Jindal: The GOP “might need to change just about everything”

posted at 5:11 pm on January 24, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Since the failed presidential election, the GOP has been grappling with identifying exactly what it is the party needs to work on most — diversity, social issues, and Latino outreach, or election mechanics and a flawed Romney candidacy/campaign? — or some combination thereof, and all of the issues are on the table for discussion at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in North Carolina. Keynote speaker and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, however, is going for a more overarching message in his address tonight: It’s time to “recalibrate the compass of conservatism,” stop focusing so much on Washington-centric politics, and start going for a message of inclusion and economic growth:

“We do not need to change what we believe as conservatives – our principles are timeless,” Jindal says. “But we do need to re-orient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives: in the real world beyond the Washington Beltway.” …

“Today’s conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs,” he says. “We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play.” …

“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.,” Jindal says.

Of course, the 2016 brand-building has already begun in earnest, and with the GOP bench looking pretty solid, the competition for free-market, economy-growing, conservative credentials will be fierce — and I am one hundred percent okay with that. Jindal is already looking to institute some aggressive pro-growth changes to Louisiana’s tax code, and the message of goal-oriented optimism is one the Republicans could definitely use right about now.

The Democrats have somehow managed to become the party that can provide more for people through the auspices of big government; as Jindal plans to say, they “promise to be the party of ‘more from government,’ but they are actually the party of less.  They are the party of economic contraction, austerity and less from the economy.  The Republican Party is the party of ‘more,’ the party that creates more from the economy.’” The GOP needs to keep hammering home that they aren’t against a social safety net — rather, they’re actively for an economy in which opportunities are so readily available and attractive that people don’t want to be on welfare — and its the type of economy that cannot be achieved through federal orchestration.


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

Funny, it didn’t feel like a landslide……….

FlaMurph on January 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Frankly, sounds like more of the same, with the ‘outside DC’ phrase added.

In other words, a losing formula.

avgjo on January 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM

The Republican Party must become the party of growth

Duh…

…the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country

Sounds to me like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney’s message during the last campaign.

Fleuries on January 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM

The two go hand in hand. You can’t just divorce federal fiscal conservatism from the policies that promote growth. I don’t see his point.

JannyMae on January 24, 2013 at 5:16 PM

“Today’s conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs,”

and………….thats the 1st step Bobby.

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM

A question for those in the know: If those who stayed home because Romney was not the ideal choice had actually voted, would America now be in its current mess?

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Of course, the 2016 brand-building has already begun in earnest, and with the GOP bench looking pretty solid

Not as solid as at first advertised.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 5:18 PM

I like Jindal…but this is not the entire answer. It is just a part of the whole.

CoffeeLover on January 24, 2013 at 5:19 PM

A question for those in the know: If those who stayed home because Romney was not the ideal choice had actually voted, would America now be in its current mess?

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Give the Romney shilling a rest already. The man failed. A slightly-less liberal alternative to Obama was not appealing to a majority of voters. End of story.

Armin Tamzarian on January 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM

The Democrats have somehow managed to become the party that can provide more for people through the auspices of big government; as Jindal plans to say, they “promise to be the party of ‘more from government,’ but they are actually the party of less. They are the party of economic contraction, austerity and less from the economy. The Republican Party is the party of ‘more,’ the party that creates more from the economy.’”

Yeah, but in our version we require American Citizens to contribute to that growth. Their version requires no effort on behalf of citizens. I won’t hold my breath….

People no longer want opportunity, they want the finished product without having to put in the legwork.

weaselyone on January 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Want to be a party of change? REPLACE most of the current RNC and get the entire organization OUT of the DC mindset. The elections are won OUT HERE! In the suburbs especially.

michaelo on January 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM

It’s a “rigged game” alright. I get that. But it’s not like we can simply choose not to play. No matter how much growth we generate, Washington spends it faster than we can make it. And if we have an objection to that, then we’re all selfish, mean-spirited, fat-cats. /sarc

Sure, we’ve got to continue strengthening ourselves at the state and local level. That’s mightily important. But if we can’t get Washington under control, it’s not going to matter.

Murf76 on January 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM

You and I might feel a little better about it, but in reality probably not.

CTSherman on January 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM

A slightly-less liberal alternative to Obama
Armin Tamzarian on January 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM

You have a very liberal definition of liberal……….

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Erika,good post, but

You might have highlighted a more favourable quote that I am sure most here will agree with:

“By obsessing with zeroes on the budget spreadsheet, we send a not-so-subtle signal that the focus of our country is on the phony economy of Washington, instead of the real economy out here in Charlotte, and Shreveport (La.), and Cheyenne (Wyo.),”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/24/bobby-jindal-speaking-truth-to-gop-power/

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 5:24 PM

If Jindal and Rubio were on a primary ballot together, I’d probably invalidate my ballot and pick both. I honestly don’t see myself being able to choose. My head says Jindal, my heart says Rubio, but both my head and heart are severely conflicted. Its a narrow win for both of them in both the heart and head category. I don’t know what I’m going to do in 2016, but I love both these men.

vegconservative on January 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM

You have a very liberal definition of liberal……….

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM

What’s conservative about Romney’s political record?

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.,” Jindal says.

Sadly, because of the centralization of power, it is vital that we cut waste and bureaucracy in D.C. in order to grow.

aryeung on January 24, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Jindal? LOL Good luck with that Pubs.

Mr. Arrogant on January 24, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Jindal……Jeb Bush with a tan and Cajun accent (with a bit more control at the all-you-can eat restaurants).

No thx.

#biggovloverJindal

PappyD61 on January 24, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Mr. Arrogant on January 24, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Is he better suited to a career with 7-Eleven?

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 5:31 PM

These SELLOUTS will move further to the left & commit rino suicide. If they wanted to fix the problems within the GOP… two things, first you have to stop Betraying Americans and helping the TRAITOR-in-chief, in covering up acts of TREASON & Dereliction of Duty. Second, Stop Stabbing Your Base In The BACK(Well, What Used To Be Your Base)!
But, the rinos/eSTABrepubs know better. They can convince themselves of anything, so long as they don’t have to take the blame for any of their failures, stemming from their mad rush to the left. Just Like Libs, HMMM?!?!?!

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

paratisi on January 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM

What’s conservative about Romney’s political record?
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

As a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Its far more conservative than Obama’s, thats all that matters.

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Jindal: The GOP “might need to change just about everything”

Really? I guess you had better withdraw that proposal to do away with personal and corporate income taxes in Louisiana.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Armin Tamzarian on January 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM

That wasn’t my question. I wanted to know if Obama could have been consigned to the rubbish tip of history, or whether his second term was inevitable.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM

As a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Its far more conservative than Obama’s, thats all that matters.

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM

What’s conservative about Romney’s political record?

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Is he better suited to a career with 7-Eleven?

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 5:31 PM

According to Vice-President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr, he is.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM

As a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Its far more conservative than Obama’s, thats all that matters.

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM

And Trotsky was more “conservative” than Stalin.

HondaV65 on January 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Ah, figures RWM would be quickest to get that reference. Good on ya!

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

“Today’s conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs,”

We ignore this at our own peril. That “hideous mess” threatens to bring the entire country down.

TarheelBen on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

That wasn’t my question. I wanted to know if Obama could have been consigned to the rubbish tip of history, or whether his second term was inevitable.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Romney was never going to win, if that is your question. If Romney had been a different man and made different decisions, maybe…but he wasn’t that man.

So yes, Obama could have been sent packing if someone else had been chosen.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

The problem being that WASHINGTON hamstrings every other place from being prosperous. So we do need to focus our efforts there if we are going to ake it anywhere at all. Jindal starting to look like moron!

astonerii on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

CTSherman on January 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Thank you for answering my question. Strangely, it makes me feel a (very) little better about the current situation.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

“We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play.” …

“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.,” Jindal says.

This sounds an awful lot like a return to Compassionate Conservatism cloaked in *snort* the multiplier effect.

HitNRun on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Listen to Jindal – you don’t have to agree with him – but listen to him – he is a very very smart man – and a great politician.

jake-the-goose on January 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM

I’d be happy if the R party would just grow collective pair and stand for their supposed principals/principles….

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Of course, the 2016 brand-building has already begun in earnest, and with the GOP bench looking pretty solid, the competition for free-market, economy-growing, conservative credentials will be fierce

Hilarious.

Tim_CA on January 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM

“Today’s conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs,” he says. “We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play.” …

“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.,” Jindal says.

Because the one doesn’t have anything to do with the other, ay Bobby?

Here’s an idea, Bobby. How ’bout we focus on the family. That’s a new one for the GOP. Should work like a charm.

How ’bout faith and the social contract. Worked for Santorum, didn’t it? And since you have experience with getting intelligent design taught in Louisiana schools, this is no big leap for you, is it?

How ’bout you and Newt get together to get that moon colony going? That should help with national unity, and we won’t have to worry about that nasty budget stuff.

Mr. Arkadin on January 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM

So yes, Obama could have been sent packing if someone else had been chosen.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Thanks, sharrukin. So, theoretically, America is not yet totally lost to the moochers, and may get back on the right track. Good for America, and good for the rest of us peons around the world.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Thanks, sharrukin. So, theoretically, America is not yet totally lost to the moochers, and may get back on the right track. Good for America, and good for the rest of us peons around the world.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:44 PM

The problem that exists is that politics has become a game in which both parties pander for votes with taxpayer loot. How do you assemble a political force that will not do that? So far it hasn’t happened.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Romney was never going to win, if that is your question. If Romney had been a different man and made different decisions, maybe…but he wasn’t that man.

So yes, Obama could have been sent packing if someone else had been chosen.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

The economy should have been enough to elect anyone but Obama.

The media wouldn’t allow it.

Goody2Shoes on January 24, 2013 at 5:49 PM

I like the part about focusing on conservatism thriving in the real world. Conservatives need to come up with a way to make those people that don’t really follow politics but vote in elections realize that they probably are conservatives on some level.

supernova on January 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Did you vote?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

They are the party of… austerity

wtf

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Time to look at why Romney failed. And it has nothing to do with not being enough Hispanic outreach or in trying to outdo Obama in being even more open borders.
And I wouldn’t just ascribe our loss to ethnic demographics and his bs “47%” line. My thinking is that people rightly perceived Romney as a deceiver, a faker, a calculating coreless schemer, and every day Romney, with things like the etch eh sketch line and his failure to stand up for ChickFilA [at least in terms of freedom of speech], reconfirmed that. People really really didn’t want to vote for a disingenuous car salesmen type.
But we knew he was bad news from the start. If we looked at his electoral record, as if it was on the back of a baseball card, we could see he was horrible. The only election he had won was in Republican wave year and he still got less than 50% (2002). Yet Romney’s (only) selling point was that he was the most electable. Inane.

Well, the alternatives were all horrible too or worse, it seemed. But that may have been because 1) the debate oriented primary encouraged “book tour” candidates (like Cain, Gingrich & wife [both hawking books], Santorum etc: next time if you have a book to sell, you should be excluded from the primary debates!!!), 2) Romney sucked the air out of the field, keeping better candidates out, 3) and Perry sucked even more air out of the field, as on the surface he looked good. (But then “Oops.”)

Well, the alternatives were all horrible too or worse, it seemed. But that may have been because 1) the debate oriented primary encouraged “book tour” candidates (like Cain, Gingrich & wife [both hawking books], Santorum etc: next time if you have a book to sell, you should be excluded from the primary debates!!!), 2) Romney sucked the air out of the field, keeping better candidates out, 3) and Perry sucked even more air out of the field, as on the surface he looked good. (But then “Oops.”)

anotherJoe on January 24, 2013 at 5:55 PM

The economy should have been enough to elect anyone but Obama.

The media wouldn’t allow it.

Goody2Shoes on January 24, 2013 at 5:49 PM

A leader has to lead, and a political choice has to offer something to choose other than ‘not him‘.

The media isn’t to blame for that failure. They were certainly in the tank for Obama, but they didn’t hide the great Republican plan…because there was no plan, no leadership, and no vision.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Who would you prefer to lead you out of the wilderness a crisis:

Marco Rubio
Bobby Jindal
Paul Ryan

I’m thinking Jindal by a mile on that one.

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Did you vote?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

What’s conservative about Romney’s political record?

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Since the failed presidential election, the GOP has been grappling with identifying exactly what it is the party needs to work on most —

They could start by reacquainting themselves with the notion of representing the people who vote for them.

Aitch748 on January 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Being an Atheist, this is going to sound highly hypocritical, but Religion has always been very good at rallying the troops around a cause.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 5:56 PM

All three have their merits..:)

Dire Straits on January 24, 2013 at 5:59 PM

He’s right. But I’m afraid the country will not embrace Conservatism again until the bottom falls out and the socialist economy collapses. They want their free stuff.

Philly on January 24, 2013 at 6:00 PM

This is a bit of clever positioning by Jindal, in anticipated opposition to Chris Christie who will almost certainly try to run a campaign exclusively on get-our-fiscal-house-in-order.

rockmom on January 24, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Shorter Jindal – “Since we can’t beat the Rats, we may as well become them.”

I believe Elwood Blues has the proper answer (don’t click if you’re around those who mind an f-bomb).

Steve Eggleston on January 24, 2013 at 6:01 PM

wtf

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM

We’re the brokest nation in history. I asked about this the other day. Progressives have pushed this nation so far into debt and refused to fix entitlements for long enough that the collapse of the entitlement state and the safety net are almost assured. I’m sure you’ll just respond with “nah, we’re fine” just like you did last time but this just shows how unserious and ignorant you are. Deny it all you want but most every thing you value in a liberal government is a Ponzi scheme and austerity is coming when it collapsed and the checks stop going out.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Being an Atheist, this is going to sound highly hypocritical, but Religion has always been very good at rallying the troops around a cause.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Islam certainly has that in spades. Christianity less so because too many don’t really believe.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Since the failed presidential election, the GOP has been grappling with identifying exactly what it is the party needs to work on most — diversity, social issues, and Latino outreach, or election mechanics and a flawed Romney candidacy/campaign?

The GOP needs to stop flirting with leftist idiocy concerning “diversity” and “latino outreach” and just get a friggin spine. The GOP has worms in the leadership and cowards all over who are scared to attack the Indonesian and his leftist junta (including the media) over what they have been doing to destroy America – to fundamentally deform our country. The GOP has to stop nominating milquetoast non-conservative wimps who are just dying to lose to the biggest idiots our nation has ever seen … without a fight. Romney was awful (as most of us knew he would be when we strongly opposed him during the primary) and the Weeping Boner is death, itself – and a pathetic, cowardly death. But, the GOP had to put Romney at the top and they had to re-elect that dirtball Boner for the Weepership, even after his disastrous two years in the position.

The GOP needs to distance itself from these worms and start to act like conservativism actually means something. A good first move would be to dump the Weeping Boner right now – I don’t care that he was just re-elected, he HAS TO GO!! And they need to find some people who are willing to fight. Instead, the GOP saves its real viciousness for those in the GOP who are willing to fight, like Bachmann and Palin, and has beer summits with the treasonous imbecile in the White House.

Personally, I’ve had enough of the GOP. 2012 was the last vote they’ll get from me. They blew that in the most spectacular way and then went on to spit in my face with the re-election of the Weeping Boner, who is nothing but a butt-boy for Barky. I’m looking third party until we finally get a national divorce to rid ourselves of the leftists lunatics and the worms in the GOP who love the leftist lunatics.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 24, 2013 at 6:03 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:56 PM

As the governor he attempted to privatize large portions of the welfare department, he created a state police task force dedicated to dealing with illegal aliens and he veto hundreds of bills passed by the liberal democrat legislature and left the commonwealth with a budget surplus. Remember he was tasked with running an extremely liberal state and he did a great job.

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM

All three have their merits..:)

Dire Straits on January 24, 2013 at 5:59 PM

No doubt, but I was sold on Jindal watching him during the BP Oil spill.

While I like Rand/Rubio/Ryan as insiders who can help to change the media narrative, I think you have to return to the Governors if you want a successful run in 2016. (Jindal/Perry/Martinez) notice Christie is absent there in that list.

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Jindal, from hero to 0 in 12 words or less.

astonerii on January 24, 2013 at 6:08 PM

anotherJoe on January 24, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Sorry on reproducing that last paragraph twice, which included the line “next time if you have a book to sell, you should be excluded from the primary debates!!!”
But, anyway, in thinking about my mistake, I also had the idea that we should consider anything to do that limits the role of the debates… not only does the endless debates give huge fodder to the opposition, but, again, it encouraged the rise of the book tour candidates that we don’t want. Limit the number or importance of the debates somehow. Yes, fund raising ability is important, as it shows general political ability. And why have 15 candidates in a debate? That’s only a circus show, a joke.

anotherJoe on January 24, 2013 at 6:08 PM

wtf

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Here’s a shorter explanation: in social democracies eventually you run out of everyone else’s money. We’ve already run out of our money and the next several generation’s money and the big bills haven’t even come in yet.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM

you want to make a change? try conservatism for once

DanMan on January 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM

“We” do not have an obsession with “government bookkeeping”. Spending is a symptom of a government that has grown beyond all reason. Deficits matter, in fact it is probably the most pressing issue we have. Is Jindal saying we should just ignore all of that?

I like him but I think he is trying to be overly clever without thinking through what he is saying. The bottom line I get from him is we should run from the fights he believes we can’t win. That becomes a habit. The party is running away from social issues, we are surrendering on the size of government as well. Rubio wants amnesty.

The 3 legged stool has been demolished and Jindal wants to replace it with what? Emphasizing growth? I am all for it but growth requires investment and an out of control federal bureaucracy is doing everything to make sure that doesn’t happen. I guess I am no longer a Republican. My beliefs are what they are.

You can’t just focus on growth and expect to win. Romney beat the hell out of that issue and the takers didn’t care to hear it. Oh that’s right, “takers” is a bad word now. Folks who work hard and have families DID vote for Mitt. I am OK with that. Jindal and Rubio seem like they want to fish in the waters of those who espouse a victim mentality. I don’t think they will be biting, they already have a party that will pander to them far more than we ever would.

echosyst on January 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM

We’re the brokest nation in history.

hardly.

I asked about this the other day. Progressives have pushed this nation so far into debt and refused to fix entitlements for long enough that the collapse of the entitlement state and the safety net are almost assured. I’m sure you’ll just respond with “nah, we’re fine” just like you did last time but this just shows how unserious and ignorant you are. Deny it all you want but most every thing you value in a liberal government is a Ponzi scheme and austerity is coming when it collapsed and the checks stop going out.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 6:02 PM

you and your blogger clearly don’t understand what austerity means.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Nothing will change until the media is exposed for the traitorous bastages they represent.

hillsoftx on January 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Here’s a shorter explanation: in social democracies eventually you run out of everyone else’s money.

you make it sound like this was scrawled on one of moses’s tablets from that fairytale.

We’ve already run out of our money and the next several generation’s money and the big bills haven’t even come in yet.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM

we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:17 PM

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Good deal..We will see..:)

Dire Straits on January 24, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Ah, figures RWM would be quickest to get that reference. Good on ya!

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…. I’m not joking.”

— Senator Joe Biden,June, 2006

:-)

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Here’s a shorter explanation: in social democracies eventually you run out of everyone else’s money.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 6:09 PM

i hate to do this to you. but i have to.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM

LoLz..Sweden is a small country..:)

Dire Straits on January 24, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Jindal is parroting what Jeb Bush said in 2012 – “forget cutting spending, we need to grow our way out of it”.

Which is a joke. Can a family who makes $120k a year and in debt of $10 million realistically grow their way out of it? At what point do they start shedding that debt or consider very seriously bankruptcy?

Our dollar is toilet paper because it’s not backed by anything and this nation does not produce much of anything that it exports. Once China backs the Yuan with Gold this game will be over and these arguments moot.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 24, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Here’s a shorter explanation: in social democracies eventually you run out of everyone else’s money.

you make it sound like this was scrawled on one of moses’s tablets from that fairytale.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:17 PM

It’s no more a fairy tale than “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Or 1-50-= -49.

, he created a state police task force dedicated to dealing with illegal aliens

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM

That was window-dressing that he signed when he was about to vamoose from the governorship on his way to campaigning for president. He knew it was going nowhere.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Since the failed presidential election, the GOP has been grappling with identifying exactly what it is the party needs to work on most — diversity, social issues, and Latino outreach, or election mechanics and a flawed Romney candidacy/campaign?

If they’re “grappling” and those are the only possibilities that can be arrived at, it’s more evidence that the GOP is DOA.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:29 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 24, 2013 at 6:03 PM

+1000

they lie on January 24, 2013 at 6:30 PM

The problem that exists is that politics has become a game in which both parties pander for votes with taxpayer loot. How do you assemble a political force that will not do that? So far it hasn’t happened.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM

You get an economic libertarian who’s willing to cut anything and everything out of the goddamn bloated budget.

I think Jindal does have a point, to an extent, but he’s going to have to elaborate in the future…

Aizen on January 24, 2013 at 6:32 PM

rather, they’re actively for an economy in which opportunities are so readily available and attractive that people don’t want to be on welfare — and its the type of economy that cannot be achieved through federal orchestration.

He is so wrong about the future in America but for a reason he most likely has no idea will be the reality of our future.

ROBOTS.

You can right now download and print a 3D Robot that looks a lot like a human. Look at the huge difference in Cell Phones now vs only three years ago night and day. Look at that 1,000 GB thumb drive. That is no miss print it cost 3k now, but not for long, no doubt. The cost should be $100 within a few years.

Within 20 years ROBOTS will do almost all of the jobs that do not require a College Degree and many of those as well. They will do the job much better than humanly possible. The Manufacturing coming back to American is because of Robots jobs are not coming back in meaningful numbers. You can buy a Robot that can learn how to do many assembly line jobs with almost anyone able to teach it how to do so. Their ability is skyrocketing with these new ultra powerful small processors that use little electricity.

So if he is aware then what jobs?

This is the real cliff we will shortly face. All Banks totally run by Robots. All Resturants. All farms. All trading firms. It is really hard to even envision any job not done by Robots in twenty years.

Steveangell on January 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM

As the governor he attempted to privatize large portions of the welfare department,

He attempted? And failed?

Was that before or after he was handing out free cars to welfare bums?

he created a state police task force dedicated to dealing with illegal aliens and he veto hundreds of bills passed by the liberal democrat legislature and left the commonwealth with a budget surplus.

He increased taxes and then we have Romneycare…

[T]he state’s health insurance law…Cahill said, “has nearly bankrupted the state.”

Remember he was tasked with running an extremely liberal state and he did a great job.

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Is that why it was near last in job creation and people were leaving the state for jobs elsewhere? He beat out Louisiana which had been hit by hurricane Katrina, so there is that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/287415

As Romney siphoned his constituents’ pockets, the Milken Institute’s Cost of Doing Business Index used 2006 data to rate Massachusetts as America’s fourth-costliest state in which to practice free enterprise. The Tax Foundation dropped Massachusetts from America’s 29th-most-business-friendly state to No. 36. The Tax Foundation also calculated that, under Romney, the per-capita tax burden in Massachusetts increased from 9.3 to 9.9 percent. In real dollars, the Romney-era per-capita tax burden grew by $1,175.71.

The profusion of Democrats on Beacon Hill did not prevent Romney’s GOP predecessors from dramatically cutting taxes.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM

you and your blogger clearly don’t understand what austerity means.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Tell me what YOU think it means.

If you think it means Tea Party-style economics or radical cuts in government spending, then, as the esteemed Inigo Montoya would say, “You keep using the word ‘austerity,’ but I do not think it means what you think it means.”

“Austerity,” as it exists in Europe, for example, means gigantic tax rises now and spending cuts…much later.

This Is The Dawning Of The Age Of “Austerity”?

In The UK, “Austerity” Means Spending More Than The Socialists In Labour Did…And, Those Bastards Bankrupted The Country

M2RB: Pearl Jam

Average government spending by EU nations today stands at approximately 49.2% of GDP — v. 44.8% in 2000.

In 2011, 23 of the 27 nations in the EU increased spending. In 2012, 24 of 27 did so. In 2011, the United States increased spending. In 2012, it did so again.

On its own website, the EU itself ridicules the notion of government austerity — as in governments cutting spending – as a “myth.”

“National budgets are NOT decreasing their spending, they are increasing it.”

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Just love watching the troll clutching at straw. Keep digging, you’ll get there.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Just more Kabuki theatre.

We do NOT need to try and find the one or two “conservative”
cells in the low or no information voter. Honey Boo Boo or whatever the heck her name is, is a lost cause; no need to waste
our time.

We need to focus on the following:

1. How do we avoid a replay of the massive voter fraud in 2008 and
2012? Concentrate on photo ID laws in every state.

2. No more McCain, Romney, leftie like rino candidates. The repubs put up another of those and we need not even start playing
the presidential game.

3. We need to quit focusing on abortion. While choosing life should be a part of the platform, please realize that we have to live in the real world where abortion needs to remain a choice.
We fight the battle by convincing people to choose life instead.

4. We need to give conservatives a reason to vote. Unfortunately,
for many, there is little reason to vote for a repub that is too much like a leftie dem. Leaving conservatives out of the process is one of the reasons Romney lost. The Tea Party and Sarah Palin
were responsible for the success of the 2010 midterms; and you diss
them and leave them out of the convention, campaign trail, etc.? How dumb was that?

5. Cease letting the dems form the agenda. Repubs are always playing defense. Ignore the asshats! Form your own strong agenda
and get the message out to the voters who agree with your positions. Make them want to vote!

etc.

Amjean on January 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Here’s a shorter explanation: in social democracies eventually you run out of everyone else’s money.

you make it sound like this was scrawled on one of moses’s tablets from that fairytale.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Because it is true and here’s another thing, which Baroness Thatcher overlooked, you also run out of OTHER PEOPLE.

There is not a single country in the EU that has a fertility rate equal to or above the replacement rate. In fact, countries like Greece and Spain will halve their own populations with successive generations.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Listen to Jindal – you don’t have to agree with him – but listen to him – he is a very very smart man – and a great politician.

jake-the-goose on January 24, 2013 at 5:38 PM

I tried a few years ago when he gave the GOP response to Obastard’s SOU address. Quite frankly, he came off looking like a badly programmed droid that was infected by a drooling imbecile virus.

Don’t. Want.

Mr. Arrogant on January 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

What’s conservative about Romney’s political record?
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM

As a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Its far more conservative than Obama’s, thats all that matters.

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM

You would think “better than the alternative” would be enough. Sometimes it is. But to beat an incumbent, you have to be better than just “better.” You have to be enough better that people are willing to throw out the guy they have and vote for someone new.

I don’t know if Romney grasped that. It honestly seemed like he was afraid to draw strong contrasts between himself and Obama. Even on his very best strength, the economy, he would only criticize the result of the economy, never what Obama had done or tried to do and how it was wrong. Ask him what he would do different, and you mostly got the speech about how he knew how to grow an economy and could do it again.

And to be honest, the economy in Massachusetts didn’t even live up to the claim that Romney could fix the economy.

Then on foreign policy, Romney was giving Obama’s policies a bear hug. In the foreign policy debate, you kept hearing him say, “I agree with the president.”

I don’t even think it’s surprising that he lost. You want to run against an incumbent president, you have to tell the voters why he shouldn’t get another term. What’s wrong with his economics, what’s wrong with his foreign policy, every scandal attached to his administration, every sneer at a group of voters he didn’t like.

And I just have to ask myself: How could Mitt Romney look at the disaster that is Obama and not call him a disaster?

Mitt deserved to lose. It’s just a shame the rest of us had to lose, too. But let’s face it, even if he had won, we would have just stanched the bleeding for a while. Mitt would have compromised so much in Washington that we wouldn’t see much improvement.

Mitt may be a fine man in a lot of ways, but he was the wrong man for the job.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

“Austerity,” as it exists in Europe, for example, means gigantic tax rises now and spending cuts…much later.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM

i didn’t comment on european economic policy. your blogger thinks the democrats are the party of [a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided]. your commenter thinks austerity means economic collapse.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM

And I just have to ask myself: How could Mitt Romney look at the disaster that is Obama and not call him a disaster?.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

The answer’s easy: Romney’s only real gripe with Obama was that Obama was president and Romney was not. In a slightly different context, the very same thing goes for the rotten GOPe vis-a-vis the Democrats.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM

It’s no more a fairy tale than “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Or 1-50-= -49.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM

one of those things not only can’t be proven, it’s bizarrely unrealistic. can you find which?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:41 PM

i didn’t comment on european economic policy. your blogger thinks the democrats are the party of [a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided]. your commenter thinks austerity means economic collapse.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Actually, “Democrat” means economic collapse. Ever-higher spending coupled with this idiotic thought that taxing the wealthiest out the wazoo is going to pay for it all.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Then on foreign policy, Romney was giving Obama’s policies a bear hug. In the foreign policy debate, you kept hearing him say, “I agree with the president.”

Mitt deserved to lose. It’s just a shame the rest of us had to lose, too. But let’s face it, even if he had won, we would have just stanched the bleeding for a while. Mitt would have compromised so much in Washington that we wouldn’t see much improvement.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Amen, for the most part.

You’d think this would be a signal for the GOP to finally re-adapt a more traditional, paleo-conservative foreign policy while pointing out the incompetency of the neoconservative/liberal foreign policy (which is a combination of interventionism and appeasement). It’s just that libertarians are often tagged with the “isolationist” moniker even though we don’t support appeasement like the Carter/Obama wing of the Democrat Party does.

Just imagine if John Boehner had won the Presidency. Do Republicans really think any conservative policies would be agreed to? Even though I voted for Romney/Ryan, it would’ve been the same as having Boehner become President…

Aizen on January 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM

There is not a single country in the EU that has a fertility rate equal to or above the replacement rate. In fact, countries like Greece and Spain will halve their own populations with successive generations.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

interesting, but, sadly, irrelevant.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM

… would America now be in its current mess?
OldEnglish on January 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Of course it would.

OK, maybe I don’t quite qualify for your criteria… I actually ended up voting for Romney, although my reason was different from everyone else’s;
I wanted him to have a chance to prove that he would indeed govern as a liberal democrat.

The country would still go down the toilet with anyone short of the powers of a Supreme Deity. Romney might have slowed it a bit, but whether Thelma is driving, or Louise, it is going over the cliff.

……………………………
And as far as the headline goes…
I’m all for changing everything body.
Get rid of all of the Washington Weasels… Even the couple of fairly good ones, like my Representative.

LegendHasIt on January 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

i hate to do this to you. but i have to.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:22 PM

On the other hand, I do NOT hate to do this to you…

A Message To Leftists In The UK & US From Sweden

The Non-Existent Stairway To Socialist Heaven In Sweden

“Whenever I give a lecture, anywhere in Europe, about economic reform, I always get the following response: ‘But you come from Sweden, which is socialist and successful—why should we launch free-market policies ?’ The simple truth is that Sweden is not Socialist.”

- Johnny Munkhammar, a Moderate Party member of the Swedish Parliament and the author of “The Guide to Reform”

“There is a general change in Swedish society. Social-democratic ideas are losing their grip on Sweden, and we are getting more and more individualistic.”

- Jenny Madestam, a political scientist at Stockholm University, New York Times, 9 September 2010

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

It’s no more a fairy tale than “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Or 1-50-= -49.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:27 PM

one of those things not only can’t be proven, it’s bizarrely unrealistic. can you find which?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:41 PM

In the fields of mechanics and arithmetic, they are both far more “provable” than anything the great god Keynes gave us.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Actually, “Democrat” means economic collapse.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM

i recall that bush was a republican – correct me if wrong.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

In the fields of mechanics and arithmetic, they are both far more “provable” than anything the great god Keynes gave us.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

i meant moses.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM

In the fields of mechanics and arithmetic, they are both far more “provable” than anything the great god Keynes gave us.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

i meant moses.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM

And I meant you doofuses running out of other people’s money.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Actually, “Democrat” means economic collapse.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM

i recall that bush was a republican – correct me if wrong.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

You’re wrong. I’d take 5% unemployment right now.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

You’re wrong. I’d take 5% unemployment right now.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

tell me more about the genius of w.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

^ And Obama’s a Democrat. Which group, by the way, to paraphrase Dave Barry has the economic sense of a celery.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:48 PM

And I just have to ask myself: How could Mitt Romney look at the disaster that is Obama and not call him a disaster?.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

The answer’s easy: Romney’s only real gripe with Obama was that Obama was president and Romney was not. In a slightly different context, the very same thing goes for the rotten GOPe vis-a-vis the Democrats.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM

One thing’s for sure: Romney couldn’t tell you why Obama failed. He couldn’t explain why the economy wasn’t growing. He was too busy tying to appeal to moderates by saying, “Hey, I’m not scary! If you like Obama, you’ll like me just fine.”

Of course, if they liked Obama, why would they throw him out for Romney?

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3