WaPo: Jindal asked not to be vetted for “less-than-stellar” McCain campaign

posted at 4:00 pm on November 10, 2008 by Allahpundit

Their words, not his.

Jindal was approached by McCain forces to gauge his interest in the vice presidency and told them he was not interested in being vetted due to his desire to continue on with his current job, to which he was elected just one year ago.

While the official reason that Jindal took his name out of contention was his lack of a desire to leave the Louisiana governorship, there was also real trepidation within his political inner circle that Jindal might wind up as the pick — McCain was attracted to his comprehensive health-care knowledge — and be caught up in what they believed to be a less-than-stellar campaign that could pin a loss on Jindal without much ability to change or control the direction of the contest…

The end result — intentional or not — is that Jindal, should he run in 2012, will be free of any taint of President George W. Bush or McCain.

Ruffini wrote a smart post back in July about the perils of being a losing VP, which I think would have held true this time for everyone except Palin. She’s so remote geographically — and politically, aside from the energy issue — that being on the ticket was her only way onto the national media’s radar. (A Senate run would have forced her to challenge a Republican incumbent.) That said, I think she’s right about this and that it’ll be a problem for her going forward, at least vis-a-vis Obama. The One’s chief rhetorical asset on the stump was that his is a new way of doing things, whether that’s true or not; Palin, by virtue of having been on the ticket this year, will by definition be spun as something retrograde in 2012, especially in light of what I said over the weekend about the economy and national security trumping culture war as key issues. Huck will be the candidate of blue-collar economic populism; Jindal will be the candidate of health care reform and, per his hurricane prep in Louisiana, emergency preparedness; Palin will be the candidate of … pro-life? Not enough to win a national election, especially if The One’s first term goes reasonably well, but on the upside she has plenty of time to develop her credentials in other areas.

Exit question: Is Mitt seriously not running? Seriously?


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 3

too much of an agenda to allow women to kill off life for their personal convenience

highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Ummm, I’m pretty sure many men are very relieved when these women terminate their unwanted pregancies. One might even reasonably speculate that if men were more supportive, some women might choose life. Let’s not act like abortion exists solely because of women.

Y-not on November 10, 2008 at 7:34 PM

I like Jindal, but to act like the Republicans can run him as the “health care” president when conservatives do not want universal health care and it is not our big issue is CRAZY. Oh, and emergency preparedness is a major issue for a Presidential platform? What are you drinking?

Y-not on November 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM

I’d suggest that it is too early to know what issues are going to resonate in 2012. A catastrophic terrorist attack on the US and an inadequate response by Obama could well make “emergency preparedness” an issue. The Dems penchant for ramming universal healthcare down Americans throats could well leave voters clamoring for a candidate who seeks to undo some of the worst initiatives.

highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 7:37 PM

G I M P – and that’s fine as a personal position, but not as a political party plank when you’re trying to attract votes from other than the 30% or so of the electorate that agrees with you.

There’s a spectrum of positions, from the absolutist “murder” stance to the “you’re scraping a few cells, big deal” at the other end.

My view is that as a society we accept various evils so as not to suffer greater ones in their abolition.

Carried to a reasonable degree of consistency the “abortion is murder” view would mean that you couldn’t dump a Hellfire on Osama Bin Laden if there were the possibility there was a four-year-old somewhere in the vicinity.

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 7:39 PM

highhopes – I believe that Romney AS PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE would have owned that issue, would have gutted and filleted the Democrats and served them up on a platter.

As VP behind a waffling leader with no message I don’t think he could have done a lot more than McCain did.

Had the GOP had the sense to nominate Romney he’d be President now. Okay, he’s hedged on his past positions a bit. I still find it troubling – no, worse than that – that his Mormon faith seems to be more of a roadblock to his getting the GOP nomination now than it was to his father back in 1968.

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 7:48 PM

Carried to a reasonable degree of consistency the “abortion is murder” view would mean that you couldn’t dump a Hellfire on Osama Bin Laden if there were the possibility there was a four-year-old somewhere in the vicinity.

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Abortion is the willful destruction of an innocent human life. Collateral damage in war is not equivalent.

Y-not on November 10, 2008 at 7:52 PM

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 7:39 PM

I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense politically and probably should be what we pursue.

However, abortion is the one social issue I really care about and while i’m not against the “it’s a states right” argument I, personally, would prefer that the party called for a federal ban. And I find it hard to reconcile my view on the issue with that states-right stance.

MFn G I M P on November 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Had the GOP had the sense to nominate Romney he’d be President now. Okay, he’s hedged on his past positions a bit. I still find it troubling – no, worse than that – that his Mormon faith seems to be more of a roadblock to his getting the GOP nomination now than it was to his father back in 1968.

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 7:48 PM

I was an early Romney supporter despite his Mormon creds. He is a proven leader in business and government, has the best record on the family values most important to me, and presented the real possiblity of swaying both Michigan and Mass. to the red. Of course he isn’t perfect on his issues but he was a far sight closer than any of the other wannabes.

It’s pretty damned amazing to me that this Mormon thing keeps coming up as an issue. We’ve just elected a terrorist sympathizer socialist who spent over two decades attending a church that hates white people and Romney’s LDS background is the roadblock to the White House???? Potential Huckabee supporters really need to get a grip on reality.

highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Ummm, I’m pretty sure many men are very relieved when these women terminate their unwanted pregancies. One might even reasonably speculate that if men were more supportive, some women might choose life. Let’s not act like abortion exists solely because of women.

Y-not on November 10, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Oh! The men are fithly pigs argument. Got news for ya, the way the whole issue is framed, men don’t even have the opportunity to have a voice in killing off life. Even if they are “supportive” it’s still the woman who gets decide if the child gets a chance at life.

So, before you blame men for abortion, let them have a say in whether or not the life they had a part in creating gets to live. Until that time, women are the killers in this situation not “less than supportive” males.

Gotta stop posting at this point before I really go after you for your disgusting attitude about this situation.

highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Y-not – yes, it clearly is. You are accepting the commanded destruction of one (or possibly many) human lives that might be of value in order to get rid of one (or a few) human lives of great virulence.

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 8:08 PM

Y-not – yes, it clearly is. You are accepting the commanded destruction of one (or possibly many) human lives that might be of value in order to get rid of one (or a few) human lives of great virulence.

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 8:08 PM

That’s the nature of war.

Fortunately, our new administration isn’t planning on cutting high-tech weapons systems in favor of… oh… wait.

Y-not on November 10, 2008 at 8:11 PM

You are exactly right highhopes. While I didn’t start off a Romney supporter I backed him after my man teh Fred! dropped out. I’m a fundie and I could care less if the man was a mormon. I think it’s a false religion but that doesn’t mean Romney wouldn’t make a good President.

MFn G I M P on November 10, 2008 at 8:18 PM

highhopes,

What I was objecting to in your comment was the singling out of women as if they are the sole or major reason abortions occur. It wasn’t necessary and I don’t think it’s accurate.

I’m hard-line pro-life, including abortifactants like IUDs and the morning after pill. Including rape, incest, and genetic defects. The whole enchilada. I believe in parental notification as well as fathers’ rights.

Yes, you are right that many men are unaware that they have fathered a child and those children are aborted without their knowledge. Many other times, women are pressured into having abortions by the men that fathered those children or by circumstances that would have been better if the men in their lives stepped up to their responsibilities.

Abortions are legal in this country because men are every bit as supportive of their availability as women.

Men are the ones who have had the political power and media influence in this country. If all men were opposed to abortions they, combined with the sizable minority of women who are opposed to it, could eliminate it.

Y-not on November 10, 2008 at 8:19 PM

So.. that leaves the question: did all the Romney bashers apologize yet. Their accusing him to begin with was ridiculous. McCain has always hated him, whether it was that Romney just LOOKED more presidential and was more likeable, or his Mormonism. There was no way his group would know the stuff that was out, UNLESS it was big flapping mouths at the McCain camp, at which point all of the RNC would have known.

Some of you have the logic of a gnat.
Now I find it interesting about someone falling on his sword for McCain.

Noelie on November 10, 2008 at 8:30 PM

You are exactly right highhopes. While I didn’t start off a Romney supporter I backed him after my man teh Fred! dropped out. I’m a fundie and I could care less if the man was a mormon. I think it’s a false religion but that doesn’t mean Romney wouldn’t make a good President.

it’s fine..I am pretty sure you follow what I consider to be greek/roman paganism kinda Christianity and pawn it of as “real”, but obviously I don’t think it is.

Never quite thought of it that way, did you?

Noelie on November 10, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Huck will be the candidate of blue-collar economic populism

Mike Huckabee is John McCain + speaking skills. That’s NOT enough to beat Obama. Let him stay on Fox News with his boring show and crappy band.

L.N. Smithee on November 10, 2008 at 8:52 PM

For those putting JC on the short list:
JC did a Colin Powell this time because he said that the GOP was insensitive to blacks.
Forget JC-he’s done.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 10, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Y-not wrote:

Men are the ones who have had the political power and media influence in this country. If all men were opposed to abortions they, combined with the sizable minority of women who are opposed to it, could eliminate it.

Easy to say, difficult to illustrate. Or, maybe it’s easy for you. So go ahead, tell me the form an organized, forceful, male-driven abortion group would take that wouldn’t meet a female backlash that would overwhelm it.

L.N. Smithee on November 10, 2008 at 8:56 PM

As a Conservative who has re-registered as an Independent, I would support Gov. Jindal and/or Gov. Palin for President. The remainder of the GOP can go straight to Hades.

Zorro on November 10, 2008 at 8:57 PM

annoyinglittletwerp wrote:

JC did a Colin Powell this time because he said that the GOP was insensitive to blacks.
Forget JC-he’s done.

What Watts said is that Republicans have written off blacks the same way Dems have taken them for granted. Disputing a report he supported Obama in a June interview with Sean Hannity, he said the following:

“What I said in the article was that I was a free agent. No one should assume that J.C. Watts should vote one way.”

I haven’t heard from J.C. yet, so I will assume he’s made no announcement whom he voted for.

L.N. Smithee on November 10, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Love me some Jindal!

tickleddragon on November 10, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Had the GOP had the sense to nominate Romney he’d be President now. Okay, he’s hedged on his past positions a bit. I still find it troubling – no, worse than that – that his Mormon faith seems to be more of a roadblock to his getting the GOP nomination now than it was to his father back in 1968.

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 7:48 PM

I was an early Romney supporter despite his Mormon creds. He is a proven leader in business and government, has the best record on the family values most important to me, and presented the real possiblity of swaying both Michigan and Mass. to the red. Of course he isn’t perfect on his issues but he was a far sight closer than any of the other wannabes.

It’s pretty damned amazing to me that this Mormon thing keeps coming up as an issue. We’ve just elected a terrorist sympathizer socialist who spent over two decades attending a church that hates white people and Romney’s LDS background is the roadblock to the White House???? Potential Huckabee supporters really need to get a grip on reality.

highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM

I couldn’t agree with you more, JEM and highhopes! Romney was the BEST candidate with the best record on the family values and has the smarts and experience that could have turned this election around–especially if he had been the PRES NOMINEE as JEM stated.

Just imagine what a great ticket Romney and his WISE choice for VP would have made! Many who voted for Obama out of fear of the McOld / Inexperienced ticket would have gone with Romney.

The Huckabee bigots should be apologizing BIG time for playing interference in the Pres primary and for sending letters THREATENING McCAIN THAT HE BETTER NOT CHOOSE ROMNEY as his running mate. The colossal freakin’ gall of these idiots!!!!!! And many of them are so hateful that I think it’s not a stretch to believe that they are happier with an Obama presidency than a Romney-anywhere on-the-ticket winner. Utterly pathetic!

Shelby on November 10, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Shelby – personally, I’m a big Palin fan, I think what she’s done in Alaska (not what the NY Times got away with claiming about her, but her real record) is little short of miraculous and a remarkable ‘reform’ record. Inexperienced in international affairs, to be sure, but the same could be said about a whole lot of governors that have run for President and it’s hard to say she’s less qualified than old learned-nothing-and-forgotten-nothing Biden. Unfortunately, the McCain campaign management badly botched her introduction; not only did they get Pearl Harbored by the media, their reaction was pathetic.

I was originally a Giuliani booster, but Mitt had the executive ability and wanted the job enough to work for it. I don’t think I could ever have worked myself up to vote for Huckabee, he’s really an old-fashioned Democrat, and I agree that his influence on the election was probably deleterious.

JEM on November 10, 2008 at 11:23 PM

Had the GOP had the sense to nominate Romney he’d be President now.

No he wouldn’t. No Republican was going to win the presidency this year. There was a “perform storm” of sorts brewing against Republicans this year and unprecedented media support for a candidate that NO Republican would have overcome.

As for Jindal, this isn’t exactly news. He said as much dozens of times in interviews around the time McCain had all the potential VP candidates spend the weekend at his place. He made no secret that he wasn’t interested in the nomination, preferring to serve the governor term that he just won.

xblade on November 11, 2008 at 12:33 AM

I love it, Allahpundit.

You hate Huckabee.

You hate Palin.

My conclusion: You hate Evangelicals and don’t want one in the White House.

adamsweb on November 11, 2008 at 12:52 AM

I’ll never follow the logic of those who presume that Palin or anyone else is done for politically because the left smeared them.

That’s what the left does. Anyone who runs as a Republican will be investigated and smeared. What we saw happen to Sarah Palin will certainly happen to Bobby Jindal or Matt Blunt or any other candidate we put forth. In fact, watching how fast it happed to Sarah Palin is very instructive.

Attempted smears mean nothing. Smears that stick because they’re true are the things to worry about.

I was not an early Sarah Palin supporter, but if you watched how well she campaigned and how enthusiastically she was received, we’d be very foolish to let smear attacks disqualify her.

In fact, I would argue that the very fact the drive-by media kept asking if she was qualified showed their awareness that she really had no other perceived weakness. Otherwise, they would never have talked about qualifications and taken a chance on people asking just how qualified Obama was.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 11, 2008 at 1:05 AM

Palin will be the candidate of … pro-life?

No, fiscal conservatism. I can sort of remember what that is…

PattyJ on November 11, 2008 at 1:22 AM

I couldn’t agree with you more, JEM and highhopes! Romney was the BEST candidate with the best record on the family values and has the smarts and experience that could have turned this election around–especially if he had been the PRES NOMINEE as JEM stated.

Just imagine what a great ticket Romney and his WISE choice for VP would have made! Many who voted for Obama out of fear of the McOld / Inexperienced ticket would have gone with Romney.

The Huckabee bigots should be apologizing BIG time for playing interference in the Pres primary and for sending letters THREATENING McCAIN THAT HE BETTER NOT CHOOSE ROMNEY as his running mate. The colossal freakin’ gall of these idiots!!!!!! And many of them are so hateful that I think it’s not a stretch to believe that they are happier with an Obama presidency than a Romney-anywhere on-the-ticket winner. Utterly pathetic!

Shelby on November 10, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Good God! The Romney-bots are back. I hate to tell you this, but your guy would not have been a good choice for VP in this economy… An ultra-rich businessman who made his money by “restructuring” companies (i.e. laying people off) was not going to fly in places like Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Illinidiva on November 11, 2008 at 7:12 AM

I just don’t see Governor Jindal at a national level
anytime soon. And that picture!! Looks like a cover of
MAD magazine….”What, me worry”?

gary on November 11, 2008 at 9:09 AM

theregoestheneighborhood wrote:

In fact, I would argue that the very fact the drive-by media kept asking if she was qualified showed their awareness that she really had no other perceived weakness. Otherwise, they would never have talked about qualifications and taken a chance on people asking just how qualified Obama was.

The DRM/MSM, mostly totally ignorant of her existence, could only latch onto Troopergate and the Bridge to Nowhere as a knock on Palin. Other than that, all they had were the tininess of Wasilla (or, as Obama said in an interview with Anderson Cooper, “Wa-silly”), the meager per capita population of Alaska (never mentioning that it is the largest U.S. state) and tabloid trash about her family.

Other than maximizing her miscues (and minimizing those of Biden and Obama) and turning them into questions about her intelligence and the “Kill him!” smear spun from whole cloth by Obama fanboy reporters, there’s not a lot of negative stuff about Palin that doesn’t disappear into the ether once someone asks, “So what?”

I work next to a nice woman who nonetheless hates Palin with a passion, and I have endured overhearing her Sarahphobic conversations with like-minded workmates. When she started up again with the $150K wardrobe shullbit two days after the election, I finally decided I’d had enough.

As politely as I could muster, I asked the Palinhaters “How much did Obama spend on his suits?” Blank stares before “Uh, I don’t know…”

L.N. Smithee on November 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Illinidiva wrote: Good God! The Romney-bots are back. I hate to tell you this, but your guy would not have been a good choice for VP in this economy… An ultra-rich businessman who made his money by “restructuring” companies (i.e. laying people off) was not going to fly in places like Ohio or Pennsylvania.

1. How many people who are experts on international finance are broke?

2. Being willing to lay people off in the short term in order to improve the prospects for companies that expand and create MORE jobs portrays a willingness to CUT government rather than raise taxes and expand it.

3. Romney presumably would have been able to speak about the economy with fluency. Neither Obama nor McCain (much less Biden and Palin) were models of coherence on issues economic. McCain made a fool of himself by flip-flopping on consecutive days on the AIG bailout and continuing to harp on “earmarks” without context — it was as if someone told him it was a post-hypnotic keyword through which people would pull the lever for him whether they wanted to or not. With the assistance of the MSM, Obama was portrayed as “Mr. Cool” on the economy when in fact, he did NOTHING, on purpose; the Dems bemoaned disingenuously that “Presidential politics would just get in the way,” so Obama said ‘Just call me if you need me.’ Not what you want in a Chief Executive, or at least that was the CW when Bush was on vacation in Crawford.

4. A guy who promised to jack up electricity costs and creating circumstances that will destroy the coal industry won in both states after the economy collapsed. Howie Nell did THAT “fly”?

L.N. Smithee on November 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3