Bobby Jindal's Meet the Press appearance today has received strong reviews. Regardless of what he does in 2012, he's a hugely important, emerging leader of the GOP. Jindal's MTP appearance starts at 1:49 in the video below.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Me thinks it would be wise for WA GOPers to find ways to apply his tone and approach to Washington state politics.
UPDATE: ...and obviously Tuesday night's big appearance is another significant opportunity for Jindal, including the chance to couple a critique of Obama with a forward-looking Republican agenda.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 22, 2009 12:11 PM | Email ThisPeriod.
Posted by: cliff on February 22, 2009 12:34 PMIn the far left political atmosphere of Seattle, there is constant pressure on Republicans to back away from, de-emphasize, or compromise on substantive issues.
As Jindal emphasized in this interview, trying to copy the Democrats or trying to be a "light" version of the Democrats is not the way to build the Republican Party.
We need to strongly oppose the phony bailouts and stimulus packages - warning (as Jindal does) against the resulting inflation, higher taxes, higher deficit, generational theft, strings attached, etc. - and emphasizing the philosophical differences we have with Democrats who favor increasing the size, power, and control of government.
It's our job, as conservatives and Republicans, to patiently point out how this harms the American people, restricts liberty, reverses economic growth, and leads to much higher taxes.
With that said, Jindal appears to fulfill those criteria. Sarah Palin would be a good Senator after another few years of gubernatorial experience, but not a candidate for POTUS.
Posted by: KS on February 22, 2009 03:16 PMThe GOP is keeping such a low profile in Washington that it might as well be non-existent. The number of Republicans with state-wide name recognition can be counted on one hand. Who speaks for the party? Who is standing up for conservative principles? Who could adopt this tone and speak with authority?
Maybe I am wrong about jindall but from what I have seen, I think he is a guy that has learned what to say to sound good to the base but is not actually committed to them. This defines the past GOP leadership and in this light I see him as no different.
Posted by: Lysander on February 22, 2009 05:22 PMSIDEBAR to kineta @ #11: Get a clue.
You must not have bothered to watch Meet the Press; or even read the Politico piece that Eric linked to. Here is the key factoid snippet:
=============================================
His office released a statement announcing Louisiana will reject stimulus money targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage.
''The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,'' Jindal said in the statement. ''We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.''
============================================
Jindal's principled position on unsustainable government growth gets to the heart of the looming problems we're facing, as we travel faster and faster down the socialist road. At some point even the government will run out of ''other people's money''......
Only an idiot would give up their freedom for a bauble.
Posted by: TheTruth on February 22, 2009 07:15 PMYou put it all so well in just a few well chosen sentences.
Jindal is a true conservative.
We need to quit supporting candidates that really are nothing more than a "lite" version of the Democrats as so many on this blog appear to advocate.
"Lite" Republicans got us Bush #1 that raised taxes. "Lite" Republicans got us Bush #2 that believed he could be nice to Democrats. That sure worked well. "Lite" Republicans got us Arnold who is pushing fuel standards he must know will put American car companies out of business. "Lite" Republicans got us John McCain who believes the greatest of all leftist hoaxes, "global warming".
Jindal and Palin are the future of our party. We have to stop being ashamed of what we believe and letting the left and popular culture influence us.
You can't "compromise" with leftists.
Thanks Steve for realizing it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2009 08:12 PMSometimes you don't need such money. Hey, Ford turned down all the loans (and the strings attached) that GM and Chrysler are taking. And Ford is predicting to make a profit this year.
If you don't need the money, then why take the loan and the strings attached?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 22, 2009 10:20 PMThis is a winning argument?
Posted by: Ryan on February 22, 2009 10:23 PMThere is a highly legitimate minority disagreement with the President. And we will find out that disagreement is indeed significant as the current actions plunge the country in to further trouble.
As an aside, Gregory must have Tim Russert turning in his grave.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2009 11:32 PMI hope Jindal reconsiders. Was Blanco recalled? I thought LA must have their governors elected on the off years but if he would be running in 2012... ???
Posted by: ferrous on February 22, 2009 11:56 PMThe following is excerpted from today's New York Times online - the entire article is available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/us/politics/23govs.html?ref=todayspaper
Some [Republican] party leaders said Republicans should compromise with the Democratic president and move to the political center to attract independents' votes. A small but vocal group of conservative governors countered that the party instead must rebuild by standing against new spending and taxes to regain the trust of conservative voters.
"There's a tug of war right now within the party as to where we go next," Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, one of the conservative Republican leaders, said in an interview. "I am in the camp that says we go back to basics. There are other folks who say something a little different. The answer will be determined in this tug of war."
Among those tugging opposite him is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, who only last week concluded a battle to close his state's $42 billion budget deficit over the opposition of Republican state lawmakers who opposed tax increases in the compromise. While Mr. Schwarzenegger was in Washington for the governor's meeting, a petition condemning him circulated back home at the California Republican Party convention.
Those Republicans "were not in touch with what the majority of people want to do in California," Mr. Schwarzenegger said Sunday on the ABC program "This Week." "And the same is nationwide."
Unfazed by the attacks from Republicans, Mr. Schwarzenegger said he would try again to win health insurance coverage for all Californians, though it would require new taxes.
"Even though it is against your principles or philosophy," he said he believed that officeholders should be doing "what the people want you to do rather than getting stuck in your ideology."
...Several governors ... have been withering in their criticism of Mr. Obama's stimulus plan, which received only 3 of 219 Republicans' votes in Congress. The harshest critics include Mr. Sanford and Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, the national chairman of the party in the 1990s, Rick Perry of Texas, and Sarah Palin of Alaska, the party's 2008 vice-presidential nominee....
"Now is the time, and it's a great opportunity for Republican governors and other leaders to offer conservative-based solutions to the problems," Mr. Jindal said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. He announced on Friday that he would reject the $100 million for unemployment compensation in the estimated $4 billion for Louisiana.
Mr. Jindal, the national party's choice to deliver the Republican response to Mr. Obama's address to Congress on Tuesday night, previewed his message, saying: "We need to work with the president every chance we can. But on principle -- when we disagree with him -- we should be unafraid to stand up on principle and to point out our alternative solutions."
Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida also appeared on "Meet the Press" and immediately rejected Mr. Jindal's approach.
"There is a national leader, his name is President Obama," said Mr. Crist, who campaigned for the stimulus package in his state with Mr. Obama.
"I think we do need to be bipartisan," he added. "We need to be, in fact, nonpartisan."
The above is excerpted from today's New York Times online - the entire article is available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/us/politics/23govs.html?ref=todayspaper
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 23, 2009 06:06 AMThese Republicans speak of compromising and in Crist's case, being "nonpartisan". That is simply music to the ears of the left who have no intention of compromising on anything. It amazes me that so many Republicans don't realize that the left doesn't work or play well with the other side.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 23, 2009 07:54 AMI also think Ahrnold has abandoned any pretense of being a Republican.
Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2009 09:30 AMJindal is a hypocrite - for accepting some of the money, and an uncaring fool for rejecting the unemployment benfits the people of his state desperately need.
The fool is standing on no principle wahtsoever, just pandering to the rightwingnuts. First, he is wrong that this is money that he will be obligated to spend in the future - so his whole premise is innacurate. Second, by rejecting unemployment money he shows he doesn't care at all about workers who have been laid off from the Bush depression, through no fault of their own.
And this is the total idiot that the rightwingnuts are fawning over?
Great - you guys will get your butts kicked even more in the next elections for not recognizing the severity of the Bush depression.
Reality is a concept republicans just can't get their tiny brains around. Wishing the Bush depression away and doing nothing is the republicans Hooverite answer.
What a buch of fools - You guys will win a solid 25% of the vote next time out. Thanks for creating a majority for the democrats like Roosevelt did. You even misinterpret the depression - trying to mimic Hoover. What a laugh! There is so much ignorance on here, I come for the amusement. the collective Iq here is not over 100.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 23, 2009 09:55 AMThat is correct. Jindal did not want to have Louisiana saddled with a permanent spending increase when the funds promised last for only 3 years. He's definitely right that unfunded mandates - which effectively this is, with a bit of a bribe thrown in for good measure - are the bane of State and local governments.
Funny how the Marxist Slavers howled about unfunded mandates when President Bush pushed through Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind Act, but now that their own Obamassiah wants to do the same, it's all wrong to worry about such unfunded mandates.
AlwaysWrong,
You're not worth the time of day. Put up or shut up. When will you come out publicly and decry President Obama for his PROVEN hypocrisy regarding lobbyists in his administration, PAYGO, sunlighting of bills, and on and on...
Until you acknowledge and condemn those EXTREMELY hypocritical failings of the President, you're no worse than what you decry.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 23, 2009 10:53 AM"His rationale for this is suspect. Jindal claims that the unemployment assistance actually amounts to an unfunded mandate, since Louisiana would need to permanently change its eligibility rules, while the federal money would expire in short order. But, as his state's Democratic senator, Mary Landrieu, has pointed out, there's no reason why Louisiana or any other state couldn't revert to its old eligibility rules when the federal money runs out; this is actually what the authors of the stimulus envisioned."
This is a temporary stimulus package - what don't you morons understand about the word temporary?
Oh, and the other millions he is taking for his state ....just shows he is a HYPOCRITE and WRONG.
Poor Shanghai - just last week I showed that at least 10 statements you made were just plain wrong.
Do you enjoy being a fool? Explain your graph again, make me laugh at how pathetically ignorant you are. Did you even get out of the third grade?
What hypocritical failings? Again, where is your documentation? Is it is good as your sorry graph that "proves" Obama is reponsible for Wall street fluctuations? Hahahaha. You got nothin'.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 23, 2009 11:26 AMMore fun remains. I wonder what Obama will cut (besides the military) in order to half the deficit before 2012? Does this mean he won't attempt to establish socialized medicine?
Call me a cynic, but other than military spending I don't believe Obama will cut much of anything. I think the market agrees.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 23, 2009 11:51 AMAnother liberal lie. The MGIA (Multi-Generational Indebtedness Act or AKA "Stimulus Bill") CLEARLY says PERMANENT.
Quoting the incompetent Mary Landrau who was a disaster during the Katrina effort, shows how desperate you libs are.
Posted by: Rightandcorrect on February 23, 2009 12:02 PMAS for the unemployment being permanent - a convenient republican lie - just write the legislation so it expires like most other states are doing. Are republicans to moronic to figure that out?
Yes,the bill does say permanent - but not in that section and the overall title is a temporary stimulus - can republicans not understand basic english - do we have to say it in Spanish for you?
Rampant stupidity on here - you guys beleive anything on Fox or that Rush the drug addict says. Bunch of fat boys following the leader.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 23, 2009 12:19 PMThe only lie is the one Democrats are perpetrating by trying to rewrite state law with a few schillings thrown out as bait. It is quite clear the Trojan Horse bill requires states to enact a permanent change to state law in order to qualify for the money. Once the money runs out in three years, the states are on the hook for this PERMANENT program.
Obama said he wasn't going to run for president when he was elected in 2006. - LIE
Obama said he was going to use only public funding for his presidential campaign. - LIE
Obama said the full text of the bill would be available 5 days prior to the vote for all to see. - LIE
Now we here that the provisions that have the word PERMANENT are really actually temporary. -LIE!
Oh and for the high and mighty spelling cop @34, it isn't spelled beleive it is believe.
2,66 МБ
[url=http://knizhka.ucoz.ru/publ/4]скачайте програму здесь бесплатно [/url]
Posted by: krokodilbilli on February 25, 2009 03:59 AM