I’m not talking about short term results but rather can he perform over the long term. It is’t unusal for someone to move in shake up the office/procedures/policies and move on after a couple of years. But I’ve also seen that type unable to perform once placed into a situation of having to serve over longer terms. Jindal hasn’t been in a job over three years or so for most of his career.
I don’t have a problem with Jindal being the nominee if he is selected when the time comes. All I’m saying is that I’m not locking onto one candidate at this time as the heir apparent as there is time for others to surface. Competition among several qualified candidates would be healthy I think.
A "one trick wonder" type will only work for one or two changes, not enough to build up a fifteen year track record of success. I might agree with you (I've seen managers with "meteoric rise" histories, but they don't make it more than a couple of levels before their incompetence catches up with them), but Jindal's record is sufficiently long to make that position not viable.