Skip to comments.The case for Bobby Jindal to be vice president (Washington Post column)
Posted on 07/18/2012 10:47:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Indian-American community can be a major source of campaign cash if they are activated to give. Picking Jindal as VP would ensure huge buy-in figuratively and literally from this community.
Jindal isnt oozing charisma like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. But neither is he labeled as a vanilla pol in the way that Portman and Pawlenty have been cast.
Jindal wouldnt likely overshadow Romney as Christie and Rubio clearly would but neither would he be lumped in with the boring white guy pick that might not get Romney the sort of bump he is looking for.
There are other ways where Jindal is a sort of middle-of-the-road pick too. His resume he spent several terms in Congress before being elected governor in 2007 allows Romney to pick someone who knows how the levers of power work in Washington but who has largely built his reputation outside of the nations capitol. Hes an insiders outsider. Or an outsiders insider. Whatever. You get the point.
Remember that the first rule of vice presidential picking is Above all, do no harm. That means that a sort of warm porridge guy (hes not to hot or too cold) like Jindal could have real appeal to Romney.
* A reform record: In his four-plus years in office, Jindal has built a very impressive record that would fit nicely with Romneys promises to bring conservative principles to the federal government.
Jindals top priority coming into office was ethics reform political corruption is as common as good beignets in Louisiana and he got it done quickly. Jindal also pushed hard to reform the state's education system, an effort that won him praise from none other than the Wall Street Journal op-ed page.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
* Super wonk: While Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan gets credit within the Republican party as their wonkiest national voice, Jindal has a case to make that he actually deserves that title. This is someone who was running the Louisiana department of health and human services at 25 and two years later was appointed the executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.
If Romney wants to prove that he is serious about repealing President Obamas health care law and replacing it with a more conservative approach, there is no one on the Republican side with the possible exception of Romney himself who knows the issue better than Jindal.
Picking someone with widely regarded policy chops like Jindal would also allow Romney to make the argument that he made a governing choice not a political choice in his vice presidential nominee a sign that he is ready, willing and able to step into the office and do the job on day one.
I know I know, there is the Natural Born issue ... but FReepers are SPLIT on this one and so is the country in general. Plus, if Obama is already de facto President and none of the laws he signed are invalid by virtue of his unconstitutional status, I don’t see why given that precedent, Jindal is going to be disqualified.
From a vetting perspective, Jindal has obvious downsides. Among them are an element of his background sure to dominate cable chatter if he were selected. In December 1994, Jindal wrote an article in the New Oxford Review (teaser here; subscription required for full version) that details his presence at the dorm-room exorcism of a female friend. Without casting any aspersions on Jindal’s beliefs, it’s safe to say that Romney — who has dealt with an undercurrent of bigotry toward his own faith — likely wants to avoid a protracted discussion of religious practices that would overshadow his focus on the economy.
Jindal’s record as governor would also come under critical scrutiny. As the Wall Street Journal wrote in a glowing profile this week, Jindal “has won plaudits for his smooth handling of crises such as 2008′s Hurricane Gustav and the 2010 Gulf Oil spill.” As I wrote at the time, Jindal became a hero for his aggressive attacks on the federal government’s response to the spill. But his policy prescriptions were questionable. Jindal pushed hard for the government to construct a pricey barrier of sand berms to protect the state’s marshland from oil, and the project was ultimately OKed over the objections of scientists. An investigative commission subsequently found that the project was a $220 million boondoggle that captured little oil. In a way, it’s not surprising that Jindal’s view broke with the scientific community; as governor, he signed a bill that provides for the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Finally, there’s the comfort factor. At the start of the primary, Jindal was an outspoken supporter of Texas Governor Rick Perry. He didn’t endorse Romney until April, long after Perry left the race. Unlike Pawlenty, who has been a dogged surrogate for Romney, Jindal is not said to have a strong rapport with the former Massachusetts governor. While Romney has regularly invited rumored veep candidates (such as Portman) to campaign with him over the past few months, his meeting with Jindal on Monday was the pair’s first joint meeting of this phase.
If WaPo likes him, the question then has to be “What’s wrong with him?”.
Thanks, WaPo, for the recommendation. Appreciate your conservative support.
as I have been saying, the commies would love for jindal or rubio to be VP, thus putting the illegal commie usurper into the “we iz alls da sames now category.
The general tendency of conservatives is to ask this — IF A LIBERAL RAG LIKE THE WASHINGTON COMPOST likes a Republican candidate, DON’T GO FOR HIM because that is a sign that they want him to run because he WILL LOSE.
If the Wa Po wants Jindal, we have to be concerned.
Gee, no one sees the Outsourcing of the Vice Presidency coming.....
I agree with this article. Jindal is the best choice. He is young, but unlike Rubio, he is both conservative and experienced and ready to step in immediately if Romney were to drop dead.
In before the eligibility crowd comes screaming with their torches and pitchforks to make sure everyone knows that Jindal and Rubio don’t pass their ‘test’.
Nice guy— but not eligible.
Two wrongs, three wrongs, a dozen don’t make one right.
Two wrongs, three wrongs, a dozen dont make one right.
True. But it's amazing how many FReepers don't believe in the US Constitution nor the rule of law.
They'd condone any anchor baby from a third world banana republic is just as qualified to be an American President as a US born citizen from American born parents.
[ The general tendency of conservatives is to ask this IF A LIBERAL RAG LIKE THE WASHINGTON COMPOST likes a Republican candidate, DONT GO FOR HIM because that is a sign that they want him to run because he WILL LOSE. ]
They want Jindall because then they can paint him as a “Religious Nutball” due to his excorsism experiance and they will use that along with the “Mormon Narrative”.
The constitution does not define natural born citizen, and despite hundreds of lawsuits, no judge has ruled Obama ineligible. Fact is that, because he was born in the US, he is natural born. If he had been born in India and received his legal citizenship after moving to the US, he would be naturalized, but not natural born, and ineligible. Everyone here believes in the rule of law, you just don’t know the law.
I agree 100% but some of the sheep around here don't understand the fundamental differences between right and wrong. If they believe it's okay for anchor babies to be President of the United States, they should follow the rule of law and vote to change our Constitution.
Perhaps you've not been aware that for the last year and a half, the "fact" that Obama was born in the US is being discredited.
I framed my paragraph poorly with too many pronouns. I was speaking of Jindal being born in the US.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO
BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD
No, you don’t know the law, even though it has been explained on FR over and over again. You’re like the kind of journalist who thinks a half-brother and a step-brother are the same thing.
Well, I disagree with you as do the courts.
And I’ll bet you can’t explain the difference between half and step siblings without looking it up on Google.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Jindal and Rubio are not eligible to be VP or President anymore than Barry Soetoro is.
There are hundreds of perfectly capable natural born citizens that can be nominated to run with Mitt. Rand Paul and Allen West jump to mind along with Michelle Bachman, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and many others.
This argument is about as lame as it can be. They didn't have to define it. Everyone in the 18th century knew what the term meant!
Born of parents.... who themselves are U.S. Citizens. This disqualifies Marco, Bobby and Barack. This is not rocket science and I believe that both Marco and Bobby are thousands of times better qualified than the jerk who sits in the oval office.
Good grief people.....this is not a big secret. When I learned about the Constitution in 1954 (sixth grade) we had a young man who was born in this country (New Jersey, I believe) of parents who were displaced refugees from Eastern Europe. They were not citizens when this schoolmate of mine was born (they later became naturalized).
I'll never forget my teacher explaining the term "natural born citizen" and why our schoolmate could never ascend to the presidency......no matter where he was born because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth (1942). He could be a Senator, a Representative....or a Governor....but he could never be the "Commander in Chief".
Friends....as far as I know.....no public school has taught the Constitution (in depth) for more than fifty years or so. This went by the wayside along with many other patriotic observances after Viet Nam..... and the harm it did to our country. Most people today know very little about things like this. They usually just repeat what they have been told by the evening news.....and those folks are (for the most part).....just stupid.
Like someone earlier had said......why open yourself for possible problems down the road? There are probably millions of people out there (born of U.S. Citizens) who are better qualified than Joe Biden. Barack's father.....of course was never a U.S. citizen....so where Barack was born is not even an issue. He's ineligible for that reason alone.
I don’t think it is a matter of a personal test. Instead it is a matter of personal take on the words of the Constitution and what history has recorded as to why the Founders specifically differentiated between ‘natural born citizen’ and just ‘citizen’ for other National offices/congresspersons.
Unfortunately, previous court decisions have all but over-ruled the understanding “Natural Born” that you proposed.
* In 1875, U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was presented with a query from the Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. A young man, surnamed Steinkauler (his first name was never mentioned), had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen. When he was four years old, his father returned to Germany with him and both had stayed there ever since. The father has relinquished his American citizenship. Now the young man is 20 years old and about to be drafted into the German army. What is this young man’s situation as a native-born American citizen? After studying the relevant legal authorities, Pierrepont wrote:
“Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one NATURAL, the other acquired. .... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.
* The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases regarding the term — NATURAL BORN, including In re Look Tin Sing,on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years.
* The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
“After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.”
* The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which similarly held that the child born here of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase “natural born”.
* In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Perkins v. Elg, regarding a young woman, born in New York a year after her father became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, when she was about four her parents returned to Sweden taking her with them, and they stayed in Sweden. At age 20, this young woman contacted the American diplomats in Sweden and, shortly after her 21st birthday, returned to the United States on a U.S. passport and was admitted as a U.S. citizen. Years later, while she was still in America, her father in Sweden relinquished his American citizenship, and, because of that, the Department of Labor (then the location of the Immigration & Naturalization Service) declared her a non-citizen and tried to deport her. The young woman filed suit for a declaratory judgment that she was an American citizen by birth. She won at the trial level, and at the circuit court - where she was repeatedly described as “A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
* Finally in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court decision quoted at length from the U.S. Attorney-General’s opinion in Steinkauler’s Case (mentioned above) including the comment that the person born in America and raised in another country could yet “become President of the United States”.
As for Rand Paul and Allen West and Bachmann and Paul Ryan, YES I would whole-heartedly support their nominations, but the issue which was brought up is the issue of how we understand the term NATURAL BORN. Court decisions from over a hundred years ago have given us precedents that do not support the two-parents-must-be-Americans-at-birth definition.
The LEGAL principle of stare decisis now applies in practice.
4 previous SCOTUS rulings have defined natural born citizen as a person born in the USA of two US citizen parents. I’m sure you know which cases I’m referring to as they have been posted by me and others ad nauseum.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
Thirty years later when the Constitutional Convention convened...... this was still the definition.
John Jay (first Chief Justice) wrote this to the convention: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
In 1857 the Supreme Court (Dred Scott decision) majority opinion quoted "Vattel"....word for word: The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.
So.......one hundred years after Vattel wrote his book and 68 years after the Constitutional Convention used his definition "Natural Born Citizen" to describe Presidential requirements.....the Supreme Court of the United States is still quoting that fact.
It is only recently (50 years) that elememts of our society have attempted to change this meaning.....for their own purposes. What could be their motive?
The examples you have provided are easily disassembled under scrutiny.....and have been many times on these threads.
He might as well nominate Jindal, who is not eligible to be president because he’s not a Natural Born Citizen. Then we could have all this certifigate stuff take place in the open, without the media claiming it’s a republican ploy.
I second your motion! Jindal has the highest IQ of any living politician. And he is a PROVEN conservative. His choice completely explodes the notion that GOP is a boring white man’s party or is racist. Portman is tied to Bush-43 and has never been a executive in public office.
I also like Huckabee although many times he has made me climb the walls with his positions. But he has superlative verbal skills and will be a great asset in campaign to the businessman and mild mannered Romney.