Posted on 02/25/2009 9:07:20 AM PST by jwb0581
I may be alone on this, but as a lifelong independent conservative I don't know how anyone can compare Palin to Jindal. Don't get me wrong - I love Palin as a person and I love her positions on the issues. But some of the interviews were just embarrasing. I dislike Gibson and Couric more than anyone, but at times she was non-sensical or just plain empty in her answers and that can't be blamed on anyone but Palin.
I have seen others have their conservatism questioned because they have reservations about Palin. Just because someone has conservative positions that I agree with, doesn't mean they are presidential material. My grandmother has great positions on the issues but she would not make a good president.
Jindal may come off as a geek, and maybe he's too young to run in 2012. But this guy is the most brilliant, capable conservative I've seen in years. I live in Louisiana so I have watched him up close. He is the real deal.
My point is if someone uses the ‘style’ excuse as the reason not to vote for someone, whether its Palin or Jindal, then its a feeble excuse at best. And then to fall into the MSM media trap... unforgivable as a freeper.
You’re absolutely right. You can’t compare the two after that goose egg of a performance by Jindal last night. Terrible...........
She runs Alaska extremely well, if she was as stupid as you think she is Alaska would be in the tank, when in fact they are running a surplus and can weather several mores years of this bad economy before having problems. Plus, she just cut spending again in Alaskan government again this year.
Jindal is a fine conservative and he has good ideas, they come across on paper just fine, but the fact is he can't speak, I have seen him speak about 5 or 6 times and each time he sounds very lack luster monosyllabic.
Palin can speak and fire up crowds and is a great conservative, is also articulate and has great ideas. She is the one to run in 2012. If we run Jindal or any of the RINOs, we will lose again.
You are on every thread about Palin Huck. What is your agenda? Who pays you to bad mouth Sarah? It will do you guys no good(you guys being the Anti-Palin crowd, either left wing troll or just plain stupid, or a Huck fan, which I am assuming you are due to your screen name)the majority of us on FR love Sarah and know she is intelligent and knows what she is doing. Ignoring the way she runs Alaska and believing in the MSM interview setups of Sarah is the only way a person could think she is stupid. As I said, all of you guys have an agenda and it isn’t one that is good for conservatives.
Whoever is selected in 2012 has to appeal to more than conservatives. He/she doesn’t do that by abandoning or watering down conservative principles (and Rudy and Romney both did), but appeals to others on another level as a leader, some one who can give a speech and elicit crowd support. Obama did that though he gave pablum to the drones and he did it again last night - he looks presidential.
Sarah too can do it. I was in a hotel in Dallas on business and was yelling in the room and got on the phone to family to make sure they heard her convention speech. The print and mainstream media will crap on every Republican candidate no matter what. To be successful the candidate has to push them aside and go out to the people. That’s what Sarah did and I don’t believe it was the novelty either. When she came on the scene I went out and signed up voters and donated to the campaign, something I have never done before nor would have if McCain had selected anyone else. Similarly, whoever is on the ticket in 2012 has to inspire others to do the same, especially if Obama flimflams his way through the next four years.
After four years of the messiah, I think a good, honestly, straight-forward person will appeal to a great number of people, not just conservatives.
I doubt I've been on every Palin thread.
What is your agenda?
To find a better candidate than Palin, and to encourage others to do the same.
Who pays you to bad mouth Sarah?
You mean I could get paid to express my opinion on Palin? Where do I go to get that deal?? And no, I'm not "badmouthing" her. I'm criticizing her performance. Not the same thing. I haven't attacked her personally in any way.
or a Huck fan, which I am assuming you are due to your screen name),
Once again, incorrect. I've been Huck ever since joining in 2000, long before I'd ever heard of Huckabee. Was he even in politics back then? No, you see, there was this American author, went by the name of Mark Twain. He created a character named Huck Finn. I relate to Huck and look up to him. That's where my name comes from.
Ignoring the way she runs Alaska and believing in the MSM interview setups of Sarah is the only way a person could think she is stupid.
When did I ever say she is stupid?
What do you consider the 3 pillars of conservatism?
Fiscal responsibility (I’ll add restraint)
Strong defense
Social issue (against abortion)
Nobody. They don't make 'em like they used to. Political movements/parties of ideological purity, if they ever were successful, were successful in a time in which the people cared about ideological purity.
Do you know nothing of how interviews are edited?
Some history.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1205212833281810.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
Jindal’s plan to exceed spending cap advances
More history.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1214371461219130.xml&coll=1
Jindal unfazed by pay raise critics
No veto, but he vows ‘tighter rein’ on bills
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
By Ed Anderson
Capital bureau
BATON ROUGE — Despite withering criticism, Gov. Bobby Jindal affirmed Tuesday that he will not veto a bill doubling lawmakers’ pay but conceded he will keep closer tabs on the legislative process in the future to head off similar controversies.
Meeting with reporters a day after lawmakers ended their annual session, Jindal promised he will “keep a much tighter rein on legislative sessions.” He said he will not heed the public outcry to veto the pay raise, which will bring lawmakers’ base salary pay from $16,800 to $37,500 effective Tuesday, because he does not want to endanger his “reform agenda.”
snip
And one other bit of history.
http://www.rogersrants.com/blog/default.aspx?id=183&t=Jindal-Must-Act-on-Stelly-Tax-Bill
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Jindal Must Act on Stelly Tax Bill
A bit of unpleasant news via the AP:
The Senate’s tax committee on Monday approved a big income-tax break, despite objections from Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration that the state can’t afford the $302 million loss of revenue.
The bill by Sen. Buddy Shaw would restore tax brackets that were changed as part of the so-called “Stelly plan” approved by voters in 2002. Under the bill, people who make between $12,500 and $50,000 would move from the 6 percent tax bracket down to the 4 percent bracket.
Jindal has often been criticized for his approach to ethics: he says one thing, and does another. I’ve never been one to criticize on such a basis.
Being inconsistent is one thing.
But acting in ways that clearly and unambiguously parrot BOTH former governors Kathleen Blanco and Mike Foster are a problem for this writer.
Former Governor Mike Foster is responsible for the onerous Stelly tax plan. As the above article suggests, it raised income taxes on the middle class. Former Governor Kathleen Blanco had opportunities to roll it back, but didn’t in any meaningful way.
The problem with the tax has been repeatedly pointed out by CONSERVATIVES. Many folks voted for Governor Jindal operating under the assumption that he was, in fact, conservative.
In fact it was a conservative group called the Louisiana Family Forum that did a study on the Stelly Tax Plan, in which they pointed out the host of problems the plan did for working families (see it here).
We’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh tell us who live down here that Jindal is the next Ronald Reagan.
DUMB QUESTION: What is exactly is Reaganesque about not cutting taxes aimed at the middle class? What’s Reaganesque about objecting to tax cuts because “the state” can’t afford it? Such an attitude could be perceived as “statist,” which again, doesn’t fit my idea of what they call “Reagan conservatism.”
The good news is that Mr. Jindal has chance to make things right.
But if he fails to act, it will not be forgotten and he will not likely be able to live it down.
—Chad E. Rogers
Before the Jindal trolls show up, I want to make it clear my problem with Jindla isn’t his speaking style or what he says. I have a serious problem with what he’s DONE so far as governor of MY state. He’s not a fiscal conservative, despite what Rush or Sean or anybody else says.
And I have the facts to back it up.
Reagan Conservatism and the three pillars of Conservatism are well defined. I would encourage the lion's share of this board to go look them up. Considering that FR is the headwaters of Conservatism on the internet, there are precious few here that even know what it is by definition. In a nutshell:
FICON -Civil Libertarianism, Federalism, Supply-side Economics, Raw Capitalism, Fiscal Conservatism, FAIR Free Trade. Smaller government is better government. Strong Bond -Constitutional bounds, Founding Fathers.
SOCON -Social Conservatism as defined by the Judeo-Christian ethic. LIFE is a declared Constitutional right, Restore God in the public sphere, Defeat multi-culturalism, defeat social liberalism, Anti-Homosexual agenda, Anti-no-fault divorce, Strong, singular moral ruleset. Strong Bond -Jehovah is God, Christ is Lord, Bible is Law, Faith of our fathers.
DEFCON -Strong foreign policy projection. Strong Military presence. Strong advocacy RKBA, Strong advocacy military service, Strong advocacy military supply and manufacturers, Strong bond -Duty to country, duty and honor to those fallen in battle, Blood of the warrior and the patriot cause freedom to be sacred.
As I said, this barely touches on a proper definition. While many here may fit into one of the pillars and are conservative because of it, it is the definition of big "C" Reagan Conservatism that the candidate must encompass, and be attractive to, all three pillars.
It has long been the case that if a candidate cannot convince all three "types", he will surely lose the race. Reagan Conservatives will not vote for anyone who does not fulfill this prerequisite. It is the definition of the Reagan Coalition to demand candidates that do.
Great way to sum it up. Sadly, I don’t really see a candidate on the horizon that can represent all three parts effectively.
There have always been Reaganites represented, all the way along. Hunter, Tancredo, and Keyes- All great statesmen, all capable men.
The problem lies in the grassroots being hijacked. FR, had it insisted on it's favorite (which was Hunter) could have made him happen. But the evil voice of "pragmatists" had their way, to our utter disgrace and failure.
I generally see a correlation here between social conservatism is very iumportant =loves Palin
versus
social conservatism not so important= doesn’t like her
i agree though that we do need a good speaker....I thought she was great at the convention and after her announcement
Obama reads great from teleprompter feeds and reminders
he does nothing almost without one....not even some interviews we are now learning and all his press conferences are staged with prompters
it’s ridiculous and the media lets him
how do we compete with that?
I was not bothered by the Gibson or Couric interviews because I don’t watch Gibson or Couric or any of the other evil traitorous bastards posing as journalists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.