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

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

FWIW, I never claimed that there weren’t perfectly valid criticisms of evolutionary theory.

However, ID is based on faith, not scientific study. It’s an answer in search of a question.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM

The VP pick is going to be a governor- but not Jindal.

McDonnell of Va. will be the safe pick.

FlaMurph on August 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM

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

faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

I never claimed they did.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM

McDuck on August 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

My point is that this is a controversial “wedge” issue that Romney does not need to deal with by choosing a VP candidate who has chosen to go beyond expressing an opinion. Jindal has gone beyond simply expressing an opinion and signed legislation.

As to polls, it all depends on how the questions are worded.

The numbers I gave have been reasonably consistent over the years. Polls about “teaching the controversy” not so much. Most people do not really understand the terminology or what “creationism” means.

Again, the point is… why risk introducing this issue into the campaign? I think the Dems and MSM will run with it.

There is much about Jindal I like, but I do not find him so compelling a candidate as to risk wading into this issue in this campaign.

farsighted on August 9, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Samyr Laine was born in the U.S. but his parents are from Haiti—a country he visited for the first time after the 2010 earthquake there that killed 300,000. Now, the 28-year-old triple-jumper has signed on with his ancestral homeland and hopes to return there with Haiti’s first Olympic medal in 84 years.

Born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The connection to a foreign country, that he received at birth via his parents’ foreign citizenship, makes him eligible to represent that foreign country in the Olympics.

He’s an athlete, not our Commander-in-Chief, but John Jay was explicit that the president should be only a “natural born citizen” because it was “wise and seasonable” to ensure that the commander of our armed forces would never be someone with birth ties to a foreign country. And those ties can come from either place of birth or by citizenship of one or both parents.

ITguy on August 9, 2012 at 11:26 PM

I like Ryan, but Romney needs VA. With VA, it opens up a whole series of electoral college possibilities that will be near impossible for Obama to counter.

MrX on August 9, 2012 at 11:26 PM

I never claimed they did.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM

It was a joke based on recent comments by Obama.

faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:27 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

Scientific Method used to be: (1) question; (2) hypothesis; (3) prediction; (4) test; (5) analysis (6) repeat as needed.

Scientific Method as taught by public schools and practiced today (1) make a conclusion (generally a leftist moral conclusion); (2) hypothesize on how to set up an experiment that you can manipulate to “prove” your conclusion; (3) test; (4) disregard or delete any non-supportive data; (5) analyze data that supports our initial conclusion; (6) get more government grants.

besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Oh, I WISH they would pick Jindal. He does have the potential to fire people up, but not in a way that overshadows Romney. Damn, he’d be brilliant.

Book on August 9, 2012 at 11:27 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

There are many holy men in history that were also scientists. I’m not trying to make such a broad argument.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

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

Because he isn’t Constitutionally eligible.

Dante on August 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Scientific Method used to be: (1) question; (2) hypothesis; (3) prediction; (4) test; (5) analysis (6) repeat as needed.

Scientific Method as taught by public schools and practiced today (1) make a conclusion (generally a leftist moral conclusion); (2) hypothesize on how to set up an experiment that you can manipulate to “prove” your conclusion; (3) test; (4) disregard or delete any non-supportive data; (5) analyze data that supports our initial conclusion; (6) get more government grants.

besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

I remember being taught the old way in middle school, and also taught to disregard anything that didn’t follow that as either unprovable or a fraud.

Back then, it meant to call BS on classmates who used hilariously fake ‘research’ because they were too lazy to do their homework. Now, it means standing against amoral liberals with agendas straight out of hell.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM

FWIW, I never claimed that there weren’t perfectly valid criticisms of evolutionary theory.

However, ID is based on faith, not scientific study. It’s an answer in search of a question.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM

That is what I am trying to tell you though. There is ID science. In fact, not all ID scientists believe it is God who created-ever heear of panspermia? The fact is science has become faith as well. And rue the day you are a scientist that questions evolution-then you are branded a fundamentalist nut.

Maybe someone can help me out with the name of the astronomer who wrote a book about how if the earth was just a little off in its atmos phere etc. then we wouldn’t have life. That accidents aren’t ever that perfect.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Zuckerberg’s Roomie Aims to Win for Haiti

We never want our Commander-in-chief to be playing for the other team.

ITguy on August 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

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

Because he isn’t Constitutionally eligible.

Dante on August 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Be he eligible or not, that is not why. :)

besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Maybe someone can help me out with the name of the astronomer who wrote a book about how if the earth was just a little off in its atmos phere etc. then we wouldn’t have life. That accidents aren’t ever that perfect.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

^ This is MY argument with atomic structure, which seems to be bouncing off spinachs’ polite but very thick head.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Scientific Method used to be: (1) question; (2) hypothesis; (3) prediction; (4) test; (5) analysis (6) repeat as needed.

Scientific Method as taught by public schools and practiced today (1) make a conclusion (generally a leftist moral conclusion); (2) hypothesize on how to set up an experiment that you can manipulate to “prove” your conclusion; (3) test; (4) disregard or delete any non-supportive data; (5) analyze data that supports our initial conclusion; (6) get more government grants.

besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Bingo!

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

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

If we all call it the Romney/Rindal ticket using our best scooby doo voice then I think it’s a lock.

FireDrake on August 9, 2012 at 11:33 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

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

There are many holy men in history that were also scientists. I’m not trying to make such a broad argument.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Isaac Newton seems to be saying that God did it.

It isn’t a belief that short-circuits scientific inquiry.

sharrukin on August 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Now I remember it was Guillermo Gonzalez and the book was called The Privileged Planet.. I also remember that the University of Iowa wanted to take away his tenure because he believe in ID.

In private e-mails, Gonzalez’s colleagues deliberated about his tenure and collaborated to express their contempt for his views by asserting that ID is “intellectually vacuous and that “embalming is more of a science” than ID.

What’s more, they asserted that Gonzalez should be lumped with “idiots” and “religious nutcases.” They laughed at and ridiculed Gonzalez’s ID work, saying they would only study it “[u]nder medication.”

http://voices.yahoo.com/intelligent-design-astronomer-guillermo-gonzalez-the-690705.html?cat=4

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Isaac Newton seems to be saying that God did it.

It isn’t a belief that short-circuits scientific inquiry.

sharrukin on August 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Or in other words, the answer of “God made it” doesn’t prevent the question of “how does it work?” and the possibility of us finding out.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:38 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

From what I’ve read, intelligent design is offered as a theory along with Darwinian theory, and it’s up to the local school boards whether it’s included or not. That’s not exactly ‘pushing’ creationism, which is different from ID. As long as it’s presented as theory in public schools and approved locally, I don’t see the big deal. Perhaps someone from LA could enlighten us further as to how the system works.

Lightswitch on August 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

God didn’t make everything by himself.

faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Or in other words, the answer of “God made it” doesn’t prevent the question of “how does it work?” and the possibility of us finding out.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Exactly!

sharrukin on August 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

God didn’t make everything by himself.

faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

He didn’t need your help, that’s for sure.

Exactly!

sharrukin on August 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

*blushes* Thank you. That was rather inspired if I do say so myself.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

God didn’t make everything by himself.

faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Yep according to Barack Obama he had help from the government.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

It isn’t a belief that short-circuits scientific inquiry.

sharrukin on August 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Truth.
Hey, folks .. WHY did even Frankenstein NEED a ‘charge’ for life to happen ?
Gee, seems SOMETHING must provide that, no ??
Hey.

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 11:45 PM

God didn’t make everything by himself.

faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Yep according to Barack Obama he had help from the government.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

LOLOLOL!!!

Winnage!

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Maybe someone can help me out with the name of the astronomer who wrote a book about how if the earth was just a little off in its atmos phere etc. then we wouldn’t have life. That accidents aren’t ever that perfect.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

The universe is infinitesimally massive – for all intents and purposes, beyond our current ability to understand it.
In all that vast-ness, there’s bound to be some improbabilities that come to fruition.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:45 PM

That isn’t science, that’s faith..

melle1228

It’s neither science nor faith, it’s merely a statement of fact.

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

MelonCollie

Who can argue with such profoundly illogical logic, lol? Who knew mankind had figured out everything there is to know about everything?

xblade on August 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

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

MelonCollie

Not without SOME form of faith, so, you are correct.
Pick one.

pambi on August 9, 2012 at 11:53 PM

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

In a word: Alfred E. Neuman. (Three words, actually. Well, two plus a letter.)

Jindal looks too much like the Mad Magazine anti-hero. Sad but true, this disqualifies. If you don’t believe me, just think, what if a great candidate looked like Beetle Bailey or Garfield. See what I mean?

MaxMBJ on August 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Isaac Newton seems to be saying that God did it.

It isn’t a belief that short-circuits scientific inquiry.

sharrukin on August 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

I can get on board with the possibility that God created “The Rules” that our existence is governed by. I’m confident that many scientists hold the same belief.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:56 PM

The universe is infinitesimally massive – for all intents and purposes, beyond our current ability to understand it.
In all that vast-ness, there’s bound to be some improbabilities that come to fruition.

spinach.chin on August 9, 2012 at 11:45 PM

What is ‘infinitesimally massive’ is the gap between the “some improbabilities” you blithely throw about and the staggering amount of coincidence it would require for total disorder to turn into order

“Some improbabilities” don’t even cover the issue of monkeys evolving into men without leaving logical holes big enough for a B-17 to do an Immelman in. It is laughably inadequate when you get down to the atomic level, where trillions upon trillions upon trillions of such ‘improbabilities’ are required to even form a one-celled organism. Go up the scale to even something like a gorilla and you need more ‘improbabilities’ than there dollars in the national debt.

And not only must such ‘improbabilities’ randomly happen, they have to keep themselves stable and come together in order to form anything. It would be more believable for a herd of a million feral cats to come together on their own, not leave at random, and stay together without fighting.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Who can argue with such profoundly illogical logic, lol?

Not you, since you wouldn’t know logic if it came up behind you and kicked you in the Obama with a steel-toed boot.

Who knew mankind had figured out everything there is to know about everything?

xblade on August 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

There are some things that are simply too complex for our mortal minds to grasp. (For you, that’s just about everything)

Some seek to dismiss them as random chance, stating this in the face of incredibly obvious order.

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

MaxMBJ on August 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Might I refer you to Michael Ramirez’ cartoons ?
Who cares.

pambi on August 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM

MelonCollie on August 9, 2012 at 11:56 PM

To back you up, for any who are willing to be enlightened….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

pambi on August 10, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Maybe someone can help me out with the name of the astronomer who wrote a book about how if the earth was just a little off in its atmos phere etc. then we wouldn’t have life. That accidents aren’t ever that perfect.

melle1228

Says who? You’d have a point if there was only one planet in all the universe, and that one planet just happened to have the “perfect” conditions for life. But that isn’t the case. There are trillions of planets in the universe. Odds are pretty good that some of them will “accidentally” have the right conditions for supporting life.

Wait, scratch that. We haven’t found any other planets with life, therefore it’s just not plausible that there are any other planets with life out of the trillions of planets out there. It’s much much more plausible that God created them all, but only put life on one of them.

xblade on August 10, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Have you seen him speak? Especially that SOTU address a couple years ago that was supposed to be his “big break?” Snoozefest. He sounded like a quantum physics teacher lecturing.

Minus the charm and charisma.

inthemiddle on August 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

I’ve actually heard him speak. To me. Last October on the grounds of the Greater Baton Rouge State Fair.
Spent a few minutes chatting about the Republican primaries.

He’s quite personable. And no, he wasn’t in “I’m running for office and will tell you what I think you want to hear” mode.

His wife was speaking on behalf of a charity. I happened to be backstage for the 20 minutes or so before she spoke.

Jindal’s the real deal.

And he is an exorcist. Scares the hell outta the libs here in Louisiana.

That’s good enough for me.

soundingboard on August 10, 2012 at 12:06 AM

xblade on August 10, 2012 at 12:04 AM

All you have are odds and chances and ‘might-bes’.

Hard evidence of intelligent life elsewhere: ZERO.

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Says who? You’d have a point if there was only one planet in all the universe, and that one planet just happened to have the “perfect” conditions for life. But that isn’t the case. There are trillions of planets in the universe. Odds are pretty good that some of them will “accidentally” have the right conditions for supporting life.

Wait, scratch that. We haven’t found any other planets with life, therefore it’s just not plausible that there are any other planets with life out of the trillions of planets out there. It’s much much more plausible that God created them all, but only put life on one of them.

xblade on August 10, 2012 at 12:04 AM

The book was more eloquent and detailed than that. I am sure you haven’t and won’t read it. That being said, even if you have another planet with life- it doesn’t negate and intelligent designer.

melle1228 on August 10, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Says who? You’d have a point if there was only one planet in all the universe, and that one planet just happened to have the “perfect” conditions for life. But that isn’t the case. There are trillions of planets in the universe. Odds are pretty good that some of them will “accidentally” have the right conditions for supporting life.

Wait, scratch that. We haven’t found any other planets with life, therefore it’s just not plausible that there are any other planets with life out of the trillions of planets out there. It’s much much more plausible that God created them all, but only put life on one of them.

xblade on August 10, 2012 at 12:04 AM

The book was more eloquent and detailed than that. I am sure you haven’t and won’t read it. That being said, even if you have another planet with life- it doesn’t negate and intelligent designer.

melle1228 on August 10, 2012 at 12:09 AM

And BTW, you missed the point ENTIRELY. The fact is that any science questions the settled science of evolution is branded a fundamentalist nut- no matter what scientific basis or proof that they have. They get fired and they get ridiculed.

In what world, does shutting dissenting scientists down become good for science?

melle1228 on August 10, 2012 at 12:12 AM

The book was more eloquent and detailed than that. I am sure you haven’t and won’t read it. That being said, even if you have another planet with life- it doesn’t negate and intelligent designer.

melle1228 on August 10, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Exactly. And it wouldn’t unless that life was anything close to sentient. So at the very minimum you’d need: a ‘just right’ solar system, a ‘just right’ planet, and a ‘just right’ atmosphere for sentient life. If the most complex lifeform the planet can sustain is insects, even that win of the galactic lottery isn’t worth much.

So not only do you need a “Goldilocks planet” to even have life, period, you need one where complex lifeforms can thrive. The odds of which are even worse than xblade not being a willful fool.

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:15 AM

All you have are odds and chances and ‘might-bes’.

Hard evidence of intelligent life elsewhere: ZERO.

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Because of the vast distances involved, we may never see other forms of intelligent life in the entire existence of humanity, but because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Check out the hit piece on Jindall at Boing Boing which uses information from a Mother Jones article. http://boingboing.net/2012/08/08/crazy-stuff-theyll-teach-in.html “Louisiana governor (and retired exorcist) Bobby Jindal has signed an aggressive charter school bill that will transfer millions in tax dollars to religious academies run by evolution-denying, homophobic, climate-change-denying Christian extremists.”

GKChesterton on August 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Because of the vast distances involved, we may never see other forms of intelligent life in the entire existence of humanity, but because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM

So again, your entire argument is based on the chance that we’ll see and/or bump into other lifeforms, or that they’re just out there somewhere.

Why not stand on the hard fact that there isn’t the faintest evidence of intelligent life anywhere but here?

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Y’all KNOW I want a Mitt/ Jindal ticket. Mitt/ Ryan would be a distant second. No one else.
*Birthers FOAD*

annoyinglittletwerp on August 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM

but because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM

What does that remind me of? Hmmmm?

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM

What does that remind me of? Hmmmm?

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM

…I can’t believe I missed that. <|-]

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Jindal was my preference, but the reason I think he’s not the candidate is that Louisiana isn’t really in danger of falling to Obama in the election..

So the Romney camp needs someone from a purple state (or even a blue state) to try to draw in voters.

That’s it.. that’s the only reason Jindal shouldn’t be a final candidate for the position.

DaSaintFan on August 10, 2012 at 12:23 AM

So not only do you need a “Goldilocks planet” to even have life, period, you need one where complex lifeforms can thrive. The odds of which are even worse than xblade not being a willful fool.

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:15 AM

There are estimates of 200 billion or more galaxies in the universe, each with hundreds of billions of stars. The odds are much better than you think.

Also, you’re only considering intelligent life that could exist in an earth-like atmosphere.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:23 AM

…I can’t believe I missed that. <|-]

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Yeah, too many people unwilling to admit that they really don’t know, and at the same time absolutely convinced that it can’t be what those Christians are claiming.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:24 AM

What does that remind me of? Hmmmm?

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM
…I can’t believe I missed that. <|-]

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM

I caught it. I just think that they are so stubborn that they don’t even see it.

melle1228 on August 10, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Also, you’re only considering intelligent life that could exist in an earth-like atmosphere.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Carbon based life forms are overwhelmingly the most likely form of life and there aren’t many stable atmospheres and temperature ranges in which they can realistically exist.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Why not stand on the hard fact that there isn’t the faintest evidence of intelligent life anywhere but here?

MelonCollie on August 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM

No, there is no hard evidence, true enough, but would you not agree the statistical probability is that other planets that could support intelligent life do exist?

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Yeah, too many people unwilling to admit that they really don’t know, and at the same time absolutely convinced that it can’t be what those Christians are claiming.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Like I said I am the least religious person there is. Not quite agnostic or atheist, but certainly no fundamentalist. That being said, “settled” science is scary to me. I don’t understand shutting a scientist down because he believes that there may be scientific proof that we had an intelligent designer. Being religious didn’t stop some of of the most notable science in history. Shutting disenting scientists up is a bad precedent and smacks of what they claim the church did to scientist centuries ago.

melle1228 on August 10, 2012 at 12:28 AM

What does that remind me of? Hmmmm?

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM

*shrug*
I’m not an atheist.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Like I said I am the least religious person there is. Not quite agnostic or atheist, but certainly no fundamentalist.

I don’t believe in God, more of an agnostic.

That being said, “settled” science is scary to me. I don’t understand shutting a scientist down because he believes that there may be scientific proof that we had an intelligent designer. Being religious didn’t stop some of of the most notable science in history. Shutting disenting scientists up is a bad precedent and smacks of what they claim the church did to scientist centuries ago.

melle1228 on August 10, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Thats exactly how I feel. The Darwinian theology being pushed isn’t science, its a world view with social change in mind. There are other theories of evolution as well as ID which should be looked at. Science doesn’t have all the answers and it never has. There is always new knowledge being discovered and much of what we believe to be true is not going to survive the test of time. Things that we believe to be ironclad truths will be ridiculed by generations to come.

A little humility would go a long way.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Carbon based life forms are overwhelmingly the most likely form of life and there aren’t many stable atmospheres and temperature ranges in which they can realistically exist.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:27 AM

With the sheer number of planets that exist in the universe, there are likely to be many that have near identical conditions to ours, and I’m not sure what basis you use to say that carbon-based are the most likely form of life.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM

I like Ryan, but Romney needs VA. With VA, it opens up a whole series of electoral college possibilities that will be near impossible for Obama to counter.

You’re kinda contradicting yourself here between the first and second sentences. Obviously Obama would like to have VA, but it’s much more of a must-win for Romney than it is for Obama. Unless you think a McDonnell nom makes Romney’s winning OH and FL more likely, I’m not sure I get your drift.

El Txangurro on August 10, 2012 at 12:48 AM

I’m going to play devils advocate here, forgive me.  

He doesn’t look “presidential.” He doesn’t have the gravitas to be the CiC of the armed forces. Really, you want this scrawny man to lead the country? That’s why the SOTU response was so important, the stage swallowed the small man. Imagine him in the Oval Office, giving a 9/11 aftermath speech. Would you hug the kids a little tighter and say “sorry.” I’ll give Obama this…he looks more commanding in mom jeans than this guy in a suit. I’m mean are we not a country that wants a little more John Wayne than Don Knots. Plus, he’s Catholic, that archaic religion that likes little boys, so he’ll try to shove his religion down our collective throats. 

Bleh, I’ve been trolling the Huffington Post for too long. 

Conger on August 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM

I’m not sure what basis you use to say that carbon-based are the most likely form of life.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM

This is a decent read.

http://thelivingcosmos.com/TheNatureofLife/SiliconVsCarbon_12May06.html

Silicon has the same number of electrons in its outer shell, meaning that it can form four bonds just like carbon. It is also very abundant, comprising much of the rock that is beneath your feet. Silicon can bind readily to itself to make Si-Si bonds just like carbon can make C-C bonds. With just this information, one might think that we are on to something with this silicon atom. After all, C-C bonds are the basis for complex molecules on Earth. However, we are neglecting some rather important details. Although Si-Si bonds, as well as silicon-hydrogen and silicon-oxygen bonds, are easily made we have not yet considered the relative strengths of these bonds. Si-Si bonds are much weaker than C-C bonds – they are only half as strong! Si-H bonds and Si-O bonds are stronger than Si-Si bonds, whereas the carbon analogs for all three of these types of bonds are nearly equal in strength. This means that while it is very easy to create long chains and rings of carbon atoms, it is unusual to have long chains or rings of silicon atoms linked together. In fact, it is extremely rare to find any molecules that have strung together more than three silicon atoms.

Silicones are an example of such molecules; they are comprised of Si-O bonds and contain carbon. Silicones are very stable, so stable that they don’t react with other molecules much. Although silicones could be used by life to store and transmit large amounts of information, their inability to easily engage in chemical reactions makes them an unlikely choice for any type of life. This leads us back to the same problem that we noted with SiO2, silicones wouldn’t be very useful for chemical reactions.

Nitrogen bonding is even worse.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Jindal should have always been the VP nominee, Daniels at the head of the ticket, but that is another story. But as far as Jindal goes, a leader with governing creds he has a yes check, but of all the don’t steal from the house or senate, with other than any health care wonk he is the smartest person to end obamacare and reform the system. His education reform knowledge is also a must.

smitty41 on August 10, 2012 at 12:55 AM

OK, I see where you’re coming from there. Thanks.

I guess I’m more interested in the “known unknowns” as it were – those things that may exist out there that we can’t possibly have considered because the breadth of human experience and knowledge is so incredibly tiny.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Sorry, that was in response to sharrukin.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Um. As conservative as he may be, we ought not bend the term “natural born” to give him a pass, just as we don’t like how libs bend the 2nd to mean something it doesn’t or when they chant “separation of church and state”. Now if the people want a constitutional amendment to explicitly waive “natural born” so that an Arnold Schwarzenegger or a Marco or a Bobby or a Barack or even an anchorbaby to become POTUS then by all means do so. Until then, the ends does not justify the means (ignoring/misinterpreting the constitution) . FIN

AH_C on August 10, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Jindal looks too much like the Mad Magazine anti-hero. Sad but true, this disqualifies. If you don’t believe me, just think, what if a great candidate looked like Beetle Bailey or Garfield. See what I mean?

MaxMBJ on August 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Well, we already got Urkel….

PointnClick on August 10, 2012 at 1:03 AM

mittens only pick is Jindal, if he doesn’t we will lose, because if he does win we can’t fix the issue. Jindal can fix healthcare and education, Ryan needs to stay in the House to fix entitlements and the budget, we fix nothing taking from the senate if we don’t gain majority. simple stupid

smitty41 on August 10, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Sorry, that was in response to sharrukin.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 12:58 AM

No problem. I find the subject rather interesting.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Um. As conservative as he may be, we ought not bend the term “natural born” to give him a pass, just as we don’t like how libs bend the 2nd to mean something it doesn’t or when they chant “separation of church and state”. Now if the people want a constitutional amendment to explicitly waive “natural born” so that an Arnold Schwarzenegger or a Marco or a Bobby or a Barack or even an anchorbaby to become POTUS then by all means do so. Until then, the ends does not justify the means (ignoring/misinterpreting the constitution) . FIN

AH_C on August 10, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Jindal was born in the US. He is a natural born citizen. End of story.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Like I said I am the least religious person there is. Not quite agnostic or atheist, but certainly no fundamentalist. That being said, “settled” science is scary to me. I don’t understand shutting a scientist down because he believes that there may be scientific proof that we had an intelligent designer. Being religious didn’t stop some of of the most notable science in history. Shutting disenting scientists up is a bad precedent and smacks of what they claim the church did to scientist centuries ago.

melle1228 on August 10, 2012 at 12:28 AM

You should watch that NOVA documentary (funded by a Koch, not exactly a lib)
that went over that creation science trial, and pretty much showed how the intelligent design scientists got pretty much taken apart, not for the conclusions, but for their methods.

V-rod on August 10, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Jindal is a good guess because he’s off the main conventional wisdom radar, but it won’t be him. He’s a very sharp guy, but brings nothing to the ticket.

It’s Petraeus. The media is running around like fools chasing the locations of the other names on their short list – and their wives and kids! The General will be in his post until his resignation, concurrent with the announcement.

Of course he had to advise Obama he was considering it, and Obama’s overblown ego just had to “let it slip” so everyone would know he knew before we did. And he’s wild and desperate in his efforts to damage Romney before the big news.

How do they attack him after appointing him DCI? That he is “not a politician,” perhaps? Heh, yeah, people hate non-politicians, don’t they?

Adjoran on August 10, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Jindal was born in the US. He is a natural born citizen. End of story.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 1:12 AM

For crying out loud. It seems we have folks that can’t read the Constitution. The qualifications for President and VP are different than the qualifications for Congress or any other elected office.

There is no way in hell Jindal is a Natural Born Citizen when he was born of non-citizen parents, whether in the U.S. or not.

It is so patently obvious that was the intended constraint since the Constitution’s only exemption to this clause was to cover the leaders of that time so that at least some of them qualified for the Presidency/VP since none of them met the requirement at the time, even though born in the U.S (a.k.a Washington).

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..”

See how Citizen is different from Natural Born right out of Article II??

The last time I checked Bobby Jindal wasn’t a citizen at the time of our Constitution’s adoption..

Let’s stop this insanity about Rubio while we’re at it too.

rgrovr on August 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

You should watch that NOVA documentary (funded by a Koch, not exactly a lib) that went over that creation science trial, and pretty much showed how the intelligent design scientists got pretty much taken apart, not for the conclusions, but for their methods.

V-rod on August 10, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Wasn’t it made by Vulcan Productions (Paul Allen of Microsoft) and aired by PBS?

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 1:39 AM

For crying out loud. It seems we have folks that can’t read the Constitution. The qualifications for President and VP are different than the qualifications for Congress or any other elected office.

There is no way in hell Jindal is a Natural Born Citizen when he was born of non-citizen parents, whether in the U.S. or not.

It is so patently obvious that was the intended constraint since the Constitution’s only exemption to this clause was to cover the leaders of that time so that at least some of them qualified for the Presidency/VP since none of them met the requirement at the time, even though born in the U.S (a.k.a Washington).

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..”

See how Citizen is different from Natural Born right out of Article II??

The last time I checked Bobby Jindal wasn’t a citizen at the time of our Constitution’s adoption..

Let’s stop this insanity about Rubio while we’re at it too.

rgrovr on August 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Let’s see what dear old dad had to say about this…

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

-James Madison, May 22, 1789

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Since you’re referencing intent…

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Bonus: all the MR/BJ 2012 campaign paraphernalia. Every guy wants a MR/BJ shirt!

Russell28 on August 10, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Let’s see what dear old dad had to say about this…

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

-James Madison, May 22, 1789

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM

What was he talking about?

It was an attempt to overturn the 1788 election of William L. Smith

I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.

And recall what was said…

The qualifications for President and VP are different than the qualifications for Congress or any other elected office.

rgrovr on August 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Thanks Sharrukin for beating me to the punch and schooling the noobs that like to pull Founder’s quotes out of context after they do a Wikipedia lookup..

Citizen does not equal Natural Born Citizen.

Words matter. If they didn’t they wouldn’t have used the term in the Constitution. If you believe it to be a dumb requirement, fine – Amend the Constitution then we can talk. Until then – Jindal is not qualified.

rgrovr on August 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM

What was he talking about?

Irrelevant. The quote references Madison’s general definition of a natural-born citizen. The context of the quote is incidental. Would Madison have changed this definition according to the circumstance? Seems unlikely…

The qualifications for President and VP are different than the qualifications for Congress or any other elected office.

rgrovr on August 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 2:09 AM

This is the only qualification for POTUS:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

Madison clearly believes those born in the US (and he is specific that parentage is not relevant) are citizens.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Citizen does not equal Natural Born Citizen.

rgrovr on August 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Sorry, if they were born in the US, they are indeed natural born citizens, and Madison agrees.

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 2:31 AM

Thanks Sharrukin for beating me to the punch and schooling the noobs that like to pull Founder’s quotes out of context after they do a Wikipedia lookup..

rgrovr on August 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM

No problem. I think he may have honestly gotten it from Redstate because they also have the last sentence cut off in their quote.

Sadly though it won’t matter, and there are few who care even on the right. Obama isn’t eligible either and he’s in the White House. The constitution is essentially null and void in these days of miracles and wonders. Guys like judge Roberts just have to be extra inventive to get around it, and given time, even that need to dance around the constitution will vanish.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 2:33 AM

No problem. I think he may have honestly gotten it from Redstate because they also have the last sentence cut off in their quote.

Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

How would this sentence have made sense to post immediately after my quote, and how would it have changed Madison’s meaning?

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 2:38 AM

How would this sentence have made sense to post immediately after my quote, and how would it have changed Madison’s meaning?

spinach.chin on August 10, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Smith wasn’t running for president or vice president so no requirement exists for the Natural-born-citizen clause. It ONLY applies to those positions, not for the legislature.

In addition...I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence... would mean the grandfather clause (or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President) would apply.

It really has no relevance to the question.

sharrukin on August 10, 2012 at 2:47 AM

It could very well be that Jindal stopped Romney in his tracks and told him he wasn’t interested in the job. That’s really the only thing I can think of.

Jindal can make compelling arguments about education reform in this country, and can point to LA’s success to back it up.

frode on August 10, 2012 at 5:44 AM

@besser tot als rot on August 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

That post, sir or madam, was a thing of beauty. Well done.

GrassMudHorsey on August 10, 2012 at 6:48 AM

We have NO IDEA what Jindal’s vetting turned up.

Elizabetty on August 10, 2012 at 6:58 AM

MelonCollie are you some sort of religious weirdo freak nut job or just completely stupid? here’s a hint for you dopey chose the second option its so much better.

Your Mamma loves me on August 10, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Jindal wouldn’t be at the top of my list, but he would be an excellent choice. This election is about our economy and so I am not concerned with his social views, many of which I can’t agree with. He has been a highly effective governor, is very smart and in particular in the area of medical policy. Mitt could do a whole lot worse than Jindal.

MJBrutus on August 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM

Sorry, Jindal may be smart and competent, but he isnt any less bland than Pawlenty.

And no, Obamas incompetence doesnt fundamentally change the rules of electoral competetion. Apearances still matter, because the media environment still exists and people still want politicians who can give memorable speeches.

People like Jindal and Pawlenty have great difficulties to communicate strong leadership because they simply dont look like it. You may agree with their positions, but look at them: Somebody seriously took their lunch money.

It may be sad, but these things still decide elections.

Valkyriepundit on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 AM

Because no one wants to have to listen to his acceptance speech.

bflat879 on August 10, 2012 at 7:30 AM

MelonCollie are you some sort of religious weirdo freak nut job or just completely stupid? here’s a hint for you dopey chose the second option its so much better.

Your Mamma loves me on August 10, 2012 at 7:01 AM

You are 12 years old, aren’t you?

kingsjester on August 10, 2012 at 7:31 AM

Emerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758)

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Remind me again why he isn’t our POTUS nom…

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Sorry, Jindal may be smart and competent, but he isnt any less bland than Pawlenty.

And no, Obamas incompetence doesnt fundamentally change the rules of electoral competetion. Apearances still matter, because the media environment still exists and people still want politicians who can give memorable speeches.

Valkyriepundit on August 10, 2012 at 7:28 AM

You clearly have never seen him speak, other than that bland SOTU response he gave. He’s far more engaging than anybody else we’ve seen this cycle.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Remind me again why he isn’t our POTUS nom…

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Because he isn’t Constitutionally eligible.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Let me ask the “natural borners” something. If natural born means born of a citizen, what do you classify someone born a citizen but to immigrant parents as? Clearly, if they took such great care to determine natural born meant born of a citizen, they would have given a designator to those born of migrants, right?

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Because he isn’t Constitutionally eligible.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Allah, can we start just removing the posts. They’re a waste of everyone’s time. It’s wasting space on the innernets.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Let me ask the “natural borners” something. If natural born means born of a citizen, what do you classify someone born a citizen but to immigrant parents as? Clearly, if they took such great care to determine natural born meant born of a citizen, they would have given a designator to those born of migrants, right?

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:34 AM

You’d have to be specific. Do you mean born to immigrant parents who have or have not been naturalized?

Allah, can we start just removing the posts. They’re a waste of everyone’s time. It’s wasting space on the innernets.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Why are you threatened by ideas, Constitutional ideas, that challenge you or challenge the accepted status quo?

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Why are you threatened by ideas, Constitutional ideas, that challenge you or challenge the accepted status quo?

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Neither, it is a tired, trifling argument. That is all. I am not the least bit threatened by such drivel.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4