Ramesh Ponnuru poses an interesting thought regarding recent coverage of Bobby Jindal: “I wonder if this sort of swooning is really going to be helpful to Gov. Jindal in the long run.”
Jindal is being built up beyond the level at which anyone can deliver, by those who are excited about his candidacy. He now holds the mythic title, “Perfect Candidate, Heir of Ronald Reagan.” Funny thing is that I’ve remembered quite a few candidates and political leaders who’ve been hit with that label and fallen to Earth, not because they were bad, but they were not what we were expecting.
The way the GOP puffs up politicians is reminiscent of the scene from Braveheart when William Wallace identifies himself and then is challenged because William Wallace was 7 feet tall.
This happens to our GOP Candidates all the time. I remember the buzz about Fred Thompson. He was a great communicator, a Southern Reagan. A conservative’s conservative. That was ol’ Fred Thompson. Despite what I knew about Thompson’s Senate record, I was curious. I stayed up late one night to watch Thompson give a speech to Orange County Republicans.
It was a disaster. I remember one news report that summarized a Fred Thompson to Michigan by saying, “The demand for Fred Thompson was far greater than the supply.” Ouch.
The Reagan comparison is a good way to hobble someone. Reagan is at the center of a conservative pantheon. His successes shine forth gloriously. The exceptions to his record that were less than full-throated conservatism have been buried and by some people in the party, forgotten.
Reagan is a standard of perfection that even the real Reagan couldn’t have met. Don’t compare Jindal to Reagan.
Also, don’t compare to Obama. The chief difference between Jindal and Obama: Governing accomplishments. Jindal has them, Obama doesn’t.
Jindal’s not a lightworker, he’s never healed the oceans, and I don’t think he’s made anyone swoon to the point they faint.
Bobby Jindal is a man of great accomplishment, he’s one of the party’s best young leaders. He’s a heck of a governor. Let’s leave it at that. While I don’t think he’ll run in 2008, I hope he runs someday, and I hope that conservatives don’t build Jindal up to a point that he simply can’t deliver.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
At least with tv, they’ll know that Jindal is not 7′ tall.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I imagine Jindal as more like David verse Goliath. You say people have high expectations….but who are they? Anyone touting his name is into politics like us already. It’s the common people that only get riled up during election year that he has to impress. Jindal isn’t an extraordinary orator. He’s articulate and competent. That’s his schtick. So like I said, it is more like david verse Goliath. Obama the giant with David feeble at his feet. Hell even romney looks like Goliath to me right now. Everyone thinks he is the heir apparent. If Jindal announces, than it will be a David verse Goliath battle. Romney will still be plagued with the same woes as this time. Lack of trust….that is unless he gets a new staff that aren’t enamored with him. He needs people that don’t see him as a demi-god of the republican party to run his campaign….that is the only way he will connect. If it was head to head, Jindal over Romney every time. Why? Because the romney machine of money and “competence” is nothing when compared to Jindal’s record. Jindal IS the closest thing to ronald reagan we have, and whether he runs or not…..that’s how he’ll be remembered someday. Whether in 2012, 2016, 2020 or whenever….i mean lets face it. The guy could wait 30 years and still have a shot. On the other hand, Romney is at the top of the mountain and his best opportunity is 2012…it is his last shot. He’s built a goliath of an organization, and just as huck stood in his way, romney also stood in hucks way. Now, is there anyone else that can stand in the way of conservatism next time? If Jindal announces, I think Huck and romney should both stay out of it….for the sake of conservatism, but that won’t happen. We would be likely to end up with another moderate. If that comes in the form of Pawlenty who is really a conservative disguised as a moderate, than we’ll be okay. If it comes in the form of crist who is a true moderate, than we’ll have another 2008.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Of the people to the left, my list is as follows:
1) Huck: My man.
2) Jeb: W
3) Bobby: Smart, young and not another cracker (coming from one;)!
4) Newt: Baggage
5) TPaw: Boring
Tie 6) Sarah & Mitt: I don’t especially ‘like’ the personality of either Sarah or Mitt, but I love Sarah’s family story and I respect the heck out of Mitt’s resume & talent.
That said, given Bobby’s lack of experience, the only reason he’s on that list, and just about any GOP list, is the fact that he’s not not white (actually he’s a dark caucasian). The same can be said for Sarah and her gender. However, neither one is going to bring a new demographic to the party. Will either Bobby or Sarah bring in a winning % African Americans or Hispanics? NO.
If we’re going to play affirmative action politics, lets do it in a way that has the potential actually bring new voters to the GOP. My suggestion: JC Watts. Any chance Brad Henry would resign and name JC as his successor:)?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Regan was no standard of perfection. It’s time the GOP learns the folly of assigning a mortal man god-like political status.
No one can live up to Regan, not even Regan. It’s a figmant.
It wasn’t until post 2000 that the majority of the party would even claim the guy. If I remember correctly being associated with Regan in 1990’s was like having syphilis.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
mac,
Bobby has more experience in his pinky than palin and mitt when it comes to actual government service. mitt’s only governement service was 4 years as a governor. look up bobby jindal’s biography. He has governed effectively already. BTW: I used to be a Huck guy, but only because the 2008 field sucked.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I agree with you waterseeds that Mr. Jindal is a great man, but he is not as experienced as either Mrs. Palin or Mr. Romney.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Current field:
Preferred Candidate: Romney, Pawlenty
Pleasing: Palin, Gingrich
OK: JBush, Sanford
Drive me away: Jindal, Huck
Jindal is literally on the bottom of my list… though if history keeps up…
Kerry, Obama and McCain were the bottom of my lists too.. So I expect him to get the Nod for ‘08
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
A lot can happen in 2 or three years. A lot will depend on how Mitt decides to spend his time between now and then. Mitt Romney and apparently Jindal are very smart men. However, Mitt has a ton more experience in the real world. Mitt has proven himself to be a turn around artist in business and the olympics, and governed as a conservative, while keeping all of his promises as a Governor. That was quite a task. Someday, Jindal will probably be material for President. He may even be for this next election, but at this time, he hasn’t earned the stripes Romney has earned. God bless both of them. I do believe Jindal may be ready for the VP slot, or possibly even Palin would be ready by then, who knows…like I said 2 or 3 years is a long time.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Personally, I would put the odds to get the nomination at:
Mitt 40%
Huckabee 20%
Palin 12%
Jindal 6%
Everybody else 20%
If Obama does a decent, but not great job as President, I think Mitt is the only one who could knock him off of the pedestal. He is the only one who can make him look bad in a debate.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
As a big mitt supporter I am not so sure where all the optomism that he would win the nominatino is coming from. he has some serious issues appealing to the regular casual observer. regular, i only pay attention sometimes, republicans pick those people they want to sit down with and have a beer. you have heard it a million times. Also mitt has a authenticity problem that is not going to go away.
mitt has an uphill battle. while is in as good a position as anybody, maybe better, I don’t think his odds are 20 percent better than the nearast alternative.
Given those issues, he is still the most comeptent and able presidential candidate in my opinion. as far sa government experience goes. I think the optimal amount is just enough to know how it works. Expereince in teh real world otuside of government where there is real accountability holds more water with me than any amount of years “in government.”
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
????????? ?????????????? ???????-???????? ????? ???? ? ????????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????????, ????? ? avi ???????, ??????-??? ????? ?????????. ????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ? ???????? http://rukablud.ru
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
#5
Because you are a former Huck guy I will go ahead and let you spout off about Bobby’s pinky without comment. At least you have seen the light to some extent.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
My two favorites for 2008 were Rudy and Mitt. Idealogy aside, they were the two candidates with solid resumes behind them. You knew you could sleep well at night knowing they were in charge.
Jindal is starting out fairly well in Louisiana. I say, “fairly well”, because so far the reviews have been a little mixed. If he can turn the disaster that is Louisiana around, then I have no problem pulling the lever for him as President.
Sarah Palin needs to govern for a few more years. With the price of oil dropping through the floor, this is going to create a serious fiscal problem for her beloved state of Alaska. It will be very informative to see how she performs in difficult circumstances. Also, it will be interesting to watch and see what she does about her preceived weaknesses.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Bobby “voted against CAFTA” Jindal
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I’ve been a huge Mitt backer for 4 years now. I realize that he has more of a hill to climb for various reasons. Add to that the “stigma” of not winning in the primaries and it may be too much to expect him to run again (even if I want to see it).
Pawlenty gives me a fair amount of what I liked in Mitt, in addition to a greater blue collar appeal. It doesn’t hurt that he succeeded in my birth state.
Huck and Jindal’s apparent dogmatic views cause me to question them as viable options. Pushing ID into the schools speaks very poorly in my opinion as the questions raised in the 90s have all been decisively closed in Evolution’s favor. Adding in the revelations of the wedge strategy being used by the Discovery Center and others discredits the whole “Theory”.
Palin and Gingrich would be OK if they got the nod. But I don’t think they would appeal to enough to win.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Does anyone know why Jindal was ranked so low in the power rankings as a member of Congress?
432 out of 435 overall
196 out of 202 Republicans
6th of the 7 from LA
Lowest of freshman Congressman
This is not to be negative, just asking for someone to enlighten us all on how he was perceived to be so weak.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Personally, I think Republicans should stop the whole “Reagan this, and Reagan that,” nonsense. Some people are so hung up on “What Would Reagan Do?” it’s no wonder the GOP is out of ideas for 21st century problems. As for electoral success, any voter who could have voted for Reagan (and was thus possibly paying attention during the actual Reagan years) would be at least 42 now. I’d say a good 30-40% of voters have little to no memory of Reagan, and in their minds, you may as well be constatly trying to find the Calvin Collige.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Illinois,
Thanks for your condolences last week. The in-laws are doing pretty well, considering.
Whose “power rankings” are you talking about.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Jindal’s, its in the first sentence.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Illinois,
I meant who made the power rankings? What is it based on?
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Jindal will not run in 2012.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
#16:
These power rankings have to do with things such as Seniority, the Committee seats you hold, whether your party’s in power, how many earmarks you get, and how many TV interviews you give. They are crap.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
MWS – Its on congress.org.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I just looked at them Adam G, and they seem to reflect properly those that are in power today.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Jindal will deliver any time he is called upon. He is the real deal. He will win whether he runs in 2012 or 2016.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
With a 1 1/2 term Congressman and most newer members of Congress, it’s bogus. You don’t get big power or influence in 3 years. Take a look at the metrics that make up the measurement.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Jindal is Romney, but with less experience. They are both the kind of competent conservatives we need. He was smart to take himself out of VP contention and keep his committment to LA. Palin should have done the same thing.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
#5 waterseeds
Why do you think government experience is what we need to solve the government’s problems?
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
26 – But why was Jindal lowest of all the freshmen Congressman? That’s apples and apples my friend.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
The things that Jindal evokes, and they are almost instantaneously obvious to anybody who sees him speak or get interviewed, are his level of commitment to doing the best possible job, the degree to which he really cares about other people, and his superb intellect. This is a recipe for electoral success. Still for Romney, however.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
#27
Jindal is not Romney. Jindal is a real Social Conservative. He can easily win over the Huckabee, Palin vote because he is authentically on their side.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Don’t give us that real conservative crap Rafael. You’re not talking to a bunch of ignorant amoses.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
While I don’t think he’ll run in 2008, I hope he runs someday,
No, I don’t imagine he’s running this year.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 am
#32
I forget that many on this site are really hostile towards the heart and soul of the Republican Party: Religious Social Conservatism.
No matter what anyone thinks, Romney has never been a Religious Social Conservative throughout his career.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 am
“I forget that many on this site are really hostile towards the heart and soul of the Republican Party: Religious Social Conservatism.”
The vast majority of them are not Romney fans. Romney is three legged stool conservative, not just socially conservative. He doesn’t wear the ‘religious’ portion of your label on his sleeve like some, but he is very socially conservative.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
#35
The base in the Republican Party are religious Social Conservatives and they want a candidate who does hold the religious part with his social conservatism. This Country wants a Christian president.
Romney is a Socon now, but the debate has always been that this part of him was MIA while governor of MA. People want honesty. If you are a Socially moderate governor then run as the Social moderate that you are.