Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Yuval Likes Bobby for VP (Maybe)

Levin dissents from the chorus of conservatives who say Jindal isn’t ready. He, Yuval observes, is "moderately experienced," and that’s better than Obama. His lack of foreign policy experience is no big deal, given Mac’s expertise. And his impressive HHS experience makes him strong where McCain is weak. The real argument against Bobby seems to be something like this: McCain has very little chance of winning; Jindal’s great talents will be wasted in a futile campaign, and gone will the the opportunity for him to display his magnificient, incorrptible excellence by transforming LA. The Republicans have so little young talent that Bobby should be saved for a more promising appearance on the national stage later. We also can’t be sure he’s really ready for prime time; it’s asking too much to put him on the national ticket so soon. To which somone might respond: This is a very important election! Very ideological Democrats are bound to get an iron grip on both the presidency and Congress! Even if the ticket loses, Bobby will be in a position to be the prez nominee next time. Anyway, who else we got?! Desperate or semi-desperate times require the audacity of hope!

Discussions - 16 Comments

And yet, if this report is correct, it's going to take more than a simple invitation from McCain to Jindal. They had better be prepared to give him what he wants if it's reasonable and, also, they ought to have a back up plan . . . other ideas?

"PLEASE, don't throw me into the briar patch!"

We have to hear this from The Hindu?

He's an American. He knows the rules.

The fact that Jindal is staying clear of McCain says a great deal about his prudence, his political acumen and his judgement. My opinion of Jindal has just risen, and I already had a high opinion of him.

Why are we trying to attach a star to the ticket when we discarded a star for the top of the ticket? If we were looking for star potential, if we were looking for a guy with marquee appeal, we would have gone with Giuliani.

We allowed New Hampshire to resurrect a political campaign that had died way back in the immigration "reform" battle. That was our first mistake.

Then we allowed "momentum" to dictate and narrow our choices.

Then we allowed ourselves to get to a situation where it was Romney, or McCain, when both were unacceptable.

And now late in the day, when disaster is staring us in the face, in our desperation we reach our for a Jindal, who isn't even 40 years old, who isn't as weathered as he should be, who has a great deal of promise, and we may be marring by attaching him prematurely to a ticket.

And all because we refuse to take charge of our party at the Convention, reject the current group of candidates, and pick someone to represent the GOP.

I'm increasingly convinced that McCain is going to commit some outrage against Conservatives late in the race. He'll be behind, and he'll try to make that up by a supreme act of "marverickness," which will entail some outrage upon the base. The exact nature of the outrage hasn't yet revealed itself in my crystal ball. But the tremors in the force leave me with little doubt that such a major disturbance in the political order of things is nigh. And that McCain will be the catalyst.

That being the case, the only way McCain can secure the votes of guys like me is to attach to the ticket a star, a TRUE Conservative, a true culture warrior, a guy with a seemly contempt for the establishment, for the State Department and for the NYT.

McCain has committed many a blunder in his political career. But his supreme blunder may be if he takes the votes of guys like me for granted. If I don't have assurances of the caliber of judicial appointments, and the caliber of the AG and the SG, and their staffs, if I don't have assurances that his VP pick is a rock solid Conservative, and if I don't have assurances that he'll not go forward with his insane immigration policies, and his policies that erode core sovereign prerogatives, ----------------- then I'll stand aside, and not vote for him.

I get sick to my stomach when I think how I voted for Bush, worked for him, blogged for him, campaigned for him. I'm mortified thinking of the time and effort that I spent articulating and defending policies that I sensed were already slipping into incoherence. I felt major tremors in the force, {so to speak} warning me that Bush was not to be trusted, that he was on the verge of espousing himself to utter disaster. I ignored those instincts and told myself that I was over-reacting, that I was imagining things. I'm not going to go down that path again. I'm not going to ignore those warning signs again. And certainly not for a guy who seems to get off irritating and attacking Americans like me, who love our country, appreciate American Exceptionalism and aren't willing to let our country fall under the guidance of elites who are hostile to everything that our country stands for.


Jindal doesn't add any votes to the ticket, nor (unlike Dick Cheney) is he particularly qualified to be president should the need arise. He should be let alone and allowed to focus on improving a sinkhole of a state. I agree Bobby is an impressive guy and bears watching. But if he has it in him to become a national leader, we'lll know by how he does kicking the asses of a bunch of crooks in Louisiana.

Did not know that Jindal recently was on the Leno show . . . hmmm. He's got plans.

I have seen several Jindal speeches and interviews on Youtube. I am struck by how rarely he refers to himself or his policies as conservative. I think that is a refreshing change from the GOP primaries, where the candidates constantly hit you over the head with how conservative they were and how much Ronald Reagan would approve of them. Come to think of it, Reagan didn't feel the need to constantly refer to himself a conservative either. All he had were principles, a solid political agenda, and good communication skills.

That's an interesting post, that Jindal was on Leno. That's strongly suggestive.

There is another reason why it might be a good idea to attach Jindal to the ticket. Louisiana politics is notoriously corrupt, and little gets done because of that web of connections and corruption. Jindal might be paralyzed in office, unable to get a real agenda of change through, so it might not be a bad idea to try to get him beyond the pathology of Bayou politics, before he becomes tainted, before his reputation becomes besmirched, through no fault or deficiency of his own.

In the modern era, the VP rarely delivers a state. LBJ was said to have delivered Texas for Kennedy, but was it LBJ, or was it the complete control the Dems had on the state, and the polling stations to boot.

I wouldn't look for a guy to deliver a state per se, but I would look for a guy who would force the opposition to spend a good chunk of cash defending a state. Money thrown out in defense is money not available for offense. Every dollar spent by the Dems trying to hold Pennsylvania and New Jersey, is a dollar not spent trying to wrest the Buckeye state away from the GOP.

This was one of the primary reasons I favoured Giuliani. Romney brought nothing to the table, whereas Giuliani brought New Jersey, Pennsylvania and put the Empire state in play.

Which states does McCain put in play? Pennsylvania? I don't think he offers much of anything to the GOP, and I very much doubt whether he'll be able to hold Ohio, which means we'll lose.

I am glad to see the consensus is that Jindal would be wasted this time around. If he ever hitched himself up to a man like McCain, I would never vote for him again.

Lawler is simply being desperate here. Face it Lawler, the GOP failure is massive - the country deserves real liberals for a while. Stop being such a desperate company man and start thinking conservatively for a bit...

I'm not sure he would be wasted. Rather I suspect that might be the case.

The failure of the GOP is not the failure of Conservatism. It's the failure of a Republican party that foolishly yielded the reins to the Rockefeller Wing, which did as they always do, expeditiously lead us over the cliff.

The Rockefeller Wing was almost without principle, without conviction; they existed in an ideological wasteland. And that's exactly the situation we're in today, due in very large part to the Bush family.

Did not know that Jindal recently was on the Leno show . . . hmmm. He's got plans

I agree Jindal has plans, but if he's as smart as I think he is, they don't include being on the ticket. Jindal has star potential as most realize, but you can't run for VP after 8 months as governor. His plan is to use the VP buzz to raise his national name recognition for a likely run in 2012 (I'm assuming the near certainty that McCain will lose). Jindal knows it would look bad to leave LA now. Also politicians have to gamble. The gamble isn't running for VP with an old patriot. That is automatic. The gamble is the possibility of turning around what is (potentianally) the worst government in the country. If Jindal appears to fix LA in four years, the sky could be the limit, and who better to outflank Pres. Obama on brains, religion, age, race, family, etc.

Clint is spot on. Picking someone like JIndal would also neutralize the Republicans' best line of attack on Obama -- that he has far too little experience to be president. We don't want to take away our ability to talk about that by picking a Veep candidate who is also inexperienced.

Anon extends on the point I made elsewhere.

And similar read is necessary for Romney on the VP spot.

A major line of attack against Obama that is going to be developed throughout the campaign is Obama's kooky theology. Whether McCain finds it distasteful or not, Wright/Cone et al and Black Supremacism and Black Liberation theology is front and center. And should remain so from here on out. We don't want do anything that would tend to detract from that. We don't want to enable any media type to say it may be a "penalty," but it's "offsetting penalties." Which means Romney has to be out.

Can you imagine the story line if we had gone with Romney during this whole sordid affair going on in Texas? It would have been a disaster.

Frum and others said that a man's religious belief had to be off-limits during a campaign. That America and Americans "couldn't go there." I said they did, that it was absolutely necessary to preserve the ability of the American people to review a person's religious faith and practice.

Which of us would now question the wisdom of my position vis-a-vis Frum's, what with Wright/Cone looming off stage of the Obama candidacy?

Obama is decidedly OUTSIDE of the mainstream of Christian religious belief. And that needs to be held against him this Fall. Or you could say he falls outside of the pale of mainstream Judeo-Christian religious thought. Either way, 20 years in the pews of Wright is unrebuttable evidence that he is NOT suited for The White House.

Of course this isn't the ideal way to win an election. This isn't how it's all supposed to unfold according to Social Science teachers. But it will do in a pinch. And this is a pinch.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/12321