Video: Jindal on the future of the GOP
posted at 9:00 pm on November 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
His three bullet points about what to do going forward are boilerplate, unfortunately. The more interesting stuff comes halfway through when he talks about supporting Obama and using the states — momentarily the last bastions of GOP rule — as laboratories for experimenting with new conservative policies. Although, with The One and a blue Congress now in charge, I wonder how much decentralized power there’ll be by 2012. Jindal’s hinting, I take it, at some sort of Romneyesque state health-care plan in Louisiana, but what happens if/when the feds pass something at the national level?
All of his media appearances require horserace speculation so let’s hop to it. Assume that Obama has at least middling success in his first term, leaving him primed for reelection thanks to his incumbency and fundraising advantages. Whom do we sacrifice as his opponent? We’ll want someone who isn’t too young lest the taint of defeat spoil their careers, so Jindal and Palin are out. We’ll want someone who isn’t too closely tied to the “old” GOP lest the party’s passé image persist, so Gingrich is out. We’ll want someone whom we wouldn’t mind seeing win in a huge upset, so Huckabee is out. Which means … the choice is clear. There can be only one.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
You can win by attacking an opponent. The problem was that McCain couldnt with all his skeletons and his voting record. McCain chose to lose with honor because of his skeletons.
igoramus08 on November 12, 2008 at 9:01 AM
The problem this time around was with the primaries. We had candidates who were great in one area, but mediocre in most of the rest or with little name recognition. They were mostly conservative. But the biggest RINO won the primary. Why? Because conservatives never backed a central candidate. Our votes were split among multiple mediocre candidates, while the moderates (and “chaos” dems) backed the biggest RINO in the group.
In 2012, we should establish a Conservative PAC and drive toward one strong candidate in the primaries so that our votes don’t get divided (and conquered) by the RINO. We should focus on a strong ticket, and even stronger plans and objectives.
I would like to see Palin/Jindal 2012. Palin now has name recognition and will get a few more years experience as Governor of our largest state. Jindal will continue to cleanup the corruption in Louisiana. If both can maintain their conservative viewpoints, they will have the advantage of a strong message, eager listeners (especially after years of Obama and dem Congress), and a younger energetic ticket.
dominigan on November 12, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Romney/Jindal 2012!
And I can’t wait to see Jindal debate plugs.
ErinF on November 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Romney/Jindal 2012 sounds really good to me.
JA on November 12, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Which pocket do you keep your wallet in?
Actually, Mitt Romney is a great guy and would make a fine President, even if his health-insurance scheme in Massachusetts is not working out. He is more conservative than John McCain, more articulate, and a far better manager.
Unfortunately, the Mormon affiliation will continue to hurt him, as will his ties to ‘big business’, which the Dems love to demonize. So he may not be electable.
Gov. Jindal is right in saying that we need ‘Republican’ (read ‘conservative’) solutions to the problems of health care, energy, entitlements, etc. Is Newt’s American Solutions the right forum? Much as I enjoy hearing Newt speak, he is all over the map ideologically, a polymath who can’t say no to any idea. We need someone with the ability of Ronald Reagan to get back to basic principles and cut through the webs of verbiage and confusion that surround every issue.
Bobby Jindal may have that ability, but he needs a couple of terms as Governor to give him the seasoning and ‘gravitas’ necessary to lead the Republicans back out of the woods. Sarah Palin is a wonderful crowd-pleaser, but she is an intellectual lightweight; she needs to read more.
There is no point in ‘vetting’ potential 2012 candidates this early. Conservatives need to regroup, and to reassert themselves in the Republican party, lest the RINOs take over completely. One thing for sure: The Republican party needs to get state primary rules revamped, to exclude non-Republicans from voting in the Republican primaries.
MrLynn on November 12, 2008 at 9:42 AM
What is he rambling on about? Poverty? Welfare? These aren’t deciding issues.
He came on TV and he says “we’ve got to start” ….. The he says “the other side rightly criticized us for” …
We want a leader who says “We are starting to”…
We want a leader that ignores what the other side says.
We want a leader.
Who will stand up?
faraway on November 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM
GOP exists to provide an alternative to the cradle to grave nanny state offered by democrats.
In 2008, the GOP exists only to provide political cover for democrats (look at the rush to push the GM bailout onto Bush’s watch).
Angry Dumbo on November 12, 2008 at 9:54 AM
I’m ready to call it right now – if Obama falls on his face, Bobby Jindal will be the Republican nominee in 2012 and he will win. He is in exactly the same spot that Bill Clinton was in 1988. Let’s make Norm Coleman his running mate just for fun.
Sarah Palin has a lot of work to do to be a better candidate than Jindal.
rockmom on November 12, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Who are these RINOs of which you speak? Are you aware that there are a grand total now of THREE Republicans representing districts that Obama carried in this election? Meanwhile there are 81 Democrats in districts that Bush carried in 2004.
As far as I’m concerned, we can’t afford to kick anyone else out of this party now. Anyone who is still willing to call him/herself a Republican after this election IS a Republican.
rockmom on November 12, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Can we get back to issues here at HA? This figurehead, rebranding, new direction stuff is so pointless.
The GOP has no identity, let it die.
Angry Dumbo on November 12, 2008 at 10:10 AM
This man is the next president of our country. He is brilliant
ricardoz on November 12, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Yeah, and she has in minced words so much as endorsed Obama without saying so directly. She issued some strange and ghastly statement a while ago, something like — in unusually soothing terms stated — “he will keep our country safe.”
I wondered when I heard her say that, just what she has not been reading and why. All this after the Ayers crud, Wright and Farrakhan stuff…I mean, coming from Secretary of State, a horrid thing to say.
S on November 12, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I’m not sure Obama will continue to have a huge fundraising advantage. Jumping off the public-finance ship was a one-time advantage. Nobody will hamstring their fundraising efforts by accepting public financing again. I imagine the Dems will try to lure the Rs into promising to accept it, hoping that our honesty will again hurt us.
But now that we know the rules the Dems want to play by, we can certainly beat them at their own game.
The assumption that Obama will be mildly successful is certainly no given. Before we pick the next candidate, we should see how events play out. Who knows what great figure will appear on the horizon in 2010. We’ve got months of people selling out to the media, or having scandals oncovered, or losing elections, or saying “macaca” in an interview. All of those things will change the playing field and the players.
hawksruleva on November 12, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I was watching that PBS documentary on Lee Atwater last night, and it struck me how many times over the last few decades that the Presidential nominees have been people who were virtually unknown at the end of the previous campaign. This tends to happen more on the Democratic side than the Republican side, because Republicans always want to pick the guy whose turn it is. But in 2012, we really will have a wide open Republican race for the first time in my lifetime. If Republicans really want to win they will start looking at people like Jindal, or even someone like Linda Lingle who is a very popular Republican governor in a heavily Democratic state. The guy who just got reelected in Vermont is another possibility.
But Jindal is right, we have to fix the message, and the right messenger will eventually come forward.
rockmom on November 12, 2008 at 10:33 AM
This notion that the Republican party is dead or needs some transformation to the center is laughable. We just need to to elect politicians who will stick to their conservtive principles and values.
To think that Obama will be mildly successful is a pipe dream to those who actually believe he is somehow centrist, when he has never done a centrist thing in his life. His leftist policies will no doubt leave this country in a world of hurt. And in 4 years, after the second coming of Jimmy Carter has left his mark, the Republicans could run David Duke and win!
But by all means let’s act like the country has suddenly shifted to the left if it makes some feel better.
jmell7 on November 12, 2008 at 10:33 AM
We also need a new set of campaign strategists.
While watching that progam on Lee Atwater last night, I noticed that Karl Rove was Atwater’s direct protege (which I already knew, but it is worth reminding ourselves of it.) What I did not realize was that one of Atwater’s pallbearers was Charlie Black, who was McCain’s chief strategist.
The program was biased, but it was also pretty eye-opening about the techniques Atwater pioneered and Rove continued. Push polls, planting smear stories in the press, appealing to redneck voters, and painting the Democratic candidate as snobby and unpatriotic were the stock in trade of Atwater and Rove. Both of them took men named George Bush out of the Ivy League, Eastern establishment and turned them into good old boys who were the “authentic Americans” running against “East Coast liberals” who didn’t understand the “real America.” Charlie Black tried to run the same shtick with John McCain, and it falied miserably.
We have got to end the Lee Atwater era in campaign strategy. The country has changed and we need people who understand it. Totally negative campaigns do not work anymore; the brand of “liberal” does nor scare moderate and independent voters anymore; and playing small-ball with stuff like flag pins and the Pledge of Allegiance (or, this year, Bill Ayers) does not work anymore.
rockmom on November 12, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Romney/Jindal 2012
Mitt Romney
Age: 60
Education:
- B.A. Brigham Young University, 1971
- J.D. Harvard University, 1975
- M.B.A. Harvard University, 1975
Professional Experience:
- Vice President, Bain and Company, Incorporated, 1978-1984
- CEO, Bain Capital, Incorporated, 1984-1998
- CEO, Bain and Company, Incorporated, 1991-1993
- President, Salt Lake Winter Olympics Organizing Committee, 1999-2002
Political Experience:
- Governor of Massachusetts, 2003-2007
Bobby Jindal
Age: 37
Education:
- B.S. Biology/Public Policy, Brown University, 1992
- M.A. Political Science, Rhodes Scholar, Oxford University, 1994
Professional Experience:
- Consultant, McKinsey & Company, 1994-1996
- Secretary, Department of Health & Hospitals, Louisiana, 1996-1998
- Executive Director, National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, 1998
- President, University of Louisiana, 1999-2001
- Assistant Secretary, U.S. Health & Human Services Department, 2001-2003
Political Experience:
- U.S. Representative from Louisiana, 2004-2008
- Governor of Louisiana, 2008-Present
Romney is the most qualified and has the most economic experience to be President.
Poptech on November 12, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Principles:
Comments? I’m taking suggestions.
Count to 10 on November 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Wow, HotAir Blogger endorses Romney for 2012. that sure puts his ‘Palin as Eagleton’ posts in proper perspective, now doesn’t it. If thought there was a chance in hell that Romney would be the GOP’s guy in 2012, I’d go ahead and change registration now.
james23 on November 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM
He’s certainly right that most of the talent in in the governors right now.
meltenn on November 12, 2008 at 11:38 AM
No more senators that is for sure
A governor,during the bailout debates, he or she could have said … watch DC screw this one up too
joey24007 on November 12, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Silly discussions, all of the above!
Need a “voice”, need to organize, need to throw RHINO’s out, period!
Strong Conservatives only need apply!
Need to make Obama’s LIES and ruination of America our agenda for the next year, then kick it into overdrive for the mid-terms with phrases like the far left uses with sucess:
1) Time to TAKE BACK AMERICA for working folks, not WELFARE!
2) Americans united against Socialism & return to VALUES!
3) STOP Ilegal immigration… NOW! (87% agree, cross party)
Who will lead this?
Mark Garnett on November 12, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Jindal sounds smart, but can he motivate people? Can he sell? not sure about that; we shall see. Mitt’s smart guy too, but did not connect and cannot sell. Palin looks like the stronger of the group, but time will tell.
james23 on November 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Narrative is more important these days, which is why McCain won imo. His story is better than anyone’s. Huckabee only did well because of his comedy.
I don’t wanna elect another GWB – a likeable guy but a corporatist big spender.
lodge on November 12, 2008 at 12:19 PM
For once, I agree with AP…or he agrees with me.
People need to put aside Mitt’s religion, I did, but it takes putting the man first and his religion last. I’m sure he uses his faith to support and guide him but I have never heard him proselytize. I trust the guy…what can I say?
Why not run him in 2012? Barry will make Carter look like a great president. The conservative base can be in place by midterm, we just need to find real leaders…I can dream.
Christine on November 12, 2008 at 12:28 PM
He won in Lousiana for Gods sakes.
Dritanian on November 12, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Bubba’s for Bobby my friend, Bubba’s for Bobby!
Dritanian on November 12, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Jindal in 2012 sounds music to my ears. What I like about this guy (and also about Romney, till he tried to prove himself to be the most die-hard social conservative on earth in the primaries), is that he sticks to fiscally conservative policies without being drawn into divisive issues concerning social conservatism.
Here is my argument to why social conservatism should ideally be avoided as a primary platform for the GOP:
(1) the country is very divided on the issues like abortion, or gay marriage. Recent poll related evidence shows a razor thin majority for pro-abortion advocates and anti-gay-marriage advocates.
(2) A huge majority of the younger generation supports gay marriage in some of the blue states.
Why would you want to alienate any *fiscally conservative* leaning voters who may have voted for you, but got turned off by tireless rhetoric on the socially conservative folks? In my mind, now is the time to grow your voter base, instead of narrowing it.
OK, I got this off my chest. Now you probably know why I am not crazy for the governor of Alaska.
Cheers,
The Family Guy.
peter_griffin on November 12, 2008 at 12:46 PM
the bluest state in the country just struck down gay marriage but whatever
I think that if you are for less taxes, less government and greater national defense while committed to appointing strict constitutional judges … then you cover all bases
joey24007 on November 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM
During the primaries, Sarah Palin said she liked Mitt for prez.
I’d love to see her be the voice of reason that convinces her evangelical fan base that the world won’t end if they vote for a Mormon.
JA on November 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM
At the end of the day, there’s one way we win this whole thing back: we educate people. We’re going to have to teach a whole generation to think critically about political promises, to understand the foundations of a free market economy, and to treasure liberty. If we fall short, we might win an election once in a while, but the “we” will be like McCain: inoffensive, moderate, not really conservative. And what’s the point of that?
It may be a long road to undo a generation of malfeasance in teaching history and economics. For my money, here’s where Sarah Palin could do more good than running for office again: get a conservative version of “The View” on one of the big-three networks (not Fox; I love Fox, but we already have everyone who will watch Fox) and have Sarah go about teaching the Free Market, liberty***, and traditional values of work and thrift to women, as a subtext to talk about “women things”. We already have a majority of men in the fold on these matters (although we could stand to have more), but women have been brainwashed into believing that we have to sacrifice everything, including our principles, for anything even tangentially related to “the children” (eg the NEA).
I don’t know who should top the ticket for us next time. Jindal sends a thrill up my brain (I’m not quite as creepy as Mathews), but I’m concerned that at 41 he’ll be perceived as still too young. Romney? If only I knew his CURRENT beliefs are his TRUE beliefs; but I’m not convinced. I dig Michael Steele, but don’t know if his elected experience is sufficient. Huckabee? No, his core principles are a bit too soft. JC Watts? Not visible enough, recently enough. Gingrich? Would be fantastic, but I give him zero chance of winning. Coburn might be a contender, and would certainly energize the base.
I think we’re going to have to see who rises to the occasion over the next four years, and how vulnerable Obama is in 2012. In the meantime, we gotta TEACH.
*** We also need to internalize the blessing that is liberty, and quit trying to withhold it from people we disagree with. I’m a Christian, and believe homosexuality is a sin; but we need to quit trying to control people’s private behavior. Best thing to do is get government OUT of the marriage-recognizing business altogether. We can have those debates in the culture, not the political arena. If we stand for true liberty, a LOT of people come back to our side.
RegularJoe on November 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM
RegularJoe on November 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I give Romney a pass for trying to get elected in Massachusetts. If he was really a liberal, why wouldn’t he have just switched party affiliation and been a political rock star? Think about it – looks, decent speaker, religious minority, Harvard grad. They would have been all over the guy.
thecountofincognito on November 12, 2008 at 1:41 PM
You can’t make this stuff up!
benny shakar on November 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM
benny shakar on November 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM
It was on MTV. She also expressed excitement for Ron Paul. Didn’t mention any of the others.
thecountofincognito on November 12, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Watch the video for yourself to see Sarah Palin talking up Mitt Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6o6y8×5jGg
JA on November 12, 2008 at 2:11 PM
+1
Very well put. That’s EXACTLY what I feel.
The Family Guy
peter_griffin on November 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
It’s an attitude like this one that breeds defeat. As Herm Edwards said, “You play to win.” (But he was stupid to go for two instead of kicking the extra point this week.)
Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Count to 10,
Damn good start.
Sign of the dollar,
I would have voted for Rudy G myself, but there are many diverse views out there.
rob verdi on November 12, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Jindal failed to veto a law in Louisiana that permits the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms.
I like Jindal, but I’d say he is more inclined to inject his religion into the public sector than Palin is.
Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I live in Louisiana and Jindal has yet to prove that he is a fiscal conservative. He had made a back room deal with our state legislators after he was elected, that he would not veto their pay raise increase if they would go along with the plans he wanted to implement. Thanks to Moon Griffon (radio talk show host) word of this got out and people started asking Jindal why he would not veto the raise. Protesters started showing up to his public appearances to keep pressure on Jindal, he finally bowed to the La. taxpayers and did veto this bad bill.
I have doubts about how conservative he is. He does spend a lot of time on the national stage though, keeping his name out there. I will have to wait to see how his policies play out here before I would recommend him for a higher office.
la.rt.wngr on November 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM
At the moment, anybody would seem a lot better than McCain or Huckabee. These 2 did a lot of damage during the primaries.
mariloubaker on November 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM
That’s certainly true. I’m sure McCain isn’t running and I don’t see how having a lame tv show on Fox strengthens Huckabee’s qualifications for POTUS. He has his supporters, but after this election he has a lot of opposition as well. Unless he accomplishes something noteworthy in the interim, I don’t see him as a strong contender in 2012.
Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM
True, but my point was that the margin was thin, so by sticking to social conservatism you may be losing out on voters who would have been otherwise responsive to fiscally conservative Republicans.
The Family Guy
peter_griffin on November 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM
That’s a good point, I was not aware of this. Are there other socially conservative pieces of legislation that you guys know he has passed (or not vetoed)?
Thanks,
The Family Guy.
peter_griffin on November 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I like Romney/Jindal, but I don’t think they’ll sell. And people vote for candidates who can sell.
Sad, but true.
latinchic on November 12, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I don’t know. I just happened to know about this one and key into it because I’m a scientist and former educator.
I still like Jindal and am open to the possibility that there was some purely political reason that led him to sign this bill into law over the objections of many scientific groups (although I don’t know of any), but based on what I know, this decision worries me. You don’t have to be an atheist to know it is bad public policy to teach non-scientific theories in a science class.
Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Agree 100%. I am an engineer myself, and am saddened to see the irrational side of the “intelligent design” debate as applied to science classes. My wife is a geologist, and one of her students (a top performer, too) said she preferred that they did not teach historical geology because it assumed evolution. Make intelligent design a part of religious classes if you want, but it has no business in science.
Cheers,
The Family Guy
peter_griffin on November 12, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Yeah but you can’t win if you refuse to call your opponent out out of fear for how it reflects on you. McCain could have done a better job outlining his plans, but with Jindal’s advice, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan would have served 2 terms each.
This is the first asinine thing I’ve heard Jindal say, right after his firm stance on Creationism.
Obamalama Deprogrammer on November 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Is it really conservative, though, to give the government the power to decide what is and is not scientific? This is the same thing that gets us stuck with bad environmental policies, is it not?
Oathkeeper216 on November 12, 2008 at 6:55 PM
I’m just going to quote Voddie Baucham:
Send_Me on November 12, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Only Nixon can go to China. Only Jindal can defeat The One.
Punchenko on November 12, 2008 at 9:50 PM
This is a MUST before the 2012 primaries. A MUST.
Sapwolf on November 12, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Guys,
Intelligent Design doesn’t mean the Bible. Get a hold of yourselves.
Book recommendation: “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael J. Behe.
This is along the lines of what Jindal is referring to.
And anybody that thinks that evolution (broad) or Darwinism (narrow) explains how life came from rocks is a moron.
Why the heck does DNA only use 4 different types of molecules? Science cannot answer that yet. So, why would it be Talibanist to simply ask the question and have students examine the nature of life and its chemical makeup?
The problem now is that Darwinism has morphed into an extremist or narrow theory that if someone even questions anything of it, they get run out of the universities and vilified like Jews in Nazi Germany or heretics. It still falls short in many areas. It is not scientific heresy
to try to use science to go beyond Darwinism and dig for the truth.
Jindal will not inject Intelligent Design into a national election or national policies. He knows it is at highest a state issue.
Another good book or audio book is “What’s So Great About Christianity?” by Dinesh D’Souza. There is a great chapter in there about Darwinism. It also has a great chapter in there about the truth of Galileo for all you knuckleheads who think the Church burned him at the stake for not kissing the Pope’s a**.
Get the truth.
Sapwolf on November 12, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Simplistic.
Sorry. Its not a matter of controlling private behavior. Its a matter of standards. Everything about the left is about LOWERING STANDARDS.
EDUCATION
BANKING/HOUSING/CREDIT/ MESS
MEDIA
If you say “government OUT of the marriage-recognizing business”…Where ya gonna draw the line?
Why not let someone marry their dog?
Don’t laugh. could happen.
the left don’t care about “marriage”. the left care about degrading marriage.
There are “financial” consequences to it as well.
Are YOU prepared to say “anything can be considered marriage”? With the monetary benifits that come with it?
If not, WHY NOT? And IF you open that pandora’s box, who are you to deny ANYONE the right to “marriage”.
Be it a brother/ sister.
Man and 6 wives.
Woman and her parakeet.
Be prepared for it. It will come.
Handel on November 12, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Jindal is WRONG – you CAN win an election by simply criticizing the other side – The Democrats just DID!!!
Not only that – They won by running AGAINST someone who WASN’T EVEN ON THE BALLOT – BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!
grtflmark on November 12, 2008 at 10:55 PM
“Romney is the most qualified and has the most economic experience to be President.”
That is NOT factual – Sarah Palin is!
grtflmark on November 12, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Bingo, that’s what you DON’T want taught in science class: a version of creation that is straight out of the Bible as fact.
That’s a no-go people unless they are simply stating that it is one of many religious-based explanations.
Sapwolf on November 12, 2008 at 11:05 PM
We’ll have some great people. No doubt. But what are we going to do? Continue to NOT get behind one till its too late (just like we did this time) and get someone who ISN’T THE BEST CHOICE?
Sad to say…we are every bit to blame for our loss as the media is.
Hopefully we’ll learn from our mistakes..
But judging from some of the posts, it looks like we’re still bia-tching about Romney being a mormon.
Dumb…Dumb...DUMB.
Handel on November 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Sapwolf : The reason why we believe Darwinism (or Lamark’s theory, or any theory of evolution) as opposed to intelligent design (an intelligent force created the world) is simple : it’s called occam’s razor: (”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor”). If you reread my post, you will see that I have not mentioned Darwinism there, I just mentioned the theory of evolution. Darwinism just happens to have survived the test of time. I am not against debates on the various theories of evolution, but I *am* opposed to the idea of a higher being creating all creatures of this earth, since that violates occam’s razor.
Cheers,
The Family Guy
peter_griffin on November 13, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Actually, I’m proposing an UN-definition of marriage, where NOTHING can be (legally) considered marriage. Let the monetary benefits, whatever they may be, be the same for a married couple, a grown son taking care of his mother, two spinster sisters, or whatever. Get the government out of the business of recognizing marriage. Then we can all have personal liberty to make our own choices, without the government (which to some degree represents “me”) giving sanction to unholy unions of any kind. Some people will do things that I think are sinful and creepy — just as they do now.
Look, I’ve been an opponent of gay marriage, and a proponent of DOMA. But at some point we have to realize that Bible believing Christians in this country are no longer a majority. We’re going to lose this, if not now then in the next decade or so. At the same time, we’re headed for a Canadian/European-style “human rights commission” that will decide what is “hate speech” and restrict it. Already in Canada people are being fined for speaking out against homosexuality. We need to start fighting for liberty, so we can at least speak freely, not legal sanction for our religious beliefs. Politics makes strange… well, you know. But we need to start dividing our efforts into POLITICAL efforts — where we will seek liberty for everyone — and CULTURAL and SPIRITUAL efforts — where, like Jesus, we will care for people and urge them not to sin. Consider the woman caught in adultery as an example; Jesus could have brought the weight of the law down on her, but instead he forgave her and — without threat of legal consequence — just said “go, and sin no more”.
God gave people free will, and I just don’t see that we have a right to take it away, as long as they don’t expect me to endorse their actions. Some will accept God; some will reject Him. Our laws won’t change that. Let’s just be sure we don’t lose our free speech trying.
RegularJoe on November 13, 2008 at 7:38 AM
It does if one considers the existence of God as unlikely. If one takes it as a given, then it becomes the simplest explanation.
We’d go a long way toward resolving this whole thing if science teachers would say something like this up front: “A lot of people have religious beliefs that purport to explain the creation of the universe and of man. Who knows, maybe they’re right. But we’re going to try to answer the question under the assumption that they’re wrong. If your beliefs cause you to reject this, that’s your business; but science has, at a minimum, found this to be a model that has been useful in developing cures for diseases, hybrid crops, and lots of other useful things. So, whether you ultimately accept the truth of evolution unguided by a divine hand, we’re going to learn that theory.”
I also think it would be good for science classes to at least acknowledge the existence of ID arguments. I know “science” broadly has rejected Behe’s thesis; and though I’m no PhD in Biology, I’m no idiot either, and I’ve yet to see a counter-argument that I found compelling. Maybe I just don’t “get it”, because I don’t have the hard science background, but I seem to see a lot of scientists substituting extreme umbrage for cogent argument. I hear repeated claims that ID is an attempt to “get the Bible into science classrooms”; I’d say it is, at worst, an attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of divine creation, without regard to who the creator, if any, might be. In fact, I know some hard core creationists who are just as virulently anti-Behe as any atheist, because he doesn’t teach a 6000-year-old earth.
RegularJoe on November 13, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Great insight Gov. Jindal. I have been one of many of the lone voices that understand the reality of our Constituion which the Demoracts have been trying to denude a rewriting for years.
The Federal government has a very specific duty to insure the country is secured to allow each of the States to create environments that entice citizens to locate to make their business, and the local communityies are responsible for providing the environment that our citizens feel safe to raise their family in.
The role of governemnt is to protect and provide only the basics for our livelyhood – security (military and police), safety (create and enforce realistic safety standards), and infrastructure (road,rail, air). These responsibilities start at the federal level and each segment improved upon at each political level so the states and communities are competing for your support. The community and states that do the best job providing these services win by our choosing where to live an raise our family. Those that do not do a good job will see their populations dwindle or become failed states.
MSGTAS on November 13, 2008 at 9:20 AM
I’m not in favor kicking anyone out. Here’s what I wrote in the Ted Nugent (”Kill RINOs”) thread:
MrLynn on November 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3