Green Room

Contra Tina: I Prefer Jindal

posted at 11:31 pm on June 22, 2012 by

I really hate the fact that when Tina graces us with her presence again at Hot Gas…Air, she puts up a post with which I must disagree. I even hesitated writing this post because I’d be going against her and that pains me. However, despite my reluctance to contradict Tina, I still think that picking Paul Ryan for VP would be a sub-optimal choice. Now this isn’t to say that I don’t like Paul Ryan. I think the world of Paul Ryan. He’s my favorite politician. Hell, I’d storm a machine gun nest for Paul Ryan, but do I think Paul Ryan would be the best pick for Romney as VP, I’d have to say no.

There are a couple of reasons why I think this way. First, by picking Ryan, you put his budget front and center. Obama might do that anyway, but with Ryan on the ticket, it definitely will be. Now, I support the Ryan budget and I believe that head to head against a reporter or some Dem operative (I repeat myself), Ryan would wipe the floor with them, but there’s an old maxim that says, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” I would prefer the campaign’s invaluable time (and when it is late August going into September, time is invaluable) be spent on its own message or attacking Obama.

Second, a Vice President Ryan would be part of the Romney administration. He would be less effective as a check on Governor Romney if the Governor starts to go wobbly. Paul Ryan, as Budget Chairman would act as a counterbalance to some of Governor Romney’s negative tendencies. He would set the agenda in the House and that is invaluable.

Finally, I think there is a better option that suits Governor Romney’s needs on the campaign. Bobby Jindal reinforces the theme of competence  that I know the Romney campaign is desperate to exude. The man’s a fixer, he unquestionably qualified to be President, he’s brilliant (he’s forgotten more about healthcare than Obama & Biden combined will ever know), and he would help with the base without scaring off independents. Yes, Governor Jindal gave a bad speech in 2009. It happens. As I recall, then Governor Clinton gave a pretty bad speech introducing Mike Dukakis in 1988. Four years later, he did a fine job. While Governor Jindal won’t amount to the greatest orator this party’s ever seen, he can’t get much worse. Plus, we (as a country) have had our share of great oratory and where did that get us?

Paul Ryan would be a good pick. He’s an even better human being. A friend of mine serves on the Budget Committee and he can attest to that personally. However, he wouldn’t be the best pick and I want us to put the best possible ticket forward. That ticket is Romney-Jindal 2012.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

I agree.

If I had my druthers, it would be Rubio.

But Romney is making the decision… Jindal, I think, meets all the qualification I’ve heard Romney is looking for…

1. He wants some who can step in as president if need be… Jindal has proven a very competent executive.

2. Jindal has experience not only at the state level but at the federal level serving in congress.

3. Jindal exudes competence. Just watch him in any press conference.

He also appeals to the grassroots unlike Portman or Pawlenty. Jindal would be the best bet.

dforston on June 23, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Can anyone opine on the ability of a VP to take on the responsibilities normally associated with the a President’s Cabinet? Some or all of the Secretaries of ____ are not provided for in the Constitution, so what is allowed? Could Paul Ryan be VP and head OMB? Could there be a nominal head of OMB, with Ryan doing the heavy lifting? Or maybe Romney names Portman for VP, and simultaneously names proposed cabinet members? Well, I guess that would be weird since Ryan has to seek election in the fall…

Please contact me on twitter if you have any thoughts on this…

ParisParamus on June 23, 2012 at 12:59 AM

By the way, one though on Jindal: as a “minority,” the MSM would find it harder to demagogue/demonize him…

ParisParamus on June 23, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Paris, et.al.,

May I respectfully disagree with you? The opposition believes their demagoguery is sound, to advance their politics. Note well what they’ve done to (Conservative) women and minorities.

I expect Bobby to be similarly and rudely spoken about, though I have a hunch he’ll be ready for it. I’d *love* to see him debate Plugs.

Bigurn on June 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM

Yes, Governor Jindal gave a bad speech in 2009.

What I find annoying is that people think of him as a bad orator because of that one speech. Here he is on MSNBC before that speech, here is a speech he gave after the BP oil spill, and here he is giving a speech at CPAC 2012 (starting at 3:18). Now, watch those examples, and tell me he’s a bad orator. From what I understood of the infamous speech, he was over-coached, which is precisely what happened with Palin in her media appearances in ’08.

David Marcoe on June 23, 2012 at 3:27 AM

Why, actually, do you prefer Jindal?

VP is a do-nothing administrative position. It would mean absolutely wasting Jindal’s talents for 4 to 8 years. I like Jindal. I think parking him in the VP spot is a huge waste of his talent. History also shows that Vice Presidents also almost never go on to be President unless they assume office due to the President’s death or resignation. The only exception to that rule since 1900 are George HW Bush and Richard Nixon. No other VP that didn’t attain office due to the death or resignation of the President ever won election to President.

Jindal will be in a position to challenge Mary Landreiu for her Senate seat. This will knock a Democrat out of the Senate and put Jindal in a position where he can do more good.

crosspatch on June 23, 2012 at 4:43 AM

crosspatch on June 23, 2012 at 4:43 AM

You might want to alert the following on your assertion that no VPs other than GHW Bush and Nixon became President without the death of the C-in-C:

John Adams (VP for Washington), Thomas Jefferson (VP for John Adams), Martin Van Buren (VP for Jackson).

Nothing says a VP has to be do-nothing. VPs in corporations actually do work and I would venture that Romney will be running his administration like a business rather than the bloated and dysfunctional mess it currently is.

I love Ryan but we need him in the House or at OMB to get his plan through.

Greyledge Gal on June 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Bobby Jindal? you mean the weirdo religious freak show that thinks he’s an exorcist and threw a demon out of women? yeah there’s a stable guy you want in a position of power. you people…

Your Mamma loves me on June 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Jindal is my favorite VP pick and I don’t think Romney would keep him sidelined. It would also be a pretty good sign that Romney didn’t hold a grudge for Jindal backing Perry late and only endorsing Romney when it was all but set.

Hobo with a laptop on June 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM

By the way, one though on Jindal: as a “minority,” the MSM would find it harder to demagogue/demonize him…

I think history shows the opposite to be true.

Hobo with a laptop on June 23, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I think the world of Paul Ryan. He’s my favorite politician.

Ryan voted for TARP, the auto bailouts, and confiscating CEO bonuses.

Jindal is not a natural born citizen. He does not meet the Constitutional requirements for VP.

Dante on June 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM

While Governor Jindal won’t amount to the greatest orator this party’s ever seen, he can’t get much worse.

He is absolutely incredible when he just speaks off the cuff.

Jindal is my governor, and while I don’t think he’s perfect – he really let us down a few years ago on ethics “reform” for example – he’s pretty d_mn good. He would make a fine President, much less VP. Regardless, I don’t think he’s Romney’s best VP choice because Louisiana’s electoral votes are a sure thing. Obama didn’t take Louisiana last time, and he certainly will not this time. I think Romney would do better to pick a VP from a state, or at least a region, whose votes he needs.

Laura Curtis on June 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I read an interview with Jindal where he was describing how awful the rebuttal speech was but he said he has learned he can’t give a speech using a teleprompter (how refreshing that would be). Instead he says just let him speak and he is fine. I noticed when he was campaigning for Perry that he was great at talking to the assembled groups.

1bunny on June 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

You might want to alert the following on your assertion that no VPs other than GHW Bush and Nixon became President without the death of the C-in-C:

If you read carefully what I wrote, I said: The only exception to that rule since 1900

crosspatch on June 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Jindal is not a natural born citizen. He does not meet the Constitutional requirements for VP.

Dante on June 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM

?

theperfecteconomist on June 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Bios say he was born in Baton Rouge.

theperfecteconomist on June 23, 2012 at 6:30 PM

His parents were not American citizens when he was born. Location of nirth is irrelevant.

Dante on June 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

His parents were not American citizens when he was born. Location of nirth is irrelevant.

Dante on June 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Not this horse crap again. Citizenship of parents makes no difference. Anyone who claims it does is admitting they have no idea what they are talking about.

crosspatch on June 23, 2012 at 8:55 PM

His parents were not American citizens when he was born. Location of nirth is irrelevant.

Dante on June 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

We get it, Dante. Only white people can run for federal office.

vegconservative on June 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM

dump mittens now!

jindal/west 2012…america deserves to be saved!

Pragmatic on June 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I’m with you on “why not Ryan” Mike…but you lost me on Jindal. Jindal opposed Romney in the primaries (Perry)and despite all his wonderful talents as a possible VP/Prez…brings nothing to the table in the election process. Louisiana is a lock and Romney needs someone who can impact in the swing states or with a demographic group (women, hispanics, blue collar workers). He has better choices than Jindal or Ryan for those issues…but at least Ryan keeps Wisconsin in play.
I like Portman for Ohio which is a MUST win if Romney is to prevail. Rubio remains a good candidate for Florida & Hispanics.
I will be happy with any of the frequently mentioned candidates.. but the smart move is to play to the swing states.

camaraderie on June 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Not this horse crap again. Citizenship of parents makes no difference. Anyone who claims it does is admitting they have no idea what they are talking about.

crosspatch on June 23, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I cannot cure your ignorance. Only you can do that. Citizenship of parents has everything to do with one being natural born or not.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Citizenship of parents has everything to do with one being natural born or not.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM

No, in fact, it does not except in that space between your ears and your dreaming stuff up does not constitute fact. Federal courts have ruled on the issue and been cited by the Supreme Court. There are kooks who would believe anything such as the 9/11 troofers, the chemtrails kooks, the “anthropogenic global warming” kooks, etc. Just because YOU believe it doesn’t make it so. And I know that no argument of logic will sway you, either. Our logic can not harm you because your skull is like a shield of steel.

This isn’t a matter of political “opinion”, it is just a lie you made up or latched onto that somehow validates some belief you would like to have and so you cling to it.

You need to hear every time you bring this up that it exposes what a nincompoop you are. There is a reason why that word was invented, and this is an example of it. This is not a difference of political opinion.

Etymology

Earlier (1676) nicompoop, possibly from Latin non compos mentis (“not of sound mind”), although the original meaning of “fop” cast doubt on this origin. Earliest known use of nincompoop spelling is from 1680.

Noun

nincompoop (plural nincompoops)

A silly or foolish person.

Derived terms

nincompoopery

Synonyms

(foolish person): dunderhead, fop, fool, imbecile

Related terms

ninny
noncompos

crosspatch on June 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Name calling? A sign that you have no argument of substance.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Herman Cain would be the best choice.

nazo311 on June 24, 2012 at 7:51 PM

His parents were not American citizens when he was born. Location of birth is irrelevant.

Dante on June 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Not this horse crap again. Citizenship of parents makes no difference. Anyone who claims it does is admitting they have no idea what they are talking about.

crosspatch on June 23, 2012 at 8:55 PM
………………..

Not if you do a lot of homework and get back to what the founders had intended. A lot of people here and elesewhere in the blogosphere think that the founders wanted candidates that had no obligations to parents who were born in say…. Kenya for example.
Since nothing about obamba is true, even his supposed father who may not be his father we are stuck with a poser of the nth degree.
My choice for VP is Marco. His parents were both born in Cuba. He really is not a nbc.
I don’t care. Unless our govt. in all its inablity to vette a potus is willing to disavow every rule, law and EO that O’Kardashian has passed since he was elected I say a precedent has been set and Marco is fair game non-nbc or not.

rodguy911 on June 24, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Not if you do a lot of homework and get back to what the founders had intended.

The thing is that *your* interpretation of what the founders intended doesn’t amount to a pinch of owl scat. You don’t just get to make things up and pretend it’s the law.

We have had Presidents and who knows how many vice Presidents with parents who were foreign citizens. Thomas Jefferson’s mother was not an American citizen and Jefferson is one of the Founders. So please, knock off the lunacy.

The federal court has ruled that parental citizenship does not matter, the Supreme Court has cited that ruling, that is the law.

Please, stop the idiocy.

crosspatch on June 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Oh, and neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were born here, either.

crosspatch on June 24, 2012 at 8:48 PM

We have had Presidents and who knows how many vice Presidents with parents who were foreign citizens. Thomas Jefferson’s mother was not an American citizen and Jefferson is one of the Founders. So please, knock off the lunacy.

The federal court has ruled that parental citizenship does not matter, the Supreme Court has cited that ruling, that is the law.

Please, stop the idiocy.

crosspatch on June 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Well you’ve just proven that you’ve never read the Constitution.

Dante on June 24, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Just in case someone stumbles across this thread and is as ignorant as you are and tries to throw out Jefferson or Andrew Jackson:

From Article II, Section 1:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The part in bold applies to Jefferson and Jackson. You are in no position to call anyone an idiot or to call their position idiotic when you don’t even know the Constitution.

Dante on June 25, 2012 at 9:13 AM