Showing posts with label Jindal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jindal. Show all posts

August 18, 2015

On the campaign trail today

Overpriced snark.
Some notes from the campaign trail today, with an appropriate amount of snark. It's early, there are a lot of contenders and it turns out, snark and cynicism are easy. And a bit fun.  There's plenty of snark to go around. I haven't decided on a horse to back, so don't take it personally if I offend your candidate of choice. There aren't enough Democrats in the race so I'm a little short on snark there. Not my fault - Hillary has frightened almost all comers away. Besides, my snark is Canadian snark - so snark light.

Bobby Jindal sounded off on Scott Walker's health care plan. Because, that's big news. Nothing like hitting someone at the bottom of the top tier to grab some headlines. Right?

On the lighter side, there was Marco Rubio's day, could a perfect spiral become a downward spiral? It's not a big deal, but it's not going to help him. Unless he wants to play for the Redskins Native Americans.

The Washington Post held  a pity party for Bernie Sanders and his run against big media outlets. Like..the...Washington...Post?

Is Rand Paul souring on Rand Paul? At least, is Rand Paul souring on Rand Paul for president? "Rand Paul endorses Rand Paul!" Rand Paul, Rand Paul, Rand Paul. Did I say Rand Paul enough? Somebody has to do it.

Rick Perry shared his true feelings on the band Metallica. It's about time he stopped ducking the issue.

Hillary Clinton doesn't think Black Lives Matter, changing hearts doesn't matter, only regulation matters. Stand back, there's an implosion in progress.

Jeb Bush feels America has under-empowered the NSA. No wonder Clinton wants to face him.

Mike Huckabee declared the West Bank is part of Israel. That solves that.

Rick Santorum...wait you're still reading?  Alright, he attacked Ben Carson's medical research.

Ben Carson looks like he might win (Arizona).

Democrat Martin O'Malley poised to debate himself.  He stands a good chance of winning too.

Donald Trump, the New York Times has officially declared him the devil. And Heidi Klum, declares him an idiot. Seems like a smart marketing ploy except if it were it would be obvious and therefore, not smart.

Carly Fiorina slipped up and praised some Muslims.  Back in 2001. Is Michele Bachmann just jealous?

February 13, 2013

Press going after Rubio like he was Jindal or something

The good news:  The GOP does have a good class of rising stars.  They have a lot of energy, and a lot of ideas and even charisma.  The bad news: the left wants to destroy them all before they have a chance to find their legs and they aren't shy about throwing anything and everything at the person they are attacking.

They'll go so far as to attack someone for reaching for a drink of water during a speech.

That's juvenile, pedantic and beneath real journalism.  That CBS needs it pointed out, sadly comes as no surprise.  They are too busy following in the footsteps of Dan Rather with the gotcha journalism when it comes to conservatves and Republicans and anyone Tea Party related.

June 5, 2010

Obama Getting Tough When The Getting Is Politically Necessary

Stories like this that attempt to portray the President in a positive light used to make my head spin with their unbelievable bias.  Now I look at this sort of journalism storytelling from the AP as merely self-defeating for liberalism.  They aren't fooling too many people any more. And on some level they do seem to be figuring that out.

January 11, 2010

Palin sly as a Fox?


The New York Times is reporting that Sarah Palin has accepted a role as a Fox News analyst. Sly? Well, maybe or maybe not. It depends on what she's planning as the step after that. And only Sarah Palin knows that answer.

 Sarah Palin has done an excellent job of two things since her resignation as Governor of Alaska. (1) Slowly repairing her personal approval ratings, helped in large part by her book tour and a book that the best the left could come up with to skewer her over was a jovial jab or two from Captain Kirk, which Palin was able to respond to in kind. (2) Effectively dissect the health care debate and other issues (energy) through effective use of her Facebook page.

The former repair effort, is somewhat in line with a typical politician's efforts to foster a positive public image. Book tours, speaking engagements and chats with friendly media (at least less unfriendly, Oprah) all help longer term public perception. She's been able to overcome a large chunk of the unfair negative publicity she received as a VP candidate with John McCain.

The latter, her Facebook page, is an outside the box approach to marshaling public opinion and she's done a relatively masterful job in the relatively new medium. It's an unorthodox approach to politics, not unlike say the Obama campaign of 2008, which was clearly an effective new style of campaigning.

Is she in a better political position to day than she was during the 2008 campaign or immediately after her resignation as governor? Most certainly. Is she ready to run for President in 2012? I couldn't say objectively at this point either way. I doubt anyone could reasonably well.

However, a few key points seem relatively clear to me.
  • Having mastered Facebook, there are two benefits to moving to Fox News. (1) She's not standing still.  Standing still in politics is an invitation to death. (2) Having found the setting of a web based monologue a successful megaphone, moving to the medium of TV, in a similar monologue type communication, is a logical next step.  It's the same idea with a bigger audience, more exposure, and more opportunity to build on her growing credibility.  I guess as a third it might give her an opportunity to practice debating for a while, prior to any further runs at office.
  • Unfortunately there's a downside to it as well. (1) Any mistakes become that much more visible.  And make no mistake, critics will be looking for any infinitesimal mistake she makes. (2)  It seems a little less plausible as an outside-the-box political move because (a) Mike Huckabee has been there, done that already and (b) with the experience factor clearly hampering President Obama, the public might demand more experience in 2012.  The role of news analyst, with all apologies to the likes of Glenn Beck, is not going to give her more executive experience.  Then again, with the throw them out mentality of the Tea Parties, maybe it helps her retain that outsider feel.
  • A failed role due to bad ratings (which are unlikely at first but could become an issue if she's not exciting as an analyst), are other possible area that critics could jump all over.
There's possible gain and there's also risk.  Whether this is a good move or not depends on a number of things. It depends primarily though on where she plans to go and how the timing jibes with the mood of the country.  Is she planning on a 2012 run?  If she is, her window at Fox can't go much beyond the end of 2010.  The logistics of starting a 2012 run for the Presidency is a two year full time job.  If that's the case, the Fox stint will be short indeed.  Critics will call her on it.  she has to bank on being able to say she's encouraged and spurred to action by the GOP victories in November 2010 to make that argument disappear.
On the other hand, she may be playing the slow grinding ground game, setting herself up for 2016 or 2020.  That may put her in a better position to do more in the interim and better establish her credibility.  But there could be a resurgent Bobby Jindal to contend with.  The iron is hot this year for conservatives.  She may be missing a golden opportunity by delaying.  Then again, maybe she sees it as too soon for herself.  Only Sarah Palin knows what's next for her at this point.  Like many others, I'm anxious to find out.

November 4, 2009

Temperature Check on GOP 2012 Candidates

Back in the spring I did an early analysis (premature, no doubt) on the likely GOP candidates for President in 2012.  I looked at the relative merits of Palin, Huckabee, Jindal, Sanford, Gingrich and Romney.  Things have, to say the least, changed.  It's about time for another premature temperature check.

Next week I'll take a look again at the possible candidates but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out some noticeable changes.  Gone will be Jindal and Sanford and Gingrich.  For various reasons, they are no longer viable candidates.  Of course that is arguable which I'll be discussing my rationale in this post today.  Added to the mix will be Tim Pawlenty and possibly Haley Barbour. Returing for re-evaluation will be Romney, Huckabee and Palin.

Why is Jindal out?  He delivered the Republican response to the first Obama State of the Union address.  It was flat and probably did a lot to torpedo his chances in 2012.  Jindal has a bright future in the GOP and in politics.  He's still young and will eventually surface as a candidate.  But I don't think it will be before 2016, and more importantly, I don't think he thinks so either.  Jindal may run in 2012, but if he does, he's a long shot at best.

Why is Sanford out? In case you missed it, an extra-marital affair in Argentina combined with a borderline missing person case when Sanford went missing for a few days to cheat on his wife.  I don't think that sort of thing will slip past the conservative base.  Unfortunately Sanford has some great conservative ideas and credentials, but he's doomed himself either to at least 2016 if he can repair his image over the long haul, or more likely, he's lost his chance permanently.

Why is Gingrich out? Scozzafava, plain and simple.  He backed not only the wrong horse, he backed a very liberal Democrat in Republican clothing despite the hue and cry from conservatives.  He stubbornly stuck to his I'm right on this attitude until Scozzafava, backed out of the race and then backed the Democrat.  That's not just egg on Newt's face, it's in his pockets, his shoes and all over his hair.  It doesn't seem on the surface like something that is as big as the right is making it out to be, but make no mistake in many quarters Newt is being pilloried for this.  Scozzafava is just the straw that broke the camel's back.  He's also hopped on board the global-warming-scare train.  He's cavorted with Hillary Clinton and in general, come to embody the watered down, beltway Republican that the party is looking to purge right now.  Centrist Republican or right wing Republican, civil war or not, no one wants a bunch of self-serving, unlistening representatives at any level of governement.  Newt, is toast.

Why is Tim Pawlenty in?  He seems serious about running.  He may fill the void vacated by Sanford and Jindal in terms of positioning.  Without Pawlenty and Palin in the race, we're left with Huckabee and Romney.  I don't think the base sees either of those as the second coming of Reagan.  Palin maybe could be. I know a lot of conservatives don't see that in her, but the question you have to ask yourself is why is CNN running polls on her viability for the Presidency and not on say Romney or Huckabee at this point?  But Pawlenty probably sees a real opening, especially if Palin is the favorite next time.

Why is Haley Barbour in? Just because he's been mentioned. I don't know if he would seriously consider running but he'd make another good alternative to have in the mix for the same reasons as Pawlenty.  But it's just speculation on him right now compared to the others who are likely candidates for a Presidential run.

Next Week - the assessments of Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty and Barbour.

September 2, 2009

Sarah Palin vs. Bobby Jindal

Now that sufficient time has passed since some tell tale events, it's worthwhile to do an evaluation on a couple of prominent Republican would-be contenders for the 2012 GOP nomination, namely Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal. The tell tale events in question are Palin's resignation speech and Jindal's retort to Obama's address that was prefaced by the infamous Chris Matthews' "Oh God" comment. Both limelight moments are instructive as to the possible paths of the contenders.

The objectives of both instances were not identical. That in itself is instructive. Palin's resignation, if you take her at her word, was motivated by a desire to do more for America, and to relieve Alaska from the burden of stupid legal battles in the face of frivolous lawsuits. Jindal's titular purpose was to refute the President's mandate with a better one, with solid backing and to be able to get the American public to buy into what he had to say. Both Palin and Jindal had additional motives. Jindal's were political and so were Palin's (in addition to relieving some of the stress on her family).

Jindal, who clearly has a future in the Republican party and in American politics, was given a golden opportunity. A prime time rebuttal of Obama's vision for America. Taking the opportunity was a political gamble for him personally and also for the Republican party. The party was trotting out a relative unknown to combat what has to be considered a heavyweight bout. Jindal was up not only against Obama's supposed rhetorical prowess but also a clearly partisan press ready to pounce on any mistake, any shortcoming, including as it turned out, being boring.

For Jindal it was a personal gamble. His relative youth and political inexperience were no preparation for what he was facing. For him to catapult beyond a governorship into a serious contender for the GOP nomination in 2012 and indeed the Presidency itself, required a Herculean effort and an unassailable showing. The press would assail his comments regardless. But the gamble was this; if he could connect with the public, and bypass the media filter in the same way that Reagan did, he would in all likelihood immediately surpass Sara Palin as the de facto leadership favorite for the GOP. More on Palin later.

It was a tall order for Jindal. There aren't many Reagans around. There never have been, there never will be. The MSM like to refer to it as gravitas. Stupid word. Jeffery Lord better described it yesterday in the American Spectator as the Winston Churchill factor. So it was a calculated risk. And as it turned out, a bit too much of a long shot. Jindal while having tried to personalize the rebuttal and connect directly with Americans, clearly fell short. A 'wow' factor rebuttal, regardless of the subsequent sniping by the MSM, would have been a big, big win for Jindal, but the price for falling short was also very steep.

You'll notice, or in fact may not have noticed, that Jindal has been toiling away in relative obscurity since. He's a solid politician with a growing success record and good conservative credentials. But he's green, and that can't always be overcome quickly, it takes time. President Obama got extremely lucky. [By the way, Obama is now acting like the gambler who wins a big hand at the black jack table and is now in the process of losing it all back to the house in smaller increments. He's going to go home broke.] Jindal, did not get lucky. He was humdrum and he fell into the common conservative blunder of being right on detail but weak on the sales job.

It may end up serving his career well in the end. More seasoning never hurts. The GOP faithful may be reticent to hire on a neophyte in light of the abysmal Obama record so far. It will give him time to establish a record and earn his political chops as well. I would be surprised if he ran for the Presidency in 2012. Maybe 2016 or 2020.

Contrast Jindal with Sarah Palin. She's not been able to do anything since last September without being under a microscope. Everything from her clothing to her past to her family had been so thoroughly scrutinized by the press who were bent on personal destruction. From the beginning they were bent on trapping her and getting a "gotcha" moment. Compare her treatment with the many Obama's gaffes (remember 57 states?) and the kid gloves the press used on him if you doubt that.

Palin's resignation speech was certainly not her best. It was rambling and also hum drum. While she covered off some important facts, she also did a very weak sales job. The press, still preoccupied with her Churchillian aura of being a head of the table personality, and still bent on destroying her because she just might be able to topple Obama, savaged her. Not only the left maligned her, but many press-RINOs as well (albeit for their own intellectual elitist reasons). The attacks were to be expected. She also has a significant sales job ahead of her if she wants to contend in 2012.

The difference is that as long as Palin is making waves she will remain in the limelight. She doesn't need to do much to make waves because the press has it in for her. While they may be able to damage her short term, it may ultimately backfire on them. By keeping her in the limelight they keep her chances alive. Bad press is better than no press, just ask Bobby Jindal.

With her resignation Palin achieved what she wanted to achieve - freedom to move from a defensive posture on Alaskan politics to move to on offensive role on Obamacare, and the stimulus package. She has already successfully leveraged that role in the debate on Obamacare. Her 'death panels' Facebook comments swung the debate in a way no one else has been able to do. It was timely, and it was in as an innocuous a place as her Facebook account. But it set off a firestorm.

Meanwhile Jindal, with his depth of conservatism, is unfortunately sort of out in the cold looking in at Palin, perhaps enviously, perhaps just learning from the situation. Two different speeches, both weak, but with different outcomes. The deck, seemingly stacked against Palin, actually is working in her favor. She's getting attention. She's making a difference in debates. Palin is working very effectively with the hand she's been dealt and the speech itself has been relegated to inconsequential in the eyes of the press. They've since locked into the 'death panels' post. And with every post, she knows that it will be savaged. She can plan for the counter claims and cat calls prior to writing it. Meanwhile, Jindal, having been dealt an opportunity for a winning hand seems to have squandered it and may need to sit at the table a while longer in order to get another shot at a big payoff. Ultimately both Palin and Jindal will succeed. How are where remains to be determined, but both have too much going for them to not.

April 10, 2009

Survey: Your choice for GOP 2012?

This week Nonsensible Shoes published articles assessing 6 top conservative contenders for the GOP nomination in 2012.  The assessments are linked below.

Mitt Romney
Mark Sanford
Bobby Jindal
Sarah Palin
Mike Huckabee

Now it's your turn to have your say.  Vote below for the candidate of your choice. 

[Update - survey layout changed, also, now using flash instead of Javascript]


April 7, 2009

Assessing GOP 2012 - Jindal

In the continuing series of high level assessments of 2012 GOP possible candidates, let's take a look at Bobby Jindal. Boby Jindal currently serves as the Governor of Louisiana. He was rumored to be shortlisted for the McCain VP slot in 2008 and is rumored to be a top contender for the GOP 2012 nomination.

[Others assessed: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee , Mark Sanford, Mitt Romney]

Experience: In October 2007, Bobby Jindal was elected Governor of Louisiana. At 36 years of age, he became the youngest sitting Governor in America, and the first Indian-American Governor in history. Previously, in 2003 he had run for Governor and though he led after the general election, he lost in the runoff election.

Prior to becoming Governor 2007, he was elected as a Congressman in 2004 and re-elected in 2006 before running for Governor. Bobby Jindal is young and has a short track record on executive experience. In total he has been a political representative since 2004 and had executive experience for less than two years at this point. Working in Jindal's favor though, are two points. Firstly, that by 2011, when the GOP nomination process starts to kick in, his experience will have 3 more years added to it. Instead of two years of executive experience he will be able to boast 5 years. Secondly, the current sitting President was able to count community service as experience and had a far shorter resume than Jindal has and will have by 2012.

Grade: D-. While Jindal's thinner experience may help him against Obama in 2012 since he'll have a stronger relative starting point by then, he will be running in the primaries against entrants with much longer resumes and more experience to their credit.

Likability/Electability: Jindal has a likability factor about him. Some of his youthful energy inspires it, and the fact that he's atypical of Washington (both in terms of ethnicity and in terms of route to the top) can only help with those who like an underdog and with those who view the Republicans as the party of old white men (which it is, along with being the party of everybody else except those who are voting illegally). But Jindal's tepid speech in response to pointed out a weakness for Jindal: his very favorable and slightly favorable ratings added up to only 15% nationally - something the left was all to eager to pounce upon. Is it a net negative to have such low positives? Not necessarily but Jindal does have his work cut out for him, since nearly 60% viewed him as an unknown commodity.

That means that Jindal is still a fairly blank slate nationally. Given the state of the depth of knowledge of much of the electorate, I (hesitantly) actually view that as a positive. Jindal is an unknown in the way President Obama is still to many, a virtual unknown and more an emotional feeling than an ideological compatriot. Jindal can leverage that to build some strong positives for himself over the next 3 years. The negative side is that with the thin resume, the left is going to latch onto whatever it can scare the nation if Jindal is the nominee. One area I'd expect them to assault is his stance on Intelligent Design. While that may help him in the primaries, it may hinder him versus Obama in an increasingly secular nation. Then again, maybe not - America is still a Christian-dominated nation and Jindal's conversion to Catholicism may be a boon to him too.

Meanwhile his state popularity is pretty high, which bodes somewhat well for Jindal in a national light. Add to that that Jindal may leverage his popularity in Louisiana just as he says he will - to run for re-election in that state in 2011, making a 2012 run for him difficult as he will be entering the game a little late and at a disadvantage. And last but not least, his favorable ratings among conservatives seems pretty solid.



Grade: B- (that 2012 may be too early for Jindal is important, as is his current lack of name recognition nationally).

Foreign Affairs: One superficial advantage Bobby Jindal has in this area with the American public is his ethnicity. He can certainly claim a more cosmopolitan background than other GOP potential nominees and he can go toe-to-toe with Obama on that score. But foreign affairs is much more than the superficial as conservatives know and President Obama, may yet discover.

He has a common sense approach to a few foreign policy issues that he has had the opportunity to vote on while he was in Congress. Specifically, he voted in favor of deterring foreign arms transfers to China, and in favor of restricting UN funding in order to get that institution to implement reforms.

Much like some of the other GOP hopefuls, Jindal has a limited exposure to much of the foreign affairs environment. Conservatives have argued that the Oval Office is not the place for on the job training. While that is true, apparently from a voter perspective that no longer matters. Witness President Obama. So while his understanding of core principles will guide him, his lack of experience may not be as much a hindrance as it would be for say Governor Palin. Here his low profile may give him room to grow into a foreign policy position that Americans will feel comfortable with, as opposed to Palin, whom has already been tainted by Democratic ridicule.

Grade: C- (based strictly on his ability to be hawkish on national security and the ability to guide his own blank slate in a policy direction of conservative leaning).

Economy: Bobby Jindal very visually refused to accept stimulus money from the federal bailout stimulus and voted to make the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent. He voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. Those are solid points in Jindal's favor.

Conversely he voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and voted in favor of increasing the minimum wage. The Club for Growth scired Congressman Jindal a 55% in both 2006 and 2007. Hardly a ringing endorsement. But counterbalancing that, the progressive group Citizens for Tax Justice gave Jindal a rating of 0% for his support on progressive taxation. That's a plus.

However like other candidates, there's some gaps to be filled in and for Jindal this is one area like that. He apparently has no noticeable position on fixing social security.

Grade: C+

Military: Bobby Jindal voted in favor of allowing the military to continue recruiting on college campuses., and voted against redeployment of troops out of Iraq. There is not a long track record to indicate that Bobby Jindal is either a hawk or a dove when it comes to the military. There have been reports of friction between Jindal and some former Generals;

BATON ROUGE -- The Louisiana National Guard is suffering from low morale, leadership problems and nepotism, according to a group of retired generals appointed by Gov. Bobby Jindal to review the military department's operations.

The governor's office, however, has dismissed some of the suggestions made by the generals and has refused to release the report, citing executive privilege.

The disagreement between the administration and the panel of generals erupted last week when Jindal reappointed Maj. Gen. Bennett Landreneau as the state's adjutant general without reviewing the report by the governor's Recommendation Committee for the Adjunct General of the Army National Guard, a position that oversees the Louisiana National Guard.

The generals on the panel said they were "flabbergasted and insulted" after Jindal ignored their input, according to a letter sent Friday to the governor's office by former Louisiana Adjutant Gen. Ansel "Buddy" Stroud, the panel's chairman.



Perhaps a trouble spot for the Governor with conservatives, but the details behind this may be political in nature.

Grade: C- (Jindal's first incomplete).

National / Border Security: Bobby Jindal again has displayed a common sense approach to security. The issue though, when he talks about freedom to unleash American ingenuity contrasts for some with the freedoms he seeks to curb with respect to national security. For example, he favors allowing warrantless electronic surveillance. While the reality is that this is a common sense approach, it does create a hypothetical opening for abuse, and an opening for those who argue that the GOP is anti-freedom. Quite the conundrum, not just for Jindal but for national security conservatives.

In the more cut-and-dried department, Jindal is in favor of building a border security fence on the Mexican border and scored high grades from NumbersUSA's ratings on him (overall, an A-, and an A+ on border control and an A on interior enforcement).

Grade: A-.

Social Issues: In addition to some previously mentioned elements, Jindal is pro-life, and supports the one man - one woman definition of marriage, he supports capital punishment and has a hard anti-drug stance. He also is in favor of better education and stronger discipline in schools;

About 70 people gathered at the courthouse annex in New Roads, the center of parish government, and listened as Jindal, a Republican, emphasized his commitment to improving education.In recent months, education has been a hot topic as the parish grapples with a lack of certified teachers, desegregation of its two public high schools, and tackling high drop-out rates.

Before the meeting, Merilynn Hammonds said she hoped Jindal would weigh in on the parish’s low academic test scores.While Jindal did not speak about test scores specifically, he said a new Louisiana means allocating more money for education.

Throughout the meeting, Jindal stuck to a similar script from previous town hall meetings, echoing much of what he said during a Dec. 1 stop in St. James Parish.

In both meetings, Jindal emphasized his vision of “putting a great teacher in every classroom.”“We lose 50 percent of our teachers five years after they graduate (from college),” he said.

Teachers leave the state for higher paying jobs, but the primary reason they leave, Jindal said, is the lack of discipline in the classroom.

On the Second Amendment he voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers and voted to ban gun registration & trigger lock laws in Washington D.C.

Grade: B

Conservatism: While the Republican response by Governor Jindal to Obama's was widely panned, and it was indeed dull, the principles he discusses, the points he make, show a clear delineation between liberal and conservative thinking.



Sorry for the Olbermann ending

He touches on small government, individual freedom, lower taxes, wasteful spending, energy independence, innovative spirit.



He talks about universal Health Care, but outside of government. He talks about education and charter schools, real transparency in government and national defence and the military. All in the right way.

Grade: A-. He says all the right things, albeit in a bland way.

Overall: Bobby Jindal had a rising star in the important GOP inner circles, but may have caused a temporary set-back with his tepid and unexciting response to President Obama's speech several weeks back. Imagine the buzz if he had scored a big hit with the speech? Nevertheless that's an early and forgettable event. Jindal's real problem is his thin tenure and his need to fill in some unknowns about himself with conservative voters, and to garner some name recognition nationally in 2009. If he waits too long beyond that he won't have enough of a brand recognition to share with the electorate later on. Jindal has risen quickly and may be able to leverage his tabula rasa positively, or it could come back to haunt him if he allows others to fill up that page for him. He must define himself and quickly rather than allowing others to do it for him. That would include setting an expectation (unofficially) on whether he intends to run in 2012.

Grade: B-, with the ability to float quickly to an A by 2012 or sink to an F. Jindal's prospects are still more than a bit of a wild card at this point.

March 22, 2009

Bank Bailouts - HANDS OFF!!

To the Democrats: You chose to bail them out, which means you chose to allow them to act in what they believe is their own best interest. If you reward failure then failure will continue.

However, government bailouts should not come with strings. Either you believe lending money to financial institutions will help them to stabilize or you don't. The government does not run AIG, Citi or Chase. Nor should they. Leave the banks alone to manage their bailout funds or don't lend them the money. You don't own them and America is not a Soviet system. At least not yet. Government intervention does not solve everything, in fact it usually makes things worse.

To the banks: If you don't want the strings attached with the money, follow the examples of Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal - just say no. Don't whine. Everybody just man up.

February 25, 2009

Jindal finds his legs.

After a pedestrian response to President Obama's pedestrian speech, Governor Jindal on the today show, finds his legs. He was fired up and focused.



Much better, Governor. Told you he'd find his legs.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This