Bobby Jindal Gets It

By Lloyd the Idiot

Boby Jindal, in urging fellow Republicans to not be  the “stupid party,” shows himself be be a follower of  my First Rule of Politics (scroll to the bottom) as written several months back in relation to the local Republicans:  “Don’t be stupid.”



  • liberal anthropologist says:

    He does. We have am amazing crop of 40 something Republicans. Dems should be aware that serious competition is coming for a generation.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “We have am amazing crop of 40 something Republicans.”

    Please name five.

  • Scout says:

    LA: first they have to “disenthrall themselves” (to use a Lincolnism) from the utter, corrosive nonsense that has been the stock and trade of Republican candidates for the past decade or so. Jindal now appears to be trying, but I sense some maneuvering for personal advantage, rather than any sincere interior philosophy of conservatism that breaks with the shallow, ineffective veneers of recent times.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    “Please name five.”

    I’ll do them one at a time in exchange for a 40 something (I’ll even give you early 50’s) from the Dem Party that presents a strong competitive option.

    Paul Ryan.

    I know it is impossible, but try to put aside the myth that the US is left of center. Obama does not represent any kind of shift.


    ” sincere interior philosophy of conservatism ”

    What would this be? What would you call a sincere conservative?

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    And why don’t you guys say what you don’t like about what Jindal has done as governor so far. Substantive.

    And go back to the Ryan budget plan. What SUBSTANTIVELY do you disagree with. Cut and paste the words.

    And with Jindal and Ryan, I have named two. You name two dems EB. Dems that would appeal to the very fickle middle. Not the left.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    awww i’ll finish the list…. Paul, Christie, Rubio

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    “I know it is impossible, but try to put aside the myth that the US is left of center. Obama does not represent any kind of shift.”

    Since the country is pretty much split in half politics-wise perhaps it is really “center”. I will go even further and theorize that it is the parties that move in relation to the public not the other way around. In other words, the public defines what is center, not the parties.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    I would concede that the”bench” as it were is deeper for the Reps right now. I wonder if that is so unusual? It seems that only Christie so far has been seen as reasonably acceptable by the general population. I would say Ryan is already toast. Once the public gets to know Rubio and Jindal, we shall see but they will have to play strongly to the southern conservative base first and that is hard to walk back.

    Christie will make a fine addition to the Dem bench once he is rejected by the Rep base.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    “Paul”??? I don’t think so.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    There are strong young Dems. Kirsten Gillibrandt, Elizabeth Warren are two with potential. I have always wondered if Al Franken would ever go any farther (not saying he is a member of the bench…just wondering aloud).

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    Mark Warner as well.

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    I love that you seem enamored by Union busting Christie. Good signs for Republicans. I love Christie.

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    The rain for the strong Republican bench is state and local politics. The Democrats need to step it up at that level up build a bench for matinal.

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    And interesting point on the center. Like my point on the messy middle. I will think about it.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “What would this be? What would you call a sincere conservative?”

    Thus the problem.

    Scout has been an eloquent spokesman for a “sincere interior philosophy of conservatism that breaks with the shallow, ineffective veneers of recent times” on this blog for as long as I’ve been around here (about 7 years now).

    You either aren’t reading, or aren’t understanding, LA.

  • Eric the 1/2 a troll says:


    Not saying I love everything about Christie. His willingness to cut through the political crap and his honest focus on doing what is right is very refreshing. If elected those positives will outweigh any negatives. Even in the case of unions, I trust him to reform honestly and not ideologically. That trust could be misplaced but I do not think so and I am willing to take that risk.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    I am asking for some kind of definition so that I can identify the sincere from the insincere. This is not confrontational. It is a question.

    I consider all the people I named (and I will through in Scott Walker) to be sincere conservatives. If being sincere is being perfect and ideologically pure, then nobody will meet that kind of sincerity.

    Obama – by that standard – is no sincere liberal. He continues to keep Guantanamo open, he continues most of the Patriot Act. He engages in assassinating American citizens. He deports immigrants at record rates. He prosecutes a drug war – destroying peoples lives – while joking about his own use of drugs. He fights wars. He doesn’t withdraw troops. He is against Gay marriage. He does nothing about climate change. He doesn’t get universal health insurance.

    He is a failure as a liberal president in addition to being a failure as a president in general. He has accomplished little. Even Obamacare is gong nowhere.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Accomplished little while spending record amounts of money I should add.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    through = throw. Damn autocorrect.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Ryan gets it too:–politics.html

    The Dems have a longer term problem. A weak bench. Low levels of state and local power. A reliance on demographics that are not a lock.

    All the republicans have to do is pick off Hispanics and Asians and improve in women and they will dominate again for a while. And that isn’t that hard. Better immigration policies than dems. Pushing out the social conservatives and the idiots who say dumb things.

    Add to that growing power in the media as a whole…..

    The Dems should watch for too much Hubris in the wake of a close election and a new generation taking charge in the GOP.

  • Scout says:

    We still have one term to go, but based on what’s happened so far, I think Obama will be kindly judged in his ranking among American presidents. That LA or others don’t consider him a “Sincere Liberal”, isn’t much of a point. He hasn’t claimed to be. He has been fairly pragmatic in his first term, settling for a lot of half-loaves. I personally think the half-loaf he took on health care is less desirable than what we would have had had he either pushed for a French/German/Canadian-type system or if he had simply done nothing, but I suspect history will judge his half-measure as progress, at least in terms of bringing into coverage a lot of citizens who were simply bereft of health care options. The second term is starting out more (if rhetoric has any meaning) in an ideological context. We’ll have to see what he does with it, what he can achieve.

    I worked determinedly on the Goldwater campaign. We were crushed. There was a lot of talk then about the demise of the Republican Party. We won the presidency in the next election with a fairly non-ideological candidate. A lot of external factors contributed to that. I bring it up only to make the point that things move quickly in this business and no one entirely masters their fate.

    The discussion for us Republicans, however, is how to break with the impression that we fear the voters, that we are a party of shallow slogans, that we are concerned far more with politics than we are with governance, that we harbor within our counsels the types of fearful, narrow people who were the backbone of the Democratic Party through the first 3/5ths of the 20th Century, that we’ve lost our founding passion for civil rights, that we know how to manage the fisc intelligently and with discipline, and that our record of governance is one that imparts strength, not dissipation, to the Republic. We may wish for these things, but we have to overcome a lot of evidence that has piled up over the past 20 years or so that we are not worthy of the citizens’ support.

    By the way, I meant no slight to Jindal. He may be speaking from the heart and head. But I’ve seen him in the not too distant past mouth the familiar platitudes that brought us down without any outward sign of embarrassment. If he’s had an epiphany, I’m all for it. You’ll see a lot of guys who were leading the mobs that did enormous damage to the credibility of the GOP tacking abruptly toward the center now. They are counting on us all having short memories. Our Governor’s race in Virginia next year will be a great example of that, I reckon. I have a long memory and suspect that a lot more voters than the pols realize will remember past positions. It will take more than just putting on a new mask. The “all the republicans have to do is pick off Hispanics and Asians and improve in women . . .” comment above strikes me as hopelessly naive, given the toxic verbiage we have permitted to surround these communities, particularly the Latino community, over the past few years in GOP circles. If I were Hispanic-American, it would be a very long time and the very rare Republican I could take seriously if he came calling.

    For what its worth, Christie strikes me as being a quality governance-Republican. I hope he’s contagious. (I also hope he drops 120 pounds and goes vegan before his heart says “the hell with it, I’m out of here”). Jeb Bush also seems to have his head together on issues that are important (particularly education and immigration) and has not allowed ambition to put indelible stains of idiocy (a problem every single GOP presidential hopeful except Huntsman has from 2012) all over him/her.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    I appreciate your detailed response.

    ” pick off Hispanics and Asians and improve in women . . .” comment above strikes me as hopelessly naive”

    Not sure it is. Republicans have done reasonably well with Hispanics until recently. And Asians have no natural affinity to anything the democrats put forth. A Rubio would shift the balance on Hispanics dramatically. And adoption of policies that are out in front of Dems over the next 4 years on immigration would seal the deal. The Republican voices that have expressed negative views on immigration are already being marginalized.

    I personally would like to see a lot more immigration. It can only lower the unemployment rate in general. Especially if we decrease the safety net that attracts the less desirable immigrants. Immigrants have always been the backbone of this and most advanced economies. They would create growth and contribute to America in amazing ways.

    Those people on the right who see a zero sum game with immigration are as foolishly zero sum as those on the left who want to tax the rich proportionally more.

    This is why the libertarian impulse is so important to grow in both parties. But especially the stronger seed in the Republican party.

    The Dems have setup their own descent into the wilderness with the 2012 election and the policies they appear intent on pursuing before 2014.

    “That LA or others don’t consider him a “Sincere Liberal”, isn’t much of a point. He hasn’t claimed to be.”

    That is incorrect. While he would not dare use that term for the backlash, all of the items I mention were positions he ran on in 2008. He ran on a mainly liberal agenda and has failed to deliver. Not even half loaves.

    ” I personally think the half-loaf he took on health care is less desirable than what we would have had had he either pushed for a French/German/Canadian-type system or if he had simply done nothing”

    In this you set up false choices. Those were not the two options and he did not pick the middle way. There were countless options that would have been more effective. I have discussed many of them in past discussions on this subject.

    You have fallen for the two extremes. Go all the way to Europe or doing nothing.

    I wanted to do something. Something that would have lowered costs dramatically and improved availability. Remove the incentive for third party or (worse yet) single party payers. Return the market to one in which direct fee for service is the norm and catastrophic coverage that is purchased individually is common.

    It is false to even contemplate this as an INSURANCE problem. It is still an access and pricing problem if there is even a problem at all. Insurance is a false issue.

    I will completely agree with you that we need to return the so-called social conservatives back to the democrats where they came from and where they belong. Let the democrats be the party of statists.

    I know this makes some religious conservatives uncomfortable. But they have to understand that they are not being asked to stop being religiously conservative. But – rather – to keep that in the sphere of life where it belongs – religion. If they wish to bring that into politics, that time has passed and they should find other statists who agree that government should be grown into more spheres of life.

    Scout, I hope as a Goldwater fan. that you appreciate the growth in the libertarian movement in general and even the party.

  • Xerxes says:

    Um, Eric, Elizabeth Warren is not young at all

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:


    Curious. Did Nixon piss you off? I consider him the worst president in US history. Worse than Obama who is only the 6th worst at the moment.

    Nixon was a statist and an embarassment. His few accomplishments were ouweighed by his general damage and the Carter presidency he set up.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    One other note on my worst Presidents. I consider most to be bad. maybe 80%. Maybe 10% are OK. And 10% are good. So there is a whole bunch down in the bad area.

    One reason I thank God for a Constitution that limits the power of the presidency so much. There is only so much damage any one of them can do.

  • Scout says:

    I don’t see much real libertarianism in the Republican Party these days. There is at least a lot of noise (hard to tell about numbers, but I suspect there is enough to influence primaries) that are very willing to sick (sic?) the State on people whose religious or social views differ from theirs.

    Goldwater’s libertarianism was really simple, but profound at the same time. It can be put in one sentence: Leave me alone unless there is a damned good reason (backed by constitutional authority) for the government to be compelling something.

    Nixon was a mixed bag. I’d put him in the lower middle in my rankings, despite everything. Of course, we know looking backwards that he was a completely twisted guy internally whose insecurities and grievances led him to break the law. His foreign policy was sound and largely progressive, however. He was pretty much devoid of ideology. I’ve come to think of that as largely a good thing when it comes to providing a quality governance product.

    “Picking off” the Hispanic community will take a lot more than running the son of Cuban exiles. I don’t think Rubio has nearly the credibility with Latinos that someone like Jeb Bush has.

    As I’ve said tirelessly (and perhaps tiresomely) in this space for more than seven years (EB has hung in with me), I’d strongly recommend just dropping the liberal/conservative labels. They mean nothing. A kind of Gresham’s Law effect has eviscerated them of any real meaning. They are marketing ploys used by pols, many of whom are complete empty suits. Just evaluate the guy on what he proposes to do for the community (at any level) and try to discern whether he has enough intelligence and character to deliver.

  • Scout says:

    BTW, when one is consigning presidents to the bottom of the rankings, it is important to remember that the bottom two to four (I can allow for a little variation) spots have to be reserved for the feckless pre-Civil War guys who let things go off the rails. Messrs. Pierce and Buchanan will always keep any of our more recent incumbents from getting to the bottom of my list.

  • Indy Pendant says:

    Why do we need to “improve in women” when the party already has binders full?

  • T.C.Johnson says:

    I am not sure why Christie is considered a great conservative. I do think he is a great leader. But under his leadership he has increased New Jersey’s budget by 2 billion and property taxes have gone up by almost 20%.

    I am just curious why he is considered a sincere conservative?

  • Scout says:

    I’m not sure who called Christie a “sincere conservative” so I can’t directly answer your question. However, you have to ask yourself some detailed questions about the facts that cause you to have doubts. For example, were the increases in budget and taxes necessary or were they frivolous? Were they increases that Christie advocated or opposed? Property taxes go up and down as a function of home valuations. Did the rates increase or only the underlying values? Des New Jersey have a state property tax or are the tax increases you refer to the aggregate of a lot of local tax decisions?

    You can’t determine who is conservative and who isn’t simply by looking at a budget or tax rates. Conservatives don’t oppose necessary expenditures for core governmental functions and insist, as a matter of fiscal discipline, that revenues be available to pay for those expenditures. What we oppose is waste and government programs that step outside core constitutional responsibilities.

  • T.C.Johnson says:

    I only have a moment so I can’t answer all your questions but to clarify the 2 billion increase is from the budget Christie put forward. The state congress has not approved it yet to best of my knowledge (which may be outdated).

    I do like Christie (except for his stance on gay rights) but he is more moderate on fiscal policy than true conservative.

  • Gaius Baltar says:

    @ Scout

    Right on about the liberal and “conservative” labels and those terms being marketing ploys. I came to the exact same conclusion a few months ago. I am particularly annoyed (given my own views) by the “professional conservatives”. By that I mean those who use “conservatism” as a ploy to promote their own brand, sell books and get ratings for their radio and TV shows while providing no real solutions or answers (other than increasing their bottom line). They only lead their listeners/readers from one “outrage” to the next while they cash in and live with the very liberals they berate on the air.

  • Scout says:

    Yep, GB – there’s a lot of that going on in both directions.

    I had one of my many”Modest Proposals” several years ago as far as labels in Virginia. My idea was that RPV should auction rights to the “conservative” label every primary cycle as a fund-raising device. ONly the highest bidder could call himself a “conservative.” Alas, they didn’t pick up on it, but I think it would have been a “win-win” approach and would have done nothing to lower the level of our internal GOP campaigning.

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    I own a home in New Jersey and I just got my tax bill. I didn’t look closely, but it seemed mainly unchanged. If it went up it was not a lot. In dollars. I know we don’t talk about NJ on here much, but the taxes have been way too high and the schools are atrocious. It is one reason why I bought a home in VA and my kids go to school here. I get much better value for my taxes in Virginia. Christie is the first governor since I started living there in 1993 that has moved the needle in the right direction.

  • Gaius Baltar says:

    It was especially egregious (with “conservatives”) this last election cycle. The “professional conservative” consultants, pollsters and commentators all cashed in while the grass roots were left in shock.

    But the truth is that its been going on for a while (only culminating in 2012) . Tom Delay, Bush, et al figured out that they could throw anything out there, call it “conservative”, and then proceed with the demonization of anyone that disagrees.

    The world was divided between “good” and “evil” and people began to believe that we must have a “good” political party to save us from the other “evil” political party.

    Each party now NEEDS the other to exist so they have something to oppose, hate, villify and demonize. That spread to the news networks. Hannity on one side. Maddow on the other. Now the “news” has become unwatchable propaganda. Each saying that the other is “evil” and beyond the pale. It is all about red meat, “zingers” and entertainment instead of the news.

    Meanwhile the discourse in the country has been reduced to name calling, straw men and situational tactics as opposed to real debate.

Leave Comment