Jindal reincarnates McCain 2000?

seacapt · 11-15-2012, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by mikemike

The nation can have him after 2015. He is doing a great job leading this state successfully navigating the recession, balancing difficult budgets, and reforming healthcare and education. In his second term he has been solidifying and advancing reforms.

You scared me there , for a second I thought you were talking about Obama.

les3547 · 11-15-2012, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

This sort of self-criticism and rejection of "faith-based" conservatism not founded in fact was refreshing in John McCain in 2000, and garnered him the support of many (including me) who used to be Republicans but are now called liberals. Can Jindal make this stick?

I have my doubts that Jindal can make it stick. One reason is that if it is to continue under the banner of the Republican party, then it will still be packed with people who've not changed one iota from the old beliefs. So even if they put, say, a Jindal/Christie ticket together who were interested in being more inclusive, they'd still have a majority of their party in congress who don't agree with them.

However, I am not sure Jindal is actually any different than the old guard, but seems to simply be recommending that Republicans learn to hide their agenda better (which I wouldn't imagine would be difficult for a Democratic candidate to expose). A Slate editorial suggests:

Quote:

Judging by today's Jonathan Martin piece, I'd say Bobby Jindal has the inside track to win a Republican Party primary. That's because he's hit the ideological sweet spot of calling for new economic policies without actually calling for any new policies.

Jindal doesn't want Republicans to change their stance on immigration policy and, in fact, phrases his rejection of a new immigration policy in a manner well-calculated to appeal to white identity politics:

Jindal, the son of Indian immigrants, said the GOP “must reject identity politics” and “treat folks as individuals, as Americans,
not as members of special interest groups.”

Nor will Republicans change their stance on social issues:

On cultural issues, he suggested the party not retreat from its stances opposing abortion rights and gay marriage but rather
soften its tone on such matters.

Instead, Jindal's pitch is that the GOP needs a bold new economic message. But when I asked Martin where he thought Jindal's policy ideas were he pointed to this:

Even more notably, Jindal suggested he’d look favorably on something akin to the “Volcker rule.”

“You’ve seen some conservatives come around to the idea that if banks are going to be using FDIC-insured deposits, they
shouldn’t be allowed to co-mingle those funds with some of their riskier investment banking activity,” Jindal said. “There needs
to be stronger walls between insured deposits, the taxpayer protected side of business and riskier side of business that generate
these risks and profits.”

That's not what the Volcker Rule is. The idea of the Volcker Rule is that insured institutions should be actually prevented from engaging in speculative proprietary trading. Jindal's idea is simply that insured deposits should not be invested in a risky manner. That's a restatement of previous FDIC policy, not a new idea.

And again on education, Jindal's big idea is to simply reiterate longstanding conservative support for vouchers:

To Jindal, that means improving the quality of education for kids across class and racial lines. The author of a major school
reform bill this year, he said education is one example of how government needs to be changed to adapt to the times.

“Let the dollar follow the child instead of making the child follow the dollar,” he said of his policies to support charter,
private and home schooling.

This is, I think, probably a winning primary platform. Republicans would like to win more elections but don't want to change their policies, so they're eager for a candidate who has "new ideas" but no new ideas.

GeneV · 11-15-2012, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by les3547

I have my doubts that Jindal can make it stick. One reason is that if it is to continue under the banner of the Republican party, then it will still be packed with people who've not changed one iota from the old beliefs. So even if they put, say, a Jindal/Christie ticket together who were interested in being more inclusive, they'd still have a majority of their party in congress who didn't agree with them....

I agree. The top of the ticket can't mean much until the party moves. It is encouraging to hear someone raising these issues, but then again, he might be about as consistent as the last GOP nominee.

Nesster · 11-15-2012, 02:15 PM

What was that saying from the previous cycle? "Lipstick on a pig"?

audiobomber · 11-15-2012, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by pxpaulx

Couple him with Chris Christie who comes off to me as pretty honest and straight shooting and they'd have a pretty good ticket come next election.

Originally posted by les3547

So even if they put, say, a Jindal/Christie ticket together who were interested in being more inclusive, they'd still have a majority of their party in congress who don't agree with them.

Jindal-Christie ticket? Isn't Christie considered a traitor to the Party at this point?

Jasvox · 11-16-2012, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Jindal-Christie ticket? Isn't Christie considered a traitor to the Party at this point?

Funny, giving someone due credit and speaking the truth turns your party against you. Reason number 11 the Republican party is flushable.

There need to be a no-party system in the USA, simply a unified party with America's best interest as the platform. The Left-right, Repub-Dem, Lib-Con. Red-Blue, divide is killing our country and only being fueled and fanned by the 24 hour news outlets and their owners. This "us against us" era surely needs to come to an end before the USA dissolves under a wave of myopia and zombie-like stupidity. People themselves are in control of their destiny and are the ones to credit and to blame. We have to open our eyes and remember who built the country and be aware of who will be the ultimate ones to take it down. Not one President can be to blame, but everyone in the country who feels no responsibility for themselves, their own actions and their own potential and way of thinking. The only way to right a course is to open your eyes to the goal, make a plan, never fail to reach the top and work together. Otherwise, doom.

Jason

GeneV · 11-16-2012, 05:56 AM

Interesting, but another conservative is making the same point, but with a much more thorough analysis:

Quote:

The perception that the Republican party serves the interests only of the rich underlies all the demographic weaknesses that get discussed in narrower terms. Hispanics do not vote for the Democrats solely because of immigration. Many of them are poor and lack health insurance, and they hear nothing from the Republicans but a lot from the Democrats about bettering their situation. Young people, too, are economically insecure, especially these days. If Republicans found a way to apply conservative principles in ways that offered tangible benefits to most voters and then talked about this agenda in those terms, they would improve their standing among all of these groups while also increasing their appeal to white working-class voters. For that matter, higher-income voters would prefer candidates who seem practical and solution-oriented. Better “communications skills,” that perennial item on the wish list of losing parties, will achieve little if the party does not have an appealing agenda to communicate.

The Party?s Problem - Ramesh Ponnuru - National Review Online If we are talking demographics, is it only conservatives of Indian or at least somewhat recent immigrant descent which get this?

Last edited by GeneV; 11-16-2012 at 06:04 AM.

jeffkrol · 11-16-2012, 06:13 AM

Quote:

If Republicans found a way to apply conservative principles in ways that offered tangible benefits to most voters and then talked about this agenda in those terms, they would improve their standing among all of these groups

Hmmm.. not sure these 2 aren't , in reality, self exclusionary...

When your whole "sthick" is based on morality, religion, and self reliance.. and your eyes see the reality of few opportunities for many you can only hope to "win" based on illusion..

The conservative principals (applied broadly) only seem to work when individuals have very little influence on the collective, resources are plentiful, and the culture is homogenous...
It's very nature is too rigid.....................and exclusionary......

Quote:

There are 3 components of American political philosophies: social policy, economic policy and foreign policy. Modern conservatism is a theoretical failure in each. I say this as a former conservative, and as someone who has no sympathy for ideological liberalism (but that is another article).
I talk here of conservatism, as a political ideology or philosophy. Not the Republican party or its policies, which may or may not be truly "conservative."

Quote:

Social policy

It is in social matters that conservatism most clearly seeks to "conserve" tradition and established norms. Often this effort at conservation is based not on any rational thinking, but on the perceived value of keeping tradition alive for its own sake.
This idea is destructive and necessarily inhibitive of human progress. Tradition does not have value in its own right. If it did, then the modern American conservative must explain why he supports women's right to vote, since this is a concept totally at odds with almost all human tradition, including his own society's tradition until the early 20th century.

Quote:

Economic Policy

Conservatism defers to the free market, against "big government," excessive regulation or high taxation, and in favor of "consumer choice" and "business freedom."
I have detailed many problems with the orthodox free market capitalist view, in the following hubs:
10 Things You Didn't Know About Economics: Numbers 1-3, and Numbers 4-6, and Numbers 7-10
Capitalism: Myth and Reality: Part 1 and Part 2
The assumptions of modern economics are astonishingly unrealistic. This makes any free market capitalist dogma just as naive as Marxist utopianism.

Quote:

Foreign Policy

Foreign policy conservatism is based on the fantastic premise that the US is such an inherently good country that any American military or diplomatic action abroad is ultimately to the benefit of the whole world. Basically, America can do no wrong. If this sounds like a simplistic characterization, I invite the reader to suggest one major military intervention that conservatives disapprove of in recent history (submit a comment below).

http://secularist10..com/hub/Why-Conservatism-Fails

Then again.. like Christian fundamentalism, if they truly were fundamentalists they'd give all their wealth to the poor and wander the streets preaching the good word, living off the handouts of others...... so it seems the pattern of "do as I say not as I do" is very prevalent.........

Jasvox · 11-16-2012, 07:53 AM

Another GOP Governor weighs in...

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez: Comments like Romney?s set ?us back as a party? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Jason

mikemike · 11-16-2012, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

Another GOP Governor weighs in...

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez: Comments like Romney?s set ?us back as a party? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Jason

The dust has settled, no need for republicans who were never fond of Romney to hold their noses and bite their tongues.

normhead · 11-16-2012, 08:28 AM

Quote:

The dust has settled, no need for republicans who were never fond of Romney to hold their noses and bite their tongues.

I wonder what happened to all the Republicans who were fond of Romney? I'm starting to think there weren't any.

jeffkrol · 11-16-2012, 09:01 AM

Quote:

The Pinocchio Test

Romney’s analysis of the election results is not borne out by the actual election data. In effect, Obama reassembled a slightly less robust version of the coalition that first elected him four years ago — and Romney failed to get enough votes to overcome that.

We don’t mean to knock a man when he’s down (my note: as common liberal failing). But Romney’s comments suggest that his understanding of the election results needs some serious rethinking.

Mitt Romney’s analysis of the election results - The Washington Post

**Rondec** · 11-16-2012, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I wonder what happened to all the Republicans who were fond of Romney? I'm starting to think there weren't any.

Most people who voted for Romney were really voting against Obama. There was very little excitement about Romney (although compared to Bachmann and Perry, there didn't seem to be much of a choice).

GeneV · 11-16-2012, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Jasvox

Another GOP Governor weighs in...

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez: Comments like Romney?s set ?us back as a party? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Jason

I didn't vote for her, but she is making sense. BTW, like the other two who conservatives who have made similar criticisms, her grandfather was an immigrant. OTOH, it is said she was "Susan" Martinez when she grew up in Texas and before she ran for office in this state.

GeneV · 11-16-2012, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

Most people who voted for Romney were really voting against Obama. There was very little excitement about Romney (although compared to Bachmann and Perry, there didn't seem to be much of a choice).

Exactly. And that is the way he ran the campaign. Trying to get an actual plan out of the RR ticket was an exercise in futility. However, they could tell you everything wrong with President Obama's plan.

11-15-2012, 12:43 PM	#17
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by GeneV This sort of self-criticism and rejection of "faith-based" conservatism not founded in fact was refreshing in John McCain in 2000, and garnered him the support of many (including me) who used to be Republicans but are now called liberals. Can Jindal make this stick? I have my doubts that Jindal can make it stick. One reason is that if it is to continue under the banner of the Republican party, then it will still be packed with people who've not changed one iota from the old beliefs. So even if they put, say, a Jindal/Christie ticket together who were interested in being more inclusive, they'd still have a majority of their party in congress who don't agree with them. However, I am not sure Jindal is actually any different than the old guard, but seems to simply be recommending that Republicans learn to hide their agenda better (which I wouldn't imagine would be difficult for a Democratic candidate to expose). A Slate editorial suggests: Quote: Judging by today's Jonathan Martin piece, I'd say Bobby Jindal has the inside track to win a Republican Party primary. That's because he's hit the ideological sweet spot of calling for new economic policies without actually calling for any new policies. Jindal doesn't want Republicans to change their stance on immigration policy and, in fact, phrases his rejection of a new immigration policy in a manner well-calculated to appeal to white identity politics: Jindal, the son of Indian immigrants, said the GOP “must reject identity politics” and “treat folks as individuals, as Americans, not as members of special interest groups.” Nor will Republicans change their stance on social issues: On cultural issues, he suggested the party not retreat from its stances opposing abortion rights and gay marriage but rather soften its tone on such matters. Instead, Jindal's pitch is that the GOP needs a bold new economic message. But when I asked Martin where he thought Jindal's policy ideas were he pointed to this: Even more notably, Jindal suggested he’d look favorably on something akin to the “Volcker rule.” “You’ve seen some conservatives come around to the idea that if banks are going to be using FDIC-insured deposits, they shouldn’t be allowed to co-mingle those funds with some of their riskier investment banking activity,” Jindal said. “There needs to be stronger walls between insured deposits, the taxpayer protected side of business and riskier side of business that generate these risks and profits.” That's not what the Volcker Rule is. The idea of the Volcker Rule is that insured institutions should be actually prevented from engaging in speculative proprietary trading. Jindal's idea is simply that insured deposits should not be invested in a risky manner. That's a restatement of previous FDIC policy, not a new idea. And again on education, Jindal's big idea is to simply reiterate longstanding conservative support for vouchers: To Jindal, that means improving the quality of education for kids across class and racial lines. The author of a major school reform bill this year, he said education is one example of how government needs to be changed to adapt to the times. “Let the dollar follow the child instead of making the child follow the dollar,” he said of his policies to support charter, private and home schooling. This is, I think, probably a winning primary platform. Republicans would like to win more elections but don't want to change their policies, so they're eager for a candidate who has "new ideas" but no new ideas. Last edited by les3547; 11-15-2012 at 06:23 PM.

11-16-2012, 06:13 AM	#23
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Quote: If Republicans found a way to apply conservative principles in ways that offered tangible benefits to most voters and then talked about this agenda in those terms, they would improve their standing among all of these groups Hmmm.. not sure these 2 aren't , in reality, self exclusionary... When your whole "sthick" is based on morality, religion, and self reliance.. and your eyes see the reality of few opportunities for many you can only hope to "win" based on illusion.. The conservative principals (applied broadly) only seem to work when individuals have very little influence on the collective, resources are plentiful, and the culture is homogenous... It's very nature is too rigid.....................and exclusionary...... Quote: There are 3 components of American political philosophies: social policy, economic policy and foreign policy. Modern conservatism is a theoretical failure in each. I say this as a former conservative, and as someone who has no sympathy for ideological liberalism (but that is another article). I talk here of conservatism, as a political ideology or philosophy. Not the Republican party or its policies, which may or may not be truly "conservative." Quote: Social policy It is in social matters that conservatism most clearly seeks to "conserve" tradition and established norms. Often this effort at conservation is based not on any rational thinking, but on the perceived value of keeping tradition alive for its own sake. This idea is destructive and necessarily inhibitive of human progress. Tradition does not have value in its own right. If it did, then the modern American conservative must explain why he supports women's right to vote, since this is a concept totally at odds with almost all human tradition, including his own society's tradition until the early 20th century. Quote: Economic Policy Conservatism defers to the free market, against "big government," excessive regulation or high taxation, and in favor of "consumer choice" and "business freedom." I have detailed many problems with the orthodox free market capitalist view, in the following hubs: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Economics: Numbers 1-3, and Numbers 4-6, and Numbers 7-10 Capitalism: Myth and Reality: Part 1 and Part 2 The assumptions of modern economics are astonishingly unrealistic. This makes any free market capitalist dogma just as naive as Marxist utopianism. Quote: Foreign Policy Foreign policy conservatism is based on the fantastic premise that the US is such an inherently good country that any American military or diplomatic action abroad is ultimately to the benefit of the whole world. Basically, America can do no wrong. If this sounds like a simplistic characterization, I invite the reader to suggest one major military intervention that conservatives disapprove of in recent history (submit a comment below). http://secularist10..com/hub/Why-Conservatism-Fails Then again.. like Christian fundamentalism, if they truly were fundamentalists they'd give all their wealth to the poor and wander the streets preaching the good word, living off the handouts of others...... so it seems the pattern of "do as I say not as I do" is very prevalent......... Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-16-2012 at 06:28 AM.

11-16-2012, 09:01 AM	#27
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	4 pinocchios for mittens Quote: The Pinocchio Test Romney’s analysis of the election results is not borne out by the actual election data. In effect, Obama reassembled a slightly less robust version of the coalition that first elected him four years ago — and Romney failed to get enough votes to overcome that. We don’t mean to knock a man when he’s down (my note: as common liberal failing). But Romney’s comments suggest that his understanding of the election results needs some serious rethinking. Mitt Romney’s analysis of the election results - The Washington Post

11-16-2012, 05:39 PM	#29
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jasvox Another GOP Governor weighs in... New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez: Comments like Romney?s set ?us back as a party? \| The Ticket - Yahoo! News Jason I didn't vote for her, but she is making sense. BTW, like the other two who conservatives who have made similar criticisms, her grandfather was an immigrant. OTOH, it is said she was "Susan" Martinez when she grew up in Texas and before she ran for office in this state. Last edited by GeneV; 11-16-2012 at 05:50 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Racist or not: Jindal	jeffkrol	General Talk	7	09-10-2012 09:45 AM
Jindal.. not enough Fed money!	jeffkrol	General Talk	5	09-05-2012 10:00 AM
Louisiana Gov. Jindal declares state of emergency due to Isaac	jogiba	General Talk	15	08-30-2012 08:32 PM
McCain has issues	jeffkrol	General Talk	11	12-19-2010 11:35 AM
2000 miles and 2000 pictures later	Petthefish	Post Your Photos!	4	10-03-2007 03:04 PM

11-15-2012, 11:48 AM	#16
seacapt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North Carolina , USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,271	Originally posted by mikemike The nation can have him after 2015. He is doing a great job leading this state successfully navigating the recession, balancing difficult budgets, and reforming healthcare and education. In his second term he has been solidifying and advancing reforms. You scared me there , for a second I thought you were talking about Obama.

11-15-2012, 01:50 PM	#18
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830 Original Poster	Originally posted by les3547 I have my doubts that Jindal can make it stick. One reason is that if it is to continue under the banner of the Republican party, then it will still be packed with people who've not changed one iota from the old beliefs. So even if they put, say, a Jindal/Christie ticket together who were interested in being more inclusive, they'd still have a majority of their party in congress who didn't agree with them.... I agree. The top of the ticket can't mean much until the party moves. It is encouraging to hear someone raising these issues, but then again, he might be about as consistent as the last GOP nominee.

11-15-2012, 02:15 PM	#19
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	What was that saying from the previous cycle? "Lipstick on a pig"?

11-15-2012, 02:56 PM	#20
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by pxpaulx Couple him with Chris Christie who comes off to me as pretty honest and straight shooting and they'd have a pretty good ticket come next election. Originally posted by les3547 So even if they put, say, a Jindal/Christie ticket together who were interested in being more inclusive, they'd still have a majority of their party in congress who don't agree with them. Jindal-Christie ticket? Isn't Christie considered a traitor to the Party at this point?

11-16-2012, 03:49 AM	#21
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Originally posted by audiobomber Jindal-Christie ticket? Isn't Christie considered a traitor to the Party at this point? Funny, giving someone due credit and speaking the truth turns your party against you. Reason number 11 the Republican party is flushable. There need to be a no-party system in the USA, simply a unified party with America's best interest as the platform. The Left-right, Repub-Dem, Lib-Con. Red-Blue, divide is killing our country and only being fueled and fanned by the 24 hour news outlets and their owners. This "us against us" era surely needs to come to an end before the USA dissolves under a wave of myopia and zombie-like stupidity. People themselves are in control of their destiny and are the ones to credit and to blame. We have to open our eyes and remember who built the country and be aware of who will be the ultimate ones to take it down. Not one President can be to blame, but everyone in the country who feels no responsibility for themselves, their own actions and their own potential and way of thinking. The only way to right a course is to open your eyes to the goal, make a plan, never fail to reach the top and work together. Otherwise, doom. Jason

11-16-2012, 05:56 AM	#22
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830 Original Poster	Interesting, but another conservative is making the same point, but with a much more thorough analysis: Quote: The perception that the Republican party serves the interests only of the rich underlies all the demographic weaknesses that get discussed in narrower terms. Hispanics do not vote for the Democrats solely because of immigration. Many of them are poor and lack health insurance, and they hear nothing from the Republicans but a lot from the Democrats about bettering their situation. Young people, too, are economically insecure, especially these days. If Republicans found a way to apply conservative principles in ways that offered tangible benefits to most voters and then talked about this agenda in those terms, they would improve their standing among all of these groups while also increasing their appeal to white working-class voters. For that matter, higher-income voters would prefer candidates who seem practical and solution-oriented. Better “communications skills,” that perennial item on the wish list of losing parties, will achieve little if the party does not have an appealing agenda to communicate. The Party?s Problem - Ramesh Ponnuru - National Review Online If we are talking demographics, is it only conservatives of Indian or at least somewhat recent immigrant descent which get this? Last edited by GeneV; 11-16-2012 at 06:04 AM.

11-16-2012, 07:53 AM	#24
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Another GOP Governor weighs in... New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez: Comments like Romney?s set ?us back as a party? \| The Ticket - Yahoo! News Jason

11-16-2012, 08:10 AM	#25
mikemike Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Orleans Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,053	Originally posted by Jasvox Another GOP Governor weighs in... New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez: Comments like Romney?s set ?us back as a party? \| The Ticket - Yahoo! News Jason The dust has settled, no need for republicans who were never fond of Romney to hold their noses and bite their tongues.

11-16-2012, 08:28 AM	#26
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: The dust has settled, no need for republicans who were never fond of Romney to hold their noses and bite their tongues. I wonder what happened to all the Republicans who were fond of Romney? I'm starting to think there weren't any.

11-16-2012, 09:28 AM	#28
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by normhead I wonder what happened to all the Republicans who were fond of Romney? I'm starting to think there weren't any. Most people who voted for Romney were really voting against Obama. There was very little excitement about Romney (although compared to Bachmann and Perry, there didn't seem to be much of a choice).

11-16-2012, 05:41 PM	#30
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rondec Most people who voted for Romney were really voting against Obama. There was very little excitement about Romney (although compared to Bachmann and Perry, there didn't seem to be much of a choice). Exactly. And that is the way he ran the campaign. Trying to get an actual plan out of the RR ticket was an exercise in futility. However, they could tell you everything wrong with President Obama's plan.