Desperate Democrats attack Bobby Jindal’s religion Updated: Are Louisiana Dems editing Jindal’s Wikipedia page? Update: Ad added

posted at 9:44 am on August 21, 2007 by Bryan

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. The Louisiana Democrats are the same bunch that mismanaged the NOLA levees for years and then planned out much of the politicization of Hurricane Katrina before it ever made landfall, calling in Clintonistas like James Lee Watt to help them craft an anti-Bush message. They failed to use the dozens of school buses all over the city, then screamed for buses from the feds. They kept the Red Cross out of New Orleans and then blamed the feds for the lack of supplies for the stranded. They spread rumors of riots and looting, but couldn’t send their ghost police force, many of whom had deserted their jobs, out to maintain law and order. Of all the cynical and corrupt Democrats in the country, the ones in Louisiana are certainly among the most corrupt and that breeds an unhealthy amount of cynicism to go along with it.

So now they’re attacking GOP front runner for governor, Bobby Jindal, on his religion. The aim is to make Louisiana Protestants fear or loathe him enough to hand the election to yet another machine Democrat. How tolerant.

The Rothenberg Political Report has seen the ad described in the story. The ad itself isn’t online anywhere I could find.

In one of the hardest hitting – Republicans will undoubtedly say “dirtiest” – television ads aired in history, the Louisiana Democratic Party is accusing Rep. Bobby Jindal of being anti-Protestant.

The bizarre charge is delivered by an unidentified woman in a new Louisiana Democratic Party TV ad produced by Carvin/Seder Communications, a Louisiana-based consulting firm whose clients have included former Governor Edwin Edwards (D-La.), Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (D).

In the TV spot, the announcer charges that Jindal wrote articles that “insulted thousands of Louisiana Protestants,” and she holds up an article in which she says Jindal “doubts the morals and questions the beliefs of Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals and other Protestant religions.”

The ad directs interested viewers to a website, www.JindalonReligion.com. (However, unless you are a subscriber to The New Oxford Review, you won’t be able to read Jindal’s entire articles.)

That’s clever. Most viewers who do go to the site won’t bother to pay for the subscription or buy the articles individually. But they will see that there’s a real set of articles with Jindal’s by-line on them, so they’ll conclude that the ad had some substance to it without actually reading what Jindal wrote.

Democrats would scream bloody murder if anyone, say, attacked Keith Ellison for being a Muslim, and many have screamed at the mere hint that Barack Obama was schooled in a madrassah as a child. But in Louisiana they’re playing the religion card in a devious, underhanded, desperate way. Hopefully Jindal will make them regret it.

Update: Influence Peddler has the ad and a link to one of the articles that the Democrats are using to bludgeon Jindal. Surprise, surprise, the Democrats are mischaracterizing what Jindal wrote in the now 13-year-old article.

Update: Captain Ed bought the article in question, and finds some not at all surprising intellectual dishonesty at work.

Update: A reader sends in a link to Jindal’s Wikipedia page. It currently includes this paragraph.

A new Democratic party strategy has raised concerns regarding essays Jindal wrote discussing his religious views of Protestants. In a New Oxford Review article Jindal writes that Catholicism has more merit than all other religions. Jindal furthers states that Protestants and other non-Catholics are burdened with “utterly depraved minds” and calls individuals who ignore the teachings of the Catholic church intellectually dishonest. [10]

The footnote links to title of the article that the Democrat ad mischaracterizes, and the paragraph itself takes the position that the Democrat ad takes. So yes, it looks like the Democrats have edited Jindal’s own Wikipedia page to smear him.

Update (AP): Here’s the ad.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And rather than tamping down the scandal situation, they’ve only fanned with flames with another week’s worth of questions and denials to come.

Sweet. How sweet it is.

Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“We’re not crooks – we’re incompetent” is their battlecry. The water is circling the drain, Barry.

Philly on May 19, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This.

When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.

petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

ear relevant…

driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.

kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.

savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.

However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)

What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.

It’s not socialism. It’s worse.

EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.

(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)

AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM

I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.

Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.

tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM

Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM

Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…

Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”

jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Perfect!

lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.

bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!

SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM

If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)

He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.

Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2