The Candidates
Featured Archives
I don’t like having to waste time sticking up for a candidate whom I am not committed to this early before the 2012 primaries, but since I am one of those who have mentioned being interested in Bobby Jindal’s candidacy, and as someone who most would consider on the far right economically, then I feel that I should respond in his defense.
Personally, I’d like to keep the attacks on all the candidates to a minimum, except for certain circumstances where I feel one crossed the line and has royally pissed me off, but since we really don’t have a front page poster who is dedicated to Jindal, then somebody’s got to step up.
Disclaimer: I’ll be the first to admit that despite being intrigued by the possibility of his candidacy, I’m no expert on his record, and don’t have copies of every speech he’s given. I also can’t recite the finer points of his inner philosophy and what ultimately shapes it the way I could with Fred Thompson. So, I don’t have any inside information or non-public facts to help me out with Jindal. I’m just going by public record.
From what I gathered from various links, Soloveichik’s remarks are, in fact, based on cherrypicked votes, and she is but one voice in a group, which would have to be the case, since the Club for Growth gave Bobby Jindal an overall rating of 98% in 2007. Adding to his anti-pork credentials, Jindal was ranked the 14th strongest out of the 435 elected members in the United States House of Representatives. In 2007, Jindal successfully “used his line item veto to strike $16 million in earmarks from the state budget while allowing $30 million in legislator added spending.”
While he is not perfect, his performance as governor has been as close to sterling as any economically inclined conservative could hope for.
Here is Newt on Jindal:
Governor Jindal is leading a revolution of conservative reform in Louisiana. He is the most transformational young governor in America today. The principles that motivate his Louisiana Revolution are the same pro-innovation, pro-competition, anti-bureaucracy and anti- big government principles that I urge each week in this newsletter – the same principles that are so desperately needed in Washington, D.C.
On his record, the CATO institute holds Jindal in high regard. In 2006, the Americans For Tax Reform gave Jindal a 96% rating, while the left leaning Citizens for Tax Justice gave Jindal a 0% grade for 2005-06. While the NTU has given Jindal a harsher rating over the same time period, the National Tax Limitation Committee gave him a grade of 88% for 2005-06. Ironically, the NTU gave very few republicans high marks during that session, with one notable exception being John McCain.
Just about every pro business interest group also gave Jindal sterling grades during this period:
- Governor Jindal supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 100 percent in 2006.
- Governor Jindal supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 100 percent in 2006.
- Governor Jindal supported the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers 96 percent in 2005-2006. The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year.
- Governor Jindal supported the interests of the National Federation of Independent Business 100 percent in 2005-2006.
- Governor Jindal supported the interests of the Associated General Contractors of America 80 percent in 2005-2006.
- Governor Jindal supported the interests of the International Warehouse Logistics Association 100 percent in 2005-2006.
His ratings from the American Conservative Union are as follows:
- Governor Jindal supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2006.
- Governor Jindal supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 100 percent in 2005.
While Governor Jindal may not have a spotless record, it seems that on an overall basis, it is very solid. In fact, this research I did in response to Kristofer’s earlier post has even helped clear up some of my own worries about him (thanks Kris!). While Kristofer uses Nachama Soloveichik of the CFG for his source, it seems this particular person, from all I can find out, just doesn’t like Bobby Jindal for some reason, which is known to happen in politics from time to time. At the same time, there have been many articles question the reliability of these specific issues.
In the end, I really don’t think it is wise to start these battles this far out, but if the campaign for 2012 must begin now, then I shall be ready. However, that means I would actually have to pick a candidate. I am really starting to like Bobby Jindal, but feel the same way about others (specifically Mark Sanford).
November 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Actually, I liked Jindal MORE when I thought the CFG was knocking him. Imagine my disappoint upon discovering it was only a rogue.
Ah, well. Nobody’s perfect.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Nicely researched post Tommy. I’m someone else who’s giving Jindal a hard look, and although I knew about the heresies Kristofer pointed out, I didn’t have a great sense of his overall fiscal record. Apparently, it’s a very conservative record, which gives me some comfort. And I agree with you: at this juncture, I think it’s kind of obnoxious to attack “potential” candidates. I genuinely want to nominate the best possible candidate- I don’t see how I can meaningfully figured out who that is, before the campaign has even begun, and I’ve seen their agendas. So I’m open to pretty much anyone right now, and I’m going to report mainly on the ones that intrigue me. I’ll probably be spending most of my candidate discussion alternating between Pawlenty and Jindal, with one eye on what Palin’s doing.
I’m looking for a few things from Jindal in particular. First, I’m looking to see how he grows personally. We know Jindal is plenty smart and plenty competent. What we don’t know, or what I don’t know at any rate, is whether Jindal is an actual political leader, or whether he’s just a brilliant bureacrat who was propelled into political office by circumstances. That’s a concern I had about Romney- call it the character question if you will.
Second, I want to watch how Jindal progresses stylistically; you can’t attempt to become the youngest President in history, unless you have a considerable of gravitas and stature. All the romanticizing aside, JFK was a war hero, a scion of a political family, and a gifted orator- those things can help you overcome youth. Jindal’s going to have a harder time- away from the national stage- and stuck in boy wonder wonk mode. He’s become a better speaker in many respects, but he still needs to slow down. He seems to have decided that the cure for this- lingering emphatically on the last word in a sentence- but it’s not a particularly good cure.
I also want to hear from him on foreign relations. I know that when Governor’s start addressing foreign relations, everyone immediately claims they’re planning a Presidential run and that Jindal, ideally, wants to look like he’s totally devoted to Louisiana, for awhile longer, if he’s actually planning a run. But, addressing foreign relations is pretty much a pre-requisite for someone interested, even in the vaguest long-term way, in national office, and I’m inclined to think that his beginning to stake out some ground here is worth the negative publicity.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Matthew,
“I know that when Governor’s start addressing foreign relations, everyone immediately claims they’re planning a Presidential run”
Unfortunately, most governors get their crib sheets from the neocons. Somehow being more belligerent than the next guy makes you sound more competent in foreign affairs within the GOP. I’m hoping Jindal works past the neocon talking points.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Great effort Tommy! Fantastic réponse. Just to clarify, I think jindal has done a great job in La, and I could definately support him, I just wanted to point out that not all leading ficon groups support jindal. No one is perfect, including Palin (actually Sanford has a perfect record).
November 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
MWS,
I have to say, I’m not impressed by the idea that the new conservative renewal will come about through heaps of new domestic ideas. I’ve argued in the past the GOP can’t win without addressing the issues Americans are concerned about; this is why I tend to lean towards Pawlenty or Jindal. But, I think, win or lose, the GOP can’t and shouldn’t exist unless it has candidates that can develop a compelling, coherent, and competent foreign policy. We need to develop a comprehensive domestic agenda because the public demands it. We need to develop a comprehensive foreign policy whether the public demands it or not, because that’s what the Presidency is ABOUT. I’m much more sympathetic then you are to neo-conservatism, but I’m not a fan of shallow foreign policy, whatever it calls itself.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
To expand on that a bit, Britain’s Tory’s in the 1930’s were maybe the most domestically focused Conservative Party in history; Baldwin and Chamberlain were extremely knowledgeable and pro-active about affairs at home. But, practically no one in either government knew or cared a lick about foreign policy and they blundered into the most horrific nightmare in history and are now universally condemned by history because of it. Churchill had no consistent vision on domestic politics, but saved all of Europe. If you don’t have people who know the score internationally- students of history, warfare, and diplomacy- all the wonky, efficient domestic ideas could come to naught.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Matthew,
A point well made. Trying to fake it in foreign affairs generally winds up badly.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
6 Memio, that conservative government that was so domestically focused failed greatly on foreign policy (allowing Hitler to become a world threat).
November 19th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
The more I learn about Jindal the more I like him.
Thanks for this post Tommy.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Jindal is easily my second favorite candidate for 2012, for now. The only thing I’m worried about with him is his age and picking the fruit too early. That’s why I think Romney/Jindal would be absolutely perfect.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Matt C,
I could possibly support Romney again if he actually does something new in the next few years. It looks like he’s planning to give alot of speeches, join some think tanks, etc, which doesn’t impress me. But, given that he seems to have alot to offer vis-a-vis the auto industry, why doesn’t he consider trying to become the CEO of one of the Big 3? His article called for “new management from unrelated fields”…well, that fits him pretty well. In terms of sheer business credentials, he’s probably more then qualified, and I’d be awfully impressed if he tried to tackle another huge turn-around. Two years isn’t enough time to turn the whole-thing around, but it’s probably enough to get a good start, and he could always forgo running- he’d be a mighty attractive VP if he’d made some real headway by 2012.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
How about Jindal/Romney not Romney/Jindal. I trust Jindal more than I do Romney, but Romney is definitely someone who can possibly contribute to the ticket.
Jindal 2012!
November 19th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
MEM,
I see what you’re saying.
Taking over GM may prove to be a high risk-low benefit gamble for Romney. If he fails to turn the company around (which nearly everyone would do, especially due to the economic policies of the next president and the fact that GM deserves to die… it would be easier for Romney to start his own auto company from the ground up), then it kills one of his main strengths as a candidate. If he does manage to turn it around, he doesn’t gain that much clout because his status as the turn-around artist is already set. Plus, the automobile industry has consistently lagged behind the national economy, so if it does get turned around, the national economy would probably be in decent shape and we lose an issue to hammer Obama on anyway.
By and large, I think Obama’s regulations and taxes are going to kill the industry. Probably not even a miracle worker like Romney could get past that, and you get the sense from his op-ed that he knows it.
As far as doing something else in the next couple of years, this is the time period when Romney has to cement his image as a faithful conservative – just like Reagan from ‘76 to ‘80. It’s appeared to me that Romney is taking the Reagan-esque path to the White House, and Reagan didn’t do much between ‘76 and ‘80. He spent most of his time at his ranch in CA, only coming out to headline some GOP parties, give speeches, and do some fundraisers every now and again. So if Romney continues to do things like support folks like Coleman and Chambliss, that will go a long ways to his 2012 support. His PAC activities in the 2010 election will be huge. I expect to see him actively (and very publicly) campaigning for conservative candidates across the country. In the mean time, he’s already set to headline a lot of Lincoln Day dinners and other party fundraisers, and he’ll be appearing at all the requisite NR functions like the cruise last week.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Jindal = our way of sneaking Huckabee in.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Matt C,
The Reagan comparison has never flown for me; Reagan had been a movement conservative for a decade prior to his 76′ run- he was the unquestioned leader of movement conservatives immediately after his 76′ run. He didn’t have to do anything, for the most part, and really just tried to waltz to the nomination- but even he actually nearly failed due to complacency (Bush gave him a scare early). It’s possible that Romney could “cement his image as a faithful conservative”, but I’m a firm believer that you can’t change your image from the darkness- you need to step into the spotlight.
Right now, there are alot of folks who are kinda nostalgic for Romney, because of the disastrous McCain campaign- he’s only going to cement that feeling if he finds a way to get his name out to the general public, during the next few years, in a positive way. That doesn’t happen by courting activists behind closed doors, or whatever sort of thing politicians with no employment do. A comparison would be John Edwards, who tried to spend the years after 2004 kinda amplifying his poverty image through various tours, foundations, etc. But, this was all mostly off the public radar type stuff, and when John Edwards circa 2008 showed up, he just looked an awful lot like John Edwards circa 2004 (except a bit more liberal, because he decided to emphasize the two America’s part of his image).
If you’re not in the spotlight doing something to improve your image, you’re pretty likely to revert to your past image- sometimes you can overcome this rule, as Nixon did, but only if you spend a fairly long-time in the wilderness, such that folks have almost forgotten your original image.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Matt C,
And you may be right about the risks of heading a company like GM, but I’d like to see Romney do something risky. One of his big failings, politically, stemmed from his inability to take risks. He seems more bold in business matters, but it’d be nice to see him take a big risk when his political career is on the line.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I would have a very difficult time with Romney were he to try and run as a movement conservative in 2012, which is a label I hold pretty sacred, in most instances. There’s no denying that Romney’s a brilliant guy, but his specialty is aimed more towards problem solving type of leadership than a movement defining philosophy.
He should run as who he really is, the economic problem solving governor who holds the right positions on most, if not all, the major issues.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Thanks for the responses, btw.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
bobby jindal????
NOPE !
pls notice what i wrote ( and this is a hot issue for this week)
title : RAISE in RACIST SENTIMENT
wednesday, Nov 20th the news is Barry appointed the first black attorney general Eric Holder from the prestigeous law firm Covington&Burling,
other issue is the continuity of Barry’s historial win from Maverick, followed by raising criminality of racism in the whole states.
Larry DeBake, white, US citizen lives in Pulaski, Beaver, Pennsylvania, Friday 7th Nov, he put US Flag, the stars and stripes upside down.
other news : a couple in Pennsylvania when they just woke up in early morning , have found a burning cross in their front yard.
number of cars and garages in California were marked by words : “back to Africa”
a black puppet was hanged by rope in Maine
children in Idaho sang a song : “Kill, kill , kill Obama ” in their school bus.
According to Mark Potok, Director of Southern Poverty Law Center said on wednesday,:” since the race close , we have seen strike back from the white, it is real and significant, and we are expecting getting worst.”
the increasing of colour (non-white) immigrants within the last 20 years, it will make white majority will turn become minoriy in year 2040 .
“and the wrong idea captured is, a black man sitting in White House, and it will make them feel they have lost everything, and the superior country built by their(white) ancestor , was stolen by a color minority” said Potok.
to the group who supports the White Supremacy, have black president is like a doomsday as mentioned in the faith they believe.
SO, back to Bobby Jindal,
I suggest , forget it. Obama racist wave just started, are we (Republicans) want to create another racist issue in this great country ?
Forget it pal!
thanks for your time to read this article and understanding the problems arise, myself was born as colour, but I think it is still applicable, to have big issue of Obama racist wave, please do not create another one, US is not prepare for racist issue, it is too sensitive.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:38 am
19.
Jindal is of the same race as the majority of Americans – Caucasian. So whats the problem?
November 20th, 2008 at 12:55 am
20,
please ref to this:
Piyush Jindal was born on June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Punjabi Indian immigrants Amar and Raj Jindal, who had recently arrived for Raj to attend graduate school at Louisiana State University.
His father Amar left India and his ancestral family village of Khanpura in 1970.
His mother, Raj Jindal, is an information technology director for the Louisiana Department of Labor.
According to family lore, Jindal adopted the name “Bobby” from the character Bobby Brady after watching The Brady Bunch television series at age four. He has been known by that name ever since—as a civil servant, politician, student, and writer—though legally his name remains Piyush Jindal.
Jindal was a Hindu,
but converted to Catholicism in high school.[5] He has also offered his religious testimony before Baptist and Pentecostal congregations.[6] He attended public school at Baton Rouge Magnet High School and graduated when he was 17. Following high school, Jindal attended Brown University, graduating with honors in biology and public policy.[7] Although he had thought of a career in medicine or law and was accepted by Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, he chose to pursue a political career. He received a master’s degree in political science from New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar.
After Oxford, he joined McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm, where he advised Fortune 500 companies.
In 1996 Jindal married Supriya Jolly (born 1972). The couple have three children: Selia Elizabeth, Shaan Robert, and Slade Ryan.
THE PROBLEM IS:
1. BOTH PARENTS STILL DIRECT TO INDIA. IS IT FAIR COMPARE TO ROMNEY , HUCKABEE WHO ANCESTORS ALREADY 3 GENERATION LIVED IN US, CONTRIBUTED, LOYAL, INTEGRITY TO NATION AND COUNTRY.
2. DO YOU WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER “OBAMA RACIST STORY, AS I POST ON MY COMMENT?” / IF JINDAL ELECTED IN YR 2012, WHICH I VERY DOUBT JINDAL CAN BE ELECTED , DUE TO HIS OPPONENTS FROM REPUBLICANS ARE MORE QUALIFIED THAN JINDAL,
thanks pal.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Great video explaining why the Republican Party collapsed:
“David Brooks and His Friends”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xssh4WCEdfY&eurl=http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3118980
November 20th, 2008 at 1:09 am
6 M powerful to be US President-elect
a. M, Mandate from electoral vote
b. M, Mandate from evangelis /puritan Christian
c. M, Mandate from the world
d. M, Money
e. M, Military (connection to )
f. M, Male (specially in US only, coz, some countries already have female leader, i.e. Margareth Thatcher from Britain, Golda Meir from Isreael, Indira Gandhi from India, Cleopatra from Egypt)
My questions , how many “M” does Jindal have ?
thanks
November 20th, 2008 at 1:16 am
21
I repeat – Indians are part of the Caucasian race, like Europeans. So there is no racial issue.
IF you think there is some cultural issue, given that very few Americans have roots in India, or some religious-background issue, given his birth as a Hindu, then say that. I would disagree that those would be problems, but at least they could in theory be. But race is not an issue here.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:48 am
23
gosh, yon’t get me,
i know very well, indian/punjabi ancestors are caucasian,
23,
do you read very carefully 6 M very powerful to be US President elect?
a. ok, maybe, just maybe Jindal can
b. i don’t think so
c. does Jindal have?
d. ???
e. doed Jindal have a net work to military?
f. ok Jindal is a male, qualified.
from 6, I think, now, Jindal only qualify for 1 M ,
it is not a theory, if US amendment ratified to the current situation, (one important issue : should have at least 3 family tree generation, both parents of the president candidacy), Jindal is out of the list
sorry pal, I do mean, Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty are more qualified than Jindal to go to primaries
but if you insist, I tell you, just wasting of time, energy and money.
thanks.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:54 am
For the record, I really like Mr. Jindal, but realistically I do not see him getting anywhere in 2012.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Romney/Jindal.
The team to take back the White House!
November 20th, 2008 at 7:54 am
This might be the first time I do not disagree with you Heath. Romney / Jindal might just be the ticket. In more ways than one, the two together could balance the ticket and unify the party.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:09 am
25,27
yeah, i am with you pal.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:34 am
That’s my ticket too guys! Wow, Ohio Joe, we finally came together!
November 20th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Well, as of now that is how I see it shaking out Illinoisguy, but 2012 is a long way off. Which of us in 2004 knew how 2008 would unfold? I would prefer to wait until about 2010 or 2011 before I firmly commit to a camp. The only problem about being part of a camp is that it is only for the top of the ticket, but that is politics.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I understand that OHIO. I would jump away from Mitt in a minute if he did something to cause me to do so. One thing I’m a little concerned about is in his proposal dealing with the auto companies, I wish instead of saying ‘labor’, that he would make it clear that salaried and management would have to take it on the chin as well. To the union guys and gals, it may sound that Mitt is targeting the union as the problem, when we all know that the company voluntarily gives high salaries to people who contribute less to the bottom line than many of them do. I know Mitt is thinking what I am saying; he just needs to makes sure he is saying it as well.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Illinois,
I think that is the first time I saw you express any kind of reservation about something Romney has done. That’s progress! Keep up the good work!
November 20th, 2008 at 10:26 am
It was not condemnation, just an observation of something I’d like to see him do. And btw, MWS, I can think of several things I think he could have done differently during his campaign. I said so at the time, at least some of them.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
YOU CANT HAVE JINDAL AS U.S. PRESIDENT!!! HE’S A BROWN-SKINNED PAKISTANI!