Thread: Jindal -- what's going on?

I caught the Global Edition of the Daily Show on TV last night. First time I had ever seen Jindal. Over the pond we've never heard of this guy... what's the story? Is he for real? Does he have the backing of the Republican party?

After 10 minutes I had to go wipe the tears of laughter from my face. I can't believe the Republican PR team would let someone like that get up and talk on their behalf. Puzzling, but highly amusing for a while.

(Can we even dream of a Jindal-Palin ticket next round?)

From what i have been able to gather so far, Jindal is the republican version of Obama.

Unfortunately, Jindal was "launched" at a time when his eloquence will be criticized pretty heavily. The Louisiana accent doesn't lend itself well to written speeches and he is too new to not rely on the words so much. I think if the guy loosens up and talks as though he is talking from the hip, he could influence the southern US any way. His handlers have their work cut out for them thats for sure.


-Rob

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day for a neighbor- won't you be mine?

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

From what i have been able to gather so far, Jindal is the republican version of Obama.

The republican party has to stop fighting the "last war". We don't need our own Obama, we need a candidate for what the nation will be facing in 2012 or 2016. Same problem of fighting the "last war" sunk Romney - he reinvented himself (in a phony way) as Bush, just in time for an election where the litmus test was how far you could distance yourself from Bush. If he'd been himself, Romney was what we needed in 2008. Oh well.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

The republican party has to stop fighting the "last war". We don't need our own Obama, we need a candidate for what the nation will be facing in 2012 or 2016. Same problem of fighting the "last war" sunk Romney - he reinvented himself (in a phony way) as Bush, just in time for an election where the litmus test was how far you could distance yourself from Bush. If he'd been himself, Romney was what we needed in 2008. Oh well.

No sarah palin and McCain would have had a fighting chance.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

No sarah palin and McCain would have had a fighting chance.

I agree. Much of GA was turned off by Mitt "The Mormon" because of his particular faith. Not saying that's right, just an observation.

-Rob

Originally Posted by sicboater

I agree. Much of GA was turned off by Mitt "The Mormon" because of his particular faith. Not saying that's right, just an observation.

-Rob

yes, but I suspect much of Georgia was turned off by obama being black, and he won in a landslide. When faced with recession, a mormon that is an economic genius is just an economic genius.

But my point wasn't focused on Romney, but rather the strategic imperative to look forwards and not backwards, and to prepare to win on tommorrow's battlefield, not yesterday's.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

yes, but I suspect much of Georgia was turned off by obama being black, and he won in a landslide. When faced with recession, a mormon that is an economic genius is just an economic genius.

But my point wasn't focused on Romney, but rather the strategic imperative to look forwards and not backwards, and to prepare to win on tommorrow's battlefield, not yesterday's.

The problem as I see it is that the Republican party wants to appease and not offend, so, they get trampled and rarely live up to their principles!

As you say Loueedacat move forward not backwards, but in a determined, uncompromising and principled way!

Originally Posted by loueedacat

yes, but I suspect much of Georgia was turned off by obama being black, and he won in a landslide. When faced with recession, a mormon that is an economic genius is just an economic genius.
No way to tell really...as we progress through time, more and more states are becoming battleground and in time I suspect all of them will matter.
But my point wasn't focused on Romney, but rather the strategic imperative to look forwards and not backwards, and to prepare to win on tommorrow's battlefield, not yesterday's.

This indeed would be a good strategy for any political party as a matter of fact.

-Rob