More Jindal

GOP 2016: What about Bobby Jindal?

“ (This ties-in with yesterday's Jindal post.) Jindal is smart, experienced, full of ideas, a solid conservative. So why is he so far back? First, he is still virtually unknown. To the degree that people outside of Louisiana know Jindal, it is for his poorly received — OK, really bad — Republican response to President Obama's first State of the Union address in 2009. "He's an undervalued stock," says Jindal adviser Timmy Teepell. "The view of the pundit class in DC, who have not seen Jindal on the stump or interacting with voters, is that he's an underdog without much of a shot. They take the simplistic approach — 'the first time I heard of him he gave a bad State of the Union response, so he can't be any good.' Fortunately, DC pundits don't get to decide elections." Teepell points out that Jindal has won four elections in Louisiana — two for the House and two for the governor's office — all by decisive margins. When he makes his case to voters, he usually succeeds. the governor "used the political capital from those victories to make much-needed reforms in Louisiana." The adviser ticked them off: government spending cuts, state workforce cuts, income tax cuts, education reform, health care reform. They were all "massive undertakings that required a lot of political capital to be spent — and when you spend political capital, you spend political capital." But all is not well at home for Jindal in his seventh year as governor. A poll released this week by PPP, a Democratic firm, pegged his job approval rating in Louisiana at just 34 percent, with 55 percent disapproval. (Other polls have also shown low approval ratings, although some have indicated recent improvement.) In addition, PPP asked about hypothetical presidential matchups between Hillary Clinton and various Republicans in Louisiana. Bush, Cruz, and Paul, as well as Mike Huckabee, all topped Clinton. Jindal, the favorite son, trailed Clinton by a single point, 45 percent to 46 percent. If a Republican presidential candidate, no matter where he's from, has even a little trouble winning Louisiana, that's bad news. Teepell points again to Jindal's election wins and explains that the governor "used the political capital from those victories to make much-needed reforms in Louisiana." The adviser ticked them off: government spending cuts, state workforce cuts, income tax cuts, education reform, health care reform. They were all "massive undertakings that required a lot of political capital to be spent — and when you spend political capital, you spend political capital." [Full Examiner] Going back, at least to Gerald Ford's 1976 election, the media have been increasingly active in doing an Alinsky (e.g. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” and “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”) on any GOP candidate that even smacks of conservatism.  So the SUCCESSFUL candidate must have exceptional natural appeal, a glib tongue, and a thick skin to overcome all this.  And that's just to get the GOP nomination! That hasn't happened since 1980.  The New York Times will, historically,  endorse the GOPe favorite, and that person will never, ever, be a real conservative; nor anyone likely to beat the Democrat.   Also, and for reasons I cannot comprehend, the GOP have allowed, without court challenge,  Democrats to cross-over  and vote in it's primaries.  That's how we got Dole, McCain and Romney. So, if Jindal, or any conservative, can break through all this, then that candidate will almost certainly become president. What are the odds that Jindal will be that person?  I say 30 to 1.  Jindal is the only candidate (in the race) who even remotely excites me. My only hope is for the GOP to control both the House and the Senate in 2016,  with the Teaparty faction holding the balance of power.  Then there's at least a chance. Fast forward to mid-2017.  If drilling the ANWAR oil fields is about to commence, then we are on the way to recovery. ”