may be a screwball, but he'll fight, and he looks as though he has "gravitas". Don't think for a minute that the media won't resurrect that tired word should Jindal become the veep nominee.
That isn't my only beef with Jindal. He has a record, and it isn't especially good. Consider he signed a bill that banned the use of cash in the purchase of second-hand goods. How can anyone who believes in the Constitution support such a thing? The Constitution clearly gives the central government the authority to coin legal tender, and reciprocity is demanded in the Constitution. Yet there you have it. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/10/the_beast_comes_to_bayou.html
Mr. Jindal holds some good views, and he would be better than, say, John McCain (and there are moderates in the GOP encouraging Romney to pick Jackass John), but in the end isn't it possible to do better?
Actually, Newt Gingrich might be the man for this job. While he tends to be a Progressive Republican and his views float on any breeze, he has the skills needed for veep; experience dealing with Congress, a scrappy personality, a willingness to mix it up with the media, etc. His more dangerous aspects can be dismissed just as Joe Biden's more mercurial personality quirks are dismissed. And he would be restricted by the policy coming from above. Maybe.
But Jindal would be a poor choice, and he will be made into the new Dan Quayle. Quayle was actually pretty good, but the media painted him to be an idiot. That will happen with Jindal as well, and I doubt Romney will lift a finger to stop that besmirching.
While we shouldn't let THAT be the determining factor, I still can't help but believe we can do better.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home