Remind me again: Why isn’t Bobby Jindal at the top of Romney’s VP shortlist?

posted at 8:49 pm on August 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Obligatory caveat: Maybe he is. No one knows except for Romney’s inner circle. But all of the rumors lately have to do with Portman, Pawlenty, and Ryan, with Rubio and Christie unlikely dark horse possibilities. Jindal’s name seems to have disappeared — even though he’s probably the one guy out there more than any other who would satisfy virtually everyone in the Republican galaxy. As Matt Lewis put it:

T-Paw is “meh,” Portman is a Bush guy, Ryan is an invitation to Mediscaring — but what’s Jindal’s big liability? He’s smart as a whip, respected by grassroots conservatives and righty intellectuals, has had plenty of executive experience, brings youth and racial/geographic diversity to the ticket, and on and on and on. The only arguments against him are that he endorsed Perry in the primary, gave a flat response to the State of the Union a few years ago, and once wrote about an exorcism he witnessed decades ago. So what? It wouldn’t be that hard to spin the Perry endorsement: “It was a tough call between him and Mitt, whom I’ve always admired, but my personal friendship with Rick forced my hand. Now, however, I’m committed to helping Gov. Romney lead America back to prosperity.” Case closed. No one’s going to care about the SOTU response — if you want a guy who gives a good speech but can’t govern, there’s already an app for that — and the exorcism thing is so old, petty, and arcane that it’s just not going to get traction realistically. Something like that only hurts a candidate if it jibes somehow with his public persona, seeming to reveal some fundamental quirk in his character. This doesn’t do that. Jindal’s image is that of a consummate wonk, a technocrat blessed with unusual brain power and an enviable grasp of policy. He’s simply not going to be easily demagogued as a wild-eyed religious radical, which of course would be the point of those attacks — although no doubt liberals will try anyway. (In a way, it’d be fitting if this dumb, petty campaign came down to an argument over exorcisms.) Worst-case scenario: Jindal’s forced to answer a few questions about it and gets to gently remind the media that we all do strange things sometimes during youth. Some of us witness an exorcism, others do cocaine. Bygones, etc.

I’m on the verge of talking myself into thinking that he should be the choice, but I’ll hold off on that if only because Portman could at least help deliver a crucial swing state. I’m not sure what Pawlenty, Ryan, or Jindal would deliver, despite their respective strengths. Here’s video of the man himself from the Red State Gathering held recently. Exit question: Why shouldn’t he be the pick? I’m sincerely interested in counterarguments.


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 4

The word “exorcism” might explode all over the campaign if he’s the VP nominee, but one word or another is going to do that regardless of who the nominee is, so it really doesn’t matter.

J.E. Dyer on August 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

That’s easy to fix. Just have him narrate a commercial saying “I am not a witch”. How google autocompletes Bobby Jindal:

exorcism
vp
approval rating
vice president
speech
education reform
twitter
state of the union response

Paul-Cincy on August 9, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Because he is totally boring, bland, cannot give a good speech, cannot attract new voters or rile up the base against the deadweight fo Mittens. He is also not as conservative as he is made out to be.

promachus on August 9, 2012 at 9:34 PM

… if only because Portman could at least help deliver a crucial swing state.

If Romney wants someone to deliver a swing state, he’d be better off picking McDonnnell than Portman.

As for Jindal, the pick is very unlikely because he’d overshadow Romney. The election and media focus would very quickly become about him and not Romney.

Doomberg on August 9, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I’d love to hear Jindal make a crack at how by Biden’s rules he can’t work in a convenience store.

The Monster on August 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

The word “exorcism” might explode all over the campaign if he’s the VP nominee, but one word or another is going to do that regardless of who the nominee is, so it really doesn’t matter.

J.E. Dyer on August 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Try to look up some of his ads from the 2007 Governor’s race.

He has to respond to some very harsh accusations and did it well.

Bluray on August 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Interesting. This would be the first time I can remember when the Republicans nominated two candidates, neither of whom had served in the military. Have any of the VP short-listers served in uniform? (Jindal hasn’t.)

I like Jindal, BTW. The word “exorcism” might explode all over the campaign if he’s the VP nominee, but one word or another is going to do that regardless of who the nominee is, so it really doesn’t matter.

J.E. Dyer on August 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

McDonnell served and has a daughter who served in Iraq. If McDonnell’s the pick, and I think he is, get ready for the words “transvaginal ultrasound”. I still pine for Jindal tho.

monalisa on August 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Why he isn’t on the list:

1. He just started his second term.
2. He doesn’t want the job right now.

Besides, I think you are going to see him take Mary Landrieu’s Senate seat when it comes up for election.

We would be much better off with a Senator Jindal and knocking another Democrat out of the Senate than having a VP Jindal that does nothing but go to funerals overseas.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM

media focus would very quickly become about him and not Romney.

Doomberg on August 9, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Somehow, I don’t think Mitt would actually mind.

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I think Jindal is the pick that will give Romney the best chance of winning. I don’t think Mitt will do it because of the Perry endorsement. I’m not looking forward to a milquetoast candidate on the VP ticket but that’s what I’m expecting from Romney.

Hobo with a laptop on August 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

promachus on August 9, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Like Mitt had to, he has to work with Dems ++++ …no?
Purists just bug the heck outta me, sorry.

Methinks Jindal WOULD fire up the base.
Alot of us know him well enough to get excited.

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Methinks Jindal WOULD fire up the base.
Alot of us know him well enough to get excited.

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

It would certainly fire up ALyT.

I’m not sure if we could handle that.

cozmo on August 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Why shouldn’t he be the pick? I’m sincerely interested in counterarguments.

AP, you won’t be interested in this, can’t argue against Jindal for any reason. He’s got the chops, no question, to be President in the event that would be necessary, and he would be attractive to independents as well, given his ability to appeal across the board to a very diverse, and still purple, state as Louisiana.

Plus, wouldn’t be just a kick in the ass to watch him and Biden debate, and Jindal just mention, off the cuff, something about the a convenience store, and Jindal to say, “by the way, Joe, my people built that.”

TXUS on August 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Jindal has been my pick since day one…….

ultracon on August 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Remind me again: Why isn’t Bobby Jindal at the top of Romney’s VP shortlist?

Jindal has some baggage.

He signed and openly supported a bill supporting the teaching of creationist claptrap in LA public schools.

May play well in LA, but not nationally or with Independents.

farsighted on August 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I think he is still on the short list as well. He’s the best one on the list, IMHO. If Mitt chose him, that would shake things up. But Mitt needs to win a swing state, so that probably will trump choosing Jindal as most qualified. We’ll find out soon.

Philly on August 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

McDonnell served and has a daughter who served in Iraq. If McDonnell’s the pick, and I think he is, get ready for the words “transvaginal ultrasound”. I still pine for Jindal tho.

monalisa on August 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Wow, guess I wasn’t paying attention and didn’t realize McDonnell was on the short list. He served in the Army, as I recall.

As for exploding words, I think I prefer “exorcism.”

J.E. Dyer on August 9, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Jindal has some baggage.

He signed and openly supported a bill supporting the teaching of creationist claptrap in LA public schools.

May play well in LA, but not nationally or with Independents.

farsighted on August 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

That is very small baggage. Most Americans do not care about or even understand evolution. The “teach the controversy” position is not a political loser on the national stage. Whether it should be is a different issue

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

All Jindal would have to say is he did exorcisms, Obama did cocaine “whenever he could afford it”.

The Count on August 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

cozmo on August 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

HAHAHAHAHA

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Tim Pawlenty on getting his Voodoo Doctor’s license and exorcising Congress:

“I’ll do it!”

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Agree.. hey, there’s that FAIRNESS, freedom of speech thang.
He/team could handle that easily, methinks.

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Didn’t the little religious freak say he’s an “exorcist”? yeah that’s the guy you want one heart beat away from the presidency.

Your Mamma loves me on August 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM

When is his term as governor over?

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I’d take Jindal anyday over the three P’s..

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

I like Jindal but doesn’t he come across as a bit earnest? Like he’s trying too hard where someone like Rubio is more calm and assured?

I realize it’s a small point but maybe it isnt.

AYNBLAND on August 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Your Mamma loves me on August 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Considering how you present yourself here, I can’t even imagine what a doofus you must have been in your youth.

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Your Mamma loves me on August 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Proof, please.
Tough crowd, here, or haven’t you noticed, yet ??

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM

The “teach the controversy” position is not a political loser on the national stage. Whether it should be is a different issue

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Considering the things Team Socialism is choosing to make into issues I doubt they would pass this one up. They and the MSM would play it for all it is worth.

So why should Romney nominate someone who brings a made-to-order “wedge” issue controversy along with him? One that has the potential of swaying Independents.

If Jindahl was the best choice by a long short over other candidates, maybe he would be worth the risk. I don’t see Jindahl that way.

farsighted on August 9, 2012 at 10:17 PM

I can’t even imagine what a doofus you must have been in your youth.

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM

He’s fourteen.

CurtZHP on August 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I want a conservative. Keep Rubio in the Senate, he probably wont be replaced by someone as solid as he is. Similar story for Ryan, keep him where he is to work on the budget. Matt Lewis has it right, he’s the most exciting that is safe. A Biden/Jindal debate would be great to watch.

ritewhit on August 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

That is very small baggage. Most Americans do not care about or even understand evolution. The “teach the controversy” position is not a political loser on the national stage. Whether it should be is a different issue

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

No, it’s pretty big baggage. Nuclear baggage for me. I would vigorously and VERY vocally oppose anyone who would push creationism in the public schools.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Considering how you present yourself here, I can’t even imagine what a doofus you must have been in your youth.

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I can. Which is why he thinks other people’s Mamma’s love him, because his own didn’t.

Flora Duh on August 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

He’s fourteen.

CurtZHP on August 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Well good, there is still hope.

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Nancy Pelosi on Bobby Jindal:

“I’ve been visited by the spirits from Bobby Jindal’s exorcism. He gave rich spirits a break, while holding working spirit families hostage.”

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 9, 2012 at 10:23 PM

No, it’s pretty big baggage. Nuclear baggage for me. I would vigorously and VERY vocally oppose anyone who would push creationism in the public schools.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Then you voted for John Kerry I take it? Opposed Reagan back in the day? That is what I thought.

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 10:23 PM

He’s fourteen.

CurtZHP on August 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

With an IQ of 11.

Why isn’t Bobby on Romney’s short list?

He’s a Conservative.

kingsjester on August 9, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Then you voted for John Kerry I take it? Opposed Reagan back in the day? That is what I thought.

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 10:23 PM

No, I am a Republican. I also live in a neighborhood that is about 4% Christian. Most are Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh or any number of other Asian religions.

The Abrahamic creation story is a religious teaching that does not belong in the public schools. There are too many creation stories and if you can’t teach them all, don’t teach any of them. The place for that teaching is in the home, in church, or in private schools. NOT in the public schools.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Jindal, “I’m a Repuplican, but I am also a Conserative. ” would be better stated the other way around. I have to therefore think its what he meant to say.

Bmore on August 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM

..push creationism in the public schools.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Just offering the alternative option doesn’t equal PUSHING.
Schools have PUSHED a mere theorum for all of these years, under the blanket of humanism, for years.
What are you afraid of ??

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Conserative=Conservative. Sorry.

Bmore on August 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM

It is not the role of government to provide social indoctrination.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM

What are you afraid of ??

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM

He’s afraid that it’s the truth.

kingsjester on August 9, 2012 at 10:29 PM

No, it’s pretty big baggage. Nuclear baggage for me. I would vigorously and VERY vocally oppose anyone who would push creationism in the public schools.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:19 PM

The nation is facing bankruptcy and a crumbling society, buttercup, your Darwinist addiction isn’t even on the radar in comparison.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:29 PM

This is totally superficial, but Jindal’s face gets kind of weird when he isn’t talking in interviews. When he’s talking he looks really sharp, thoughtful, and focused; but when he stops talking it suddenly looks like someone shot him up with morphine, and he shifts back and forth from a kind of empty gaze to a goofy smile. He would need to work on maintaining his game-face for the debates.

Lawdawg86 on August 9, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Just offering the alternative option doesn’t equal PUSHING.
Schools have PUSHED a mere theorum for all of these years, under the blanket of humanism, for years.
What are you afraid of ??

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM

If you want to do it on an opt-in basis after school hours, no problem but the kids could get a better teaching of it at Sunday school.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Flora Duh on August 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

LOL!!!1

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

The nation is facing bankruptcy and a crumbling society, buttercup, your Darwinist addiction isn’t even on the radar in comparison.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I am not a Darwinist. I am a Christian. I just don’t believe in shoving my faith down other people’s throats.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Especially using the government schools.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

I am not a Darwinist. I am a Christian. I just don’t believe in shoving my faith down other people’s throats.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

But you are fine with Darwinist pseudo-science being shoved down the throats of young minds using government schools.

Some Christian you are, brother. And I’m not Saint Patrick myself.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:32 PM

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Even though 78% of Americans share the same faith. Evidently, you’ve never heard of the Great Commission, Matthew 28:16-20.

kingsjester on August 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Didn’t the little religious freak say he’s an “exorcist”? yeah that’s the guy you want one heart beat away from the presidency.

Your Mamma loves me on August 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Yes, NOTHING like the stellar All Star Lineup that’s in Place now.

A Vice President that, among other nuggets of comedy gold say this about his new boss “I mean, you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a story-book, man,”

A House Minority Leader AND Frm. House Speaker telling the country “I Hear Dead People in my head…”

A Senate Majority Leader saying nearly the same thing…

A Secretary of State that celebrating Spring Break apparently….

Shall i go on, or is that clear enough?

BlaxPac on August 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Duncan Hunter.

Now that’s a good VP pick. Strong conservative, great foreign policy and defense cred (which Romney severely lacks). Strong on illegal immigration. No skeletons. Wouldn’t overshadow Mitten’s.

He would make a great president – just in case anything ever happened to Mitten’s.

HalSandro on August 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

am not a Darwinist. I am a Christian. I just don’t believe in shoving my faith down other people’s throats.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Okay I am the least religious person there is, so I would agree with you in theory HOWEVER… Evolution has become a sort of evangelism and faith hence why you still find errors like Haekels embryos in textbooks without correction. And anyone who questions evolution is ridiculed or fired.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

am not a Darwinist. I am a Christian. I just don’t believe in shoving my faith down other people’s throats.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Okay I am the least religious person there is, so I would agree with you in theory HOWEVER… Evolution has become a sort of evangelism and faith hence why you still find errors like Haekels embryos in textbooks without correction. And anyone who questions evolution is ridiculed or fired.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

To clarify, I am skeptical of any science that is considered settled with no proof.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 10:38 PM

The Abrahamic creation story is a religiousteaching that does not belong in the public schools. There are too many creation stories and if you can’t teachthem all, don’t teach any of them. The place for that teaching is in the home, in church, or in private schools. NOT in the public schools.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I actually agree that religion should not be taught in public schools, but my point was that this has never been near as much “baggage” as people like to claim it is. It is way down on the list of wht people, even independents, actually base their votes on. Both W and Reagan were viewed as friendly to the creationism in schools movement yet your average American wasn’t scared by that. “Teach the controversy” has a decent amount of support in this country and seems like a fair choice to some of the very same wishy-washy independents that people are concerned will be turned off by it.

Honestly, I think the exorcism bit would be more of a problem to the undecideds, but even that I don’t think would end up being that big of a deal.

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 10:40 PM

To clarify, I am skeptical of any science that is considered settled with no proof.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Biggest problem with evolution: how did atomic-level forces come to be without outside intervention?

Forget the whole “goo to you by way of the zoo” explanation for sentient life, even though that has more holes than a colander. Show me how the miniature solar system of an atom, without which we wouldn’t even have matter, could come out of complete chaos.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

NOT in the public schools.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:26 PM

I’d rather just get rid of public schools. Except, perhaps, public schools that compete directly with private schools for voucher dollars.

besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Duncan Hunter.

Now that’s a good VP pick. Strong conservative, great foreign policy and defense cred (which Romney severely lacks). Strong on illegal immigration. No skeletons. Wouldn’t overshadow Mitten’s.

He would make a great president – just in case anything ever happened to Mitten’s.

HalSandro on August 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Right on!

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Remind you again???? Are you a total idiot? For the last time, jindal and rubio are not NBC, got it!

Mr. Sun on August 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I don’t think teaching or not teaching creationism in public schools is a deal breaker if they can get away with forcing the kids to believe that global warming is real and that they can force their parents into saving the planet.

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:45 PM

I’d rather just get rid of public schools. Except, perhaps, public schools that compete directly with private schools for voucher dollars.

besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 10:43 PM

That’s my take. Our society has simply gone beyond the ‘little red schoolhouse’ stage; if by sheer population numbers if nothing else. As much as some conservatives would like to go back to that and homeschooling alone (and I used to), it’s just not possible.

But we HAVE to break the monopoly.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

I want a conservative. Keep Rubio in the Senate, he probably wont be replaced by someone as solid as he is. Similar story for Ryan, keep him where he is to work on the budget. Matt Lewis has it right, he’s the most exciting that is safe. A Biden/Jindal debate would be great to watch.

ritewhit on August 9, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Don’t know who would replace Rubio if he became VP, but I know who is most likely to replace Ryan, and I’m not concerned at all about Rep. Robin Vos’s record.

Steve Eggleston on August 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Mr. Sun on August 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Just because people don’t agree with, it doesn’t make them idiots.

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

It is not the role of government to provide social indoctrination.

crosspatch on August 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Seriously ??
Which planet have you lived on, for the past few decades ??
Are you pro-choice ? Or not ?
What’s the harm in saying (in any public, gov’t funded school)..
“some people believe this (Darwinism) but other people believe this (creationism)” ??
It’s NOT pushing ANY faith/belief on ANYONE !!

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Duncan Hunter.

Now that’s a good VP pick. Strong conservative, great foreign policy and defense cred (which Romney severely lacks). Strong on illegal immigration. No skeletons. Wouldn’t overshadow Mitten’s.

He would make a great president – just in case anything ever happened to Mitten’s.

HalSandro on August 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Blast from the past. I like it.

Steve Eggleston on August 9, 2012 at 10:47 PM

To repeat: Bobby Jindal is the safest pick that is exciting, and the most exciting pick that is safe.

Exactly.

I agree completely with your reasoning AP. If Jindal is the pick, then I will believe there is hope for our country.

COUNTERARGUMENT:

Could he change his last name to Rindal? Romney/Rindal!!!

His last name doesn’t have the ring that Romney/Rubio or Romney/Ryan has. Could the Veep stakes come down to . . . alliteration?

conservative pilgrim on August 9, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Aren’t a lot of the schools in New Orleans charter schools? Has Gov. Jindal been able to expand that throughout the state?

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Biggest problem with evolution: how did atomic-level forces come to be without outside intervention?

Forget the whole “goo to you by way of the zoo” explanation for sentient life, even though that has more holes than a colander. Show me how the miniature solar system of an atom, without which we wouldn’t even have matter, could come out of complete chaos.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean there is no explanation.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Gov Jindal is my personal fav choice, followed by Ryan then reluctantly but not suicidally, Trob Portlenty.

Maybe Christie.

Not Rubio. Not Ready.

David Petreaus wildcard ok with me, but it wont happen.

Sacramento on August 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean there is no explanation.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

What inanity. We can’t explain it because there is no remotely plausible explanation.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean there is no explanation.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

That isn’t science, that’s faith..

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM

That isn’t science, that’s faith..

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM

And pathetically flimsy faith at that.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM

“Teach the controversy” has a decent amount of support in this country and seems like a fair choice to some of the very same wishy-washy independents that people are concerned will be turned off by it.

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Polling indicates the acceptance of evolution breakdown is…

Dem 60%
Ind 60%
GOP 40%

Also, the issue is not what people think or believe, but what they want taught in public schools. Jindal signed a bill allowing the teaching of pro-creationism anti-evolution “criticism” in LA public schools.

The US population is by and large tolerant of differing religious beliefs, but not so much about teaching particular religious beliefs in public schools, much less in public school science classes. Jindal signed a bill do just that.

So why should Romney step into this issue with his VP candidate? Is Jindal that compelling of a VP pick? I’m thinking no.

farsighted on August 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I think Jindal would be an excellent choice. I would be extremely disappointed if Romney doesn’t pick Jindal or Rubio. I think they would be inspired choices.

terryannonline on August 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Maybe because of this:

The Loch Ness Monster Is Real; The KKK Is Good: The Shocking Content of Publicly Paid for Christian School Textbooks

Some gems from what Jindal is advocating for “education” system:

- Only ten percent of Africans can read or write, because Christian mission schools have been shut down by communists.
- “the [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross… In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.”
- “God used the ‘Trail of Tears’ to bring many Indians to Christ.”
- It “cannot be shown scientifically that that man-made pollutants will one day drastically reduce the depth of the atmosphere’s ozone layer.”
- “God has provided certain ‘checks and balances’ in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists.”
- the Great Depression was exaggerated by propagandists, including John Steinbeck, to advance a socialist agenda.
- “Unions have always been plagued by socialists and anarchists who use laborers to destroy the free-enterprise system that hardworking Americans have created.”
- Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential win was due to an imaginary economic crisis created by the media.
- “The greatest struggle of all time, the Battle of Armageddon, will occur in the Middle East when Christ returns to set up his kingdom on earth.”

lester on August 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM

If you believe in Loch ness monster, then you might be a Jindal supporter!

lester on August 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Just because people don’t agree with, it doesn’t make them idiots.

Cindy Munford on August 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Right-on. They’re only idiots if they don’t agree with ME :)

29Victor on August 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM

I’m with you, AP! Bobby is the most logical choice!!!

SWLiP on August 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM

lester on August 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM

*yawn*

29Victor on August 9, 2012 at 11:08 PM

…if you want a guy who gives a good speech but can’t govern, there’s already an app for that.

Now, that’s a good one. lol

Murf76 on August 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM

What inanity. We can’t explain it because there is no remotely plausible explanation.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

So anything that we’re not advanced enough (scientifically) to explain means that God did it.

Got it.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I wonder if Romney ever considered Gary Johnson. That would seem to be a good idea to me. Am I wrong?

besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Farsighted,

Why did you give poll numbers concerning the acceptance of evolution when my opoint was about teach the controversy and the degree of concern by independents? You acted like I shifted the debate yet you were the one to actually do that.

Here is reality for you:

In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?_r=1

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

crosspatch, maybe you’ve watched this already, but I’ll offer it for anyone else interested in the raging battle…..

‘No Intelligence Allowed’, full movie

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

and the exorcism thing is so old, petty, and arcane that it’s just not going to get traction realistically. Something like that only hurts a candidate if it jibes somehow with his public persona, seeming to reveal some fundamental quirk in his character. This doesn’t do that. Jindal’s image is that of a consummate wonk, a technocrat blessed with unusual brain power and an enviable grasp of policy.

I am a social liberal and exorcism strikes me as just weird, but Jindal’s story about something that happened when he was young just isn’t relevant to me. Look, I don’t agree with Jindal on every topic but I can enthusiastically support him being Vice-President because he is a wonk with mostly great ideas.

thuja on August 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

So anything that there is no explanation (scientifically) to explain means that God did it.

Got it.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM

FTFY.

Now wipe the spinach off your chin, sit down, and shut up. The adults are talking.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Reread what Spinach Chin wrote:

Just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean there is no explanation.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

That isn’t science, that’s faith..

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Not faith at all. To come to any conclusion, you must first try to reasonably remove all other possible answers…or at least come up with a hypothesis that will give credence to your argument.

Example: You feel the wind on your cheek…is that Gods breath, or is it from the birds flying worldwide creating the currents?

It could be one, or the other both OR neither. If you believe in God (or Deity of your choice) then it is plausible…if you don’t, then the second must sure be.

But then again, not all birds fly, and not all birds fly at the same time…. so its plausible, without religious overtone, but is it any more of a valid hypothesis than the prior example?

And pathetically flimsy faith at that.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Or unproven, since the only way to know is to cross the river Styx, then come back and tell us what you saw/heard. So far, no ones doing that….outside of Hollywood that is.

BlaxPac on August 9, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I like Jindall jus dandy – although I do see the potential inherent value of him taking a D’s senate seat in the future………..

As for Yall that fall into the digression of Creationism vs. Darwinism – good GRIEF folks why make what is so simple so complicated?

Simply factor in “faith” and “free will” and they are BOTH correct! (who the heck do Yall think created scientists anyways?)

Katfish on August 9, 2012 at 11:13 PM

So anything that there is no explanation (scientifically) to explain means that God did it.

Got it.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM

FTFY.

Now wipe the spinach off your chin, sit down, and shut up. The adults are talking.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Say Nikola Tesla or Isaac Newton thought this way. Where would we be today?

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

“Some people think THIS, other people think THAT”
What a HORRIFIC option…. ///////

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

John Jay (who later served as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) authored a July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. The note included:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

George Washington is on record as having checked out two books from the New York Society Library: Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and volume 12 of the English House of Commons Debates. The ledger does not record whether the president came in person or sent a messenger, nor is there any record of either volume being returned, or the president or vice-president being fined.

It’s safe to assume that Washington was interested in Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, and that work includes the following:

natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

Being “native born” was not sufficient, becuase children of British subjects became British subjects themselves, subjects of the British crown, regardless of where in the world they were born.

That was still true at the time of Obama’s birth, and his own campaign web site admitted that:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

The Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett echoed the language of Vattel and set the precedent. Those who are natural born citizens do not need the 14th amendment in order to make them a citizen. The contrapositive is that if you need the 14th amendment to make you a citizen, then you aren’t a natural born citizen.

So, while Jindal is native born, he is not natural born because his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. If they had both naturalized before his birth, then he would have been natural born.

And Allahpundit is wrong when he puts the caption “Qualified” under Jindal’s picture for this post on the main page.

Jindal is not qualified because he doesn’t meet the Article II Section 1 qualifications.

Neither does Obama, but not enough people seem to care.

ITguy on August 9, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Say Nikola Tesla or Isaac Newton thought this way. Where would we be today?

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Exactly where we are now, fool.

There are perfectly plausible explanations for electricity and gravity.

There is not even the remotest theory for atomic order to have formed and kept formed out of complete chaos.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Is having attended a exorcism decades ago more relevant than having said this this month:

“And then I realized Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, you name it, they were all in that chair, they were. More than I named and I could hear them say: ‘At last we have a seat at the table.’ And then they were gone.”

besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Say Nikola Tesla or Isaac Newton thought this way. Where would we be today?

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

They didn’t build anything by themself (ves?).

faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Say Nikola Tesla or Isaac Newton thought this way. Where would we be today?

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Neither man ever claimed that you couldn’t question the validity of a theory because the science was settled either. And I believe Newton was a devout Christian whose scientific work was only surpassed by his religious work.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Exactly where we are now, fool.

There are perfectly plausible explanations for electricity and gravity.

There is not even the remotest theory for atomic order to have formed and kept formed out of complete chaos.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

How can you possibly say that with such certainty? You’re playing Monday morning quarterback with regards to past scientific discovery.

Again, just because we don’t know, doesn’t mean there is no explanation.

BTW, I think I’ve been pretty respectful in my responses. Just because I’m trying to have a reasoned disagreement with you doesn’t warrant the petty name-calling, does it?

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Jindal is even better in person, I was lucky enough to meet him on a chance trip to Baton Rouge. If he is Romney’s VP then our nation is in much safer hands.

NerwenAldarion on August 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

They didn’t build anything by themself (ves?).

faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Exactly. No scientist ever has. All we’ve ever done is figure out how to tame and manipulate what was already made for us.

There’s even an old Christian joke/proverb about this:

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, “Lord, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of Nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the ‘beginning’.”
“Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God.
“Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the Likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”
“Well, that’s interesting. Show Me.”
So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.
“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.

Neither man ever claimed that you couldn’t question the validity of a theory because the science was settled either. And I believe Newton was a devout Christian whose scientific work was only surpassed by his religious work.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Bingo on both counts.

Thanks for the backup, brothers and sisters in Christ.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Say Nikola Tesla or Isaac Newton thought this way. Where would we be today?

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Tesla wanted to be a priest, and Newton…

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” - Isaac Newton

sharrukin on August 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4