Skip to comments.Jindal: Never Vetted for VP
Posted on 11/10/2008 11:32:34 AM PST by Def Conservative
click here to read article
those who criticized Sarah would have the same complaints about Jindal. -Inexperience-
either have more than Obama.
I know it’s not politic to say so..but he did get off to a rocky start as Governor.
He needs to have some actual accomplishments and show some leadership abilities before he can run for a REPUBLICAN president.
I live here in Louisiana, he’s being trained well to clean up after 0bama.
I keep hearing Jindal's name pop up for 2012 but I have never read anything until this that even suggests he may be interested in the job.
While she kept conservatives from staying home, I believe she turned off many voters with her "gollee gee" persona. Like it or not, people think high office requires a "studied seriousness".
Bubbly won't cut it.
As for Jindal, he needs to be able to communicate - something McCain is lacking. To win votes nowadays, a politician must have looks and an actors' stage presence. "Merely" having good ideas isn't enough. Time will tell if he has the ability.
No Conservative can possibly scare you as much as Obama will.
My impression, too.
Because no one who is not eligible to run as President, can run as VP.
Which is why they voted for Barack "143 days in the Senate and doesn't know how the capital gains tax works" Obama? Good grief.
If you're right (and I doubt that) and people will choose a Marxist over a conservative because she's "bubbly," we might as well fold the tent now.
If we Republicans are so out of touch that we like her better than Alaskans (91% approval rating with 65% very favorable) and she turned off enough voters to lose the election, we might as well fold the tent now.
I don't think that you're going to find any data that support the idea that Palin was amajor drag on this ticket, but the thing is, if you're right, we're a permanent minority because there is no one we can field who will do any better. I don't buy it.
Lastly, the fact that so many down-ballot conservatives won the day (my county went for Obama by 7 points after going red for the last three elections but elected our three Reagan conservative legislators in landslides) shows me that Americans had no real idea what they were voting for on Tuesday, though they thought they did. That means it wasn't our candidates that lost this for us so much as it was a custom, individualized fantasy candidate (not the real Obama) that won it for the Dems.
Rush Limbaugh didn't call Bobby Jindal "the next Ronald Reagan" because Jindal's a minority. There are those who've been watching Jindal's star rise amongst the conservative politians since before it became apparent that Obama would be the Dim nominee. Has nothing to do with his ethnicity.
Here's a decent 3-page interview Limbaugh conducted with Bobby Jindal back in December 2007. It might answer some of the questions you raised in your post.
You need to get new batteries for your calculator.
all things considered, from her pov she did the right thing.
When she was picked, I’d say McCain had around a 40% chance of winning and by the middle of Sept , after the convention and before the Lehman Bros collapse and the Fannie/Freddie/AIG collapse began the worst 6 weeks of economic news and market behavior in 80 years they probably had around a 50-50 shot, or even slightly better.
If McCain won she was 100% guaranteed to be the first woman presidential nominee in 2012 and even had a decent shot of beoming the becoming the first woman President, and ergo most famous and powerful woman in US political and possibly world history, if something happened to him between now and then(given his age, a better possibility than most). All that without having to raise any money, go through any primaries, any of the rigorous and endless process of runnnig a yr+ campaign to get the nomination, doing hundreds of events and legwork in small states and villages and towns, running gauntlets left and right, 20+ debates, etc... All just by saying yes and running a two month campaign where all the legwork had already been done for her. No one would turn that down.
In any attempt at natl office if she didn’t accept the offer, as a woman and gov of remote AK she’d be a huge, huge underdog at best and a mere novelty act at worst. Especially in a GOP that is still very establishment and rewards the next guy in line, is big on family legacies and war hero/cinc tough guys, and doesn’t really do underdogs and insurgents. She’d basically have to start from nothing.
Now she has all the advantages she wouldnt have had otherwise. Add in McCain’s organization and contacts and fundraisers and state party people and field workers and DC/Congress connections, and email lists, and all the other parts of his campaign that she undoubtedly has first dibs on and the best shot of picking up. There’s no other way any of that would eve be possible. Guys spend years putting that together. They spend years getting name ID and connecting with the base and building support. Look at Romney. He spent over a year and still couldn’t get it all the way done. Huckabee camped out in IA and had no room for any other states. Fred saw how difficult it was to just wing it, even when much of the establishment is behind you. She put herself in a position that she could never have dreamed of otherwise.
If McCain picked another VP and won, they’d be the nominee in 2012 and the future of the party.
If McCain picked another VP and lost, that VP would still have a huge leg up in 2012 or 2016, unless he picked a Lieberman or Ridge who would never be a serious candidate.
But in that case Romney and Huckabee would be the clear frontrunners and have tons of money and name ID and connections and 4 years to plan. Others like Pawlenty and Jindal and whoever would also be in the mix. She’d be a longshot with no name ID, no money, no support, etc...
Also, Obama has a very good chance at getting reelected so 2012 is a long shot at best. The economy is likely to turn around and he’ll get the credit just like Clinton in 96, we’ll be out of Iraq so people will feel good, Obama will have the media cobering for him 1000%. If you thouhgt it was bad during the campaign, just wait. He’ll have even more gobs of cash to spend in 2012 as well. The next couple of election cycles could get worse for the party before it gets better.
So 2016 is probably the next best chance for the GOP. Unless Obama pulls a Carter and totally screws up beyond all comprehension.
By 2016 though, Palin is 52, will be 2 yrs out of the Governorship, if she’s releected and that’s never a guarantee, will have an 8 yr old Downs child with all that entails(much more difficult than a 5 month old as symptoms and problems haven’t manifested themselves yet), and will be totally unknown on the national stage as fmr Gov of some state no one cares about that’s far away from everything. She’d have no foreign policy, natl security or military exp, no business background, no real exp at all on the natl level in any way. She’d have little to no fundraising, recognition, campaign staff and insiders who know what you have to do, establishment backing, etc... Her chances at the nomination would be zero.
She’s young enough that she still has plenty of time, Reagan was 69 in 1980, 65 when he ran in 76, 55 when he was elected Gov of CA. Palin won’t be 55 until 2019, 65 until 2029, 69 until 2033. But age is more of a problem for a woman, especially one who’s looks are an asset to her. But she’d still really have no way to get a natl profile. Reagan was already a nat’l star for 20+ years before he ever set foot in politics and Gov of CA is as big as it gets outside of the WH. And even he ran 2 failed attempts in 68 and 76 before he got the nom. HW Bush lost in 80 and had to wait until 88. Dole had to wait forever. Look at McCain. W only got in on the first go round because he was Bush’s son and the whole party was behind him from the jump. Not happening with Palin. As Gov of AK it’d be very difficult for her to break through. It’s not like Obama where the media was going to get on the bandwagon from the beginning and basically spend 4 years shoving him down the public’s throat.
And who knows what things look like in 2012 or 2016 or beyond anyway? Who knows what issues matter, what the landscape looks like, whether Obama and the dem Congress has ushered in some new Dem era like the GOP did starting in 68. Who knows what her family or personal situation is like? What happened to her popularity as Gov or the rest of her term?
Basically, if she had natl aspirations, and its clear she did, the chance to be McCain’s VP and be groomed and set up as his heir apparent and nominee in waiting for 2012, when at the time she was picked and decided to accept he had close to a 50% shot at winning, was an opportunity no one in her situation would really pass on.
While she didn’t win, in the end, it was still the best shot she had and would ever have to get on the scene and really have a go at the WH. If the economic collapse doesn’t happen who knows what would have happened and they may well have won. She had no way of knowing that would take place of course. I think if the economy had stayed the same from 9/15 on, McCain would have won. So from her POV and given everything she knew and was facing, the opportunity to be VP and a surefire Presidential nominee in 2012 or 2016(and possible P if something happened to McCain) was really a once in a lifetime chance and the best opportunity she’d have for any future plans. Even if she did lose, she’d have 100% name ID and be in a position that would be impossible for her to attain otherwise. She’s a no doubt about it leader in the party and natl figure where on Aug 28th, no one but a people in Alaska and some bloggers and pundits even knew who she was.
As for the future 4 or 8 years is a very long time. On Nov 10, 2004, conservatives and Republicans were crowing about the new GOP majority and how Bush was the new McKinley and we’d rule the WH for the next generation. The dems were in the dumps and in tears. Little did we know or expect what 2006 and 2008 had in store for us. Nixon was pronounced dead and buried in Nov 62(remember “you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore”). Reagan was finished after he lost to Ford. In Nov 1994 Bill Clinton was a dead man walking. In Nov 2006 Hillary was 200% assured of being the nominee. You think Joe Biden ever thought in Feb he’d be in the WH that time next year? He just got less than 1% in IA. Obama was 30 pts behind nationally as late as Thanksgiving, 2007. FDR was the VP on the ticket that suffered the biggest landslide loss in US history and 12 years later he’s elected in a landslide and becomes the most powerful and longest serving President ever. Lots of things can happen in politics. But the stuff Palin has gained from this is priceless and really would have been impossible to in any other way.
And even if she doesn’t have any future plans or for whatever reason it doesn’t work out for, it was still an experience of a lifetime and one that no Republican or conservative woman has ever had. For two months she was the most famous woman in the world, traveled the country, was part of the top story of the year, was able to connect with millions of voters and conservatives and republicans and women nationwide. For a pro life, pro gun girl from Wasilla, Alaska(a town no one in the lower 48 had ever heard of before Aug 29th) who’s issued Reagan proclamations each of the last two years on February 6th, I doubt she has many regrets.
Ye gods, man. Jindal has been a smashing success at every job he has taken on (and they are many and well documented). His track record is superior to pretty much every candidate who has run for public office since Eisenhower. I certainly can’t think of any president or presidential candidate in the intervening years. LBJ had a lot more power, but his entire career was in the Congress—with none of the executive experience that Jindal already has.
I'd love to know how you figure that. He has had multiple executive offices, both at the state and federal level, and has lost and won both legislative and executive political offices. How much more testing do you figure is needed???
I agree with you.
I’m just saying that the electorate is only interested in the superficial.
Unless we require a passing grade on a civics test to vote, it will stay that way. Short of that, all we can do is work to fight election fraud and hope we find a candidate with brains beneath the veneer.
No Conservative can possibly scare you as much as Obama will.
Not talking about that comparison but rather will Jindal be the best candidate for the GOP. Thus Jindal against the other potential GOP possiblilites to which who knows at this stage who they will be.
What’s the longest tenure that he’s held in any executive job?... Let’s see how he is doing after say the next six years as the Gov. of LA. He maybe the best candidate but someone else may also come to the top. All I’m saying is that there is plenty of time for him to prove his longterm worth.
What’s the longest tenure he’s held in any executive job?
See above link for a good summary of his career. With a track record of accomplishments like those listed, I could care less if he has held the different jobs for relatively short times.
Good executives move up quickly.
He’s never had to look down the barrels of an international crisis...
Jindal says he supports universal health care. No thanks.
Good executives move up quickly.
Then he’ll have nothing to worry about will he?..... The question remains can he perform over the long haul. If so he maybe the man otherwise another fast riser may edge him out. We still have a long time to sort this one out so no need to get hung up on anyone individual as of yet. jmo.
He has a sterling record going back over fifteen years. How much longer does a "haul" have to be, in your opinion?? One success might be a fluke, but continuous high achievement like that shown is evidence in itself. What other individual in current politics can even come close to a track record like Jindals??
I’m not talking about short term results but rather can he perform over the long term. It is’t unusal for someone to move in shake up the office/procedures/policies and move on after a couple of years. But I’ve also seen that type unable to perform once placed into a situation of having to serve over longer terms. Jindal hasn’t been in a job over three years or so for most of his career.
I don’t have a problem with Jindal being the nominee if he is selected when the time comes. All I’m saying is that I’m not locking onto one candidate at this time as the heir apparent as there is time for others to surface. Competition among several qualified candidates would be healthy I think.
One thing a minority super wonk like Jindal will face is withering criticism from the lib pop-culture/media. He will be stereotyped as an Indian geek and mocked mercilessly on SNL, Daily Show etc — the same folks who were afraid to tell jokes about Obama. It’s interesting how Dems who mock supposedly “dumb” pols like Bush and Palin lose their admiration for intellect when confronted with a brainiac Republican.
A "one trick wonder" type will only work for one or two changes, not enough to build up a fifteen year track record of success. I might agree with you (I've seen managers with "meteoric rise" histories, but they don't make it more than a couple of levels before their incompetence catches up with them), but Jindal's record is sufficiently long to make that position not viable.
His next few years as Gov. of LA will go a long way into determining his capabilities over the long haul. Take care.
What bothers me is how many people are jumping on his bandwagon just because hes a minority just as they did with Powell and Rice, who ended up stabbing us in the back.
My calculator uses fingers and toes. The problem comes when I gotta carry the ones over. LOL
Never heard him say that, source?
Sowell is so right that the other unfair part of affirmative action is that any time a minority excels many will believe it’s because of his race.
Being that it’s a New York Times interview, hopefully “consider the source” applies. But, it seems to be his own words:
“I am conservative. No doubt about it. But when you go back to what it means to be a conservative, I also think, as conservatives, we should believe in universal health care coverage.”
Yeah I definitely think a consider the source applies here, he was just on laura ingraham talking against this same sort of thing...
When someone is promoted based upon anything but merit, the entire system of trust breaks down.
Unfortunately, we have to wonder whether Obammie the Commie has truly earned each step along the way to this final achievement, and, thus, this achievement itself.
I was really hoping that, if we had to worry about such things as, “the first black president,” that it would be a Republican, who would have the MSM and all the celebutards against him, who won the election fair and square. That way we'd know that “the first” truly earned it and we could not only lay that milestone aside, but everyone who claimed a victim status could look to him/her as a role model that this is still the land of opportunity and we don't need the free-pass of affirmative action.
Jindal just became governor of Louisiana. No doubt he’s part of the future of the GOP, but he wanted to change his state first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.