Bobby Jindal's Downside (Jindal as POTUS? Take a closer look at his record as Louisiana governor)

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is busy promoting his new tome Leadership and Crisis with book tour stops all over the country. This latest tour comes on top of his previous speaking tours to raise campaign cash for himself and various Republican candidates around the country. The only place Governor Jindal has trouble visiting is his home state of Louisiana. The joke in Louisiana is that Bobby is known as a governor in 49 states.

Governor Jindal is intelligent and very well-educated, and he manages to look like a creditable leader during a crisis. In this he learned well from former Governor Kathleen Blanco's disastrous handling of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. He can spout numerous statistics off the top of his head and make complicated situations understandable.

However, as we've learned from the current occupant of the White House, command of statistics and the ability to explain the complicated do not necessarily indicate that one is destined to be a great leader.

Louisiana's last budget was balanced with numerous accounting tricks, one-time funding sources, and massive cuts to health and higher education. Jindal has been criticized for pushing hard decisions down the road to avoid offending anyone in preparation for a presidential bid, and it is well-known in Louisiana that Jindal is preparing to run and campaigning across the country on trips funded by Louisiana taxpayers.

Louisiana is a populist state that tends to overspend in flush times and flail in lean times. In Louisiana, health and higher education are not constitutionally protected from budget cuts and are routinely savaged when the economy dives. To be fair, there is a great deal of waste in higher education that needs to be eliminated, and LSU professors are not helping their cause by threatening to unionize in a state where unions are not looked on favorably. Also, LSU System President Dr. John Lombardi, Louisiana's highest-paid state employee, recently refused to trim his salary for the good of the school and further exposed the hypocrisy in Louisiana higher education.

During Jindal's administration, Louisiana has added over 3,100 new employees, and its budget has increased from $12 billion in 2008 to $24 billion in 2010. The governor seems to think this surge in state government will somehow conquer the budget in the long run.

When it comes to cutting spending, the governor can't cut even his own travel budget. One of Governor Jindal's favorite Louisiana campaign tactics is local church attendance by helicopter in rural areas rarely visited by any governor.

Jindal's celebrated ethics legislation promoting transparency in Louisiana government has backfired (see also here): it has been revealed that enforcement powers were stripped from the Ethics Board, resulting in several resignations in protest, and Jindal has zealously guarded the records of the governor's office from the light of day. The law's most notable accomplishment has been to drive worthy citizens away from serving on state boards by requiring draconian disclosures of every conceivable financial detail and close association in a futile effort to prevent political corruption. Are you kidding? This is Louisiana!

Governor Jindal devotes a sizable portion of Leadership and Crisis to detailing Louisiana's natural beauty, recounting political anecdotes, and listing boilerplate conservative talking points without ever mentioning his plans to deal with the state's looming $1.5-billion budget shortfall or the numerous challenges faced by Louisiana as its graduates flee in search of opportunities the state can't provide.

Jindal doesn't seem to understand is that status quo governing is currently not in vogue. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is talked about as presidential material precisely because of his willingness to shake up New Jersey's insular political culture without thought of higher office. Christie is willing to take on the special interests and make the hard choices New Jersey needs to survive, while Jindal is doing his best not to offend any powerful interests in Louisiana. This type of timid leadership is exactly what the Tea Parties are railing against.

Those promoting or considering Bobby Jindal as presidential material need to take a much closer look at his record as Louisiana governor. Jindal talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk.

Hat tip: C.B. Forgotston

Tom Roberson is an independent conservative holding finance and engineering degrees and doing his small part to save his country.

You are a liar. Yes, it is a personal attack on you, but it’s what you are. I don’t know why you insist on lying, but lying is a nasty personal attack, and violates the basic concept of civility. One cannot have a rational conversation with a person who repeatedly and brazenly lies.

Before I gave you the benefit of the doubt, as you may have simply been misinformed, so I informed you. In fact, I have informed you multiple times in multiple places over the past few days/weeks, explaining exactly what you were saying that was false.

But you continue to repeat the same lies, even after being told you are lying. Further, you’ve been asked for evidence that might back up your lies, and you’ve provided none, as you could not, as none exists.

People who make false statements, who refuse to accept correction when they are shown they are wrong, and who continue to make the same false statements, forfeit the right to complain about personal attacks.

You are a liar.

I should make it clear that I use that term in the sense of “what you are saying is a lie”, not that this is a basic character flaw. Some people get upset about the distinction between “you are lying” and “you are a liar” — I’m not making that distinction here, but if you are simply upset that I used the “you are a liar” term rather than “you are lying”, I apologize and will use the second version in the future.

But as you repeated your lie in your response, my guess is that you are simply arguing for your right to be safe from criticism for lying; your cowardly hiding behind the trappings of civility that you have rejected for your own actions notwithstanding.

But I don’t hold a grudge. Simply apologize for lying about me, and move on. It’s the right, and civil, thing to do. And after the past couple of weeks, it should be clear to you that your scorched-earth, damn the facts posting in various threads against various other freepers isn’t doing anybody any good, especially not any candidate you might prefer.

Of course, you could instead of apologizing try to find the dozens of my posts that would prove your assertion that I am a “fixture as an anti-Palin troll”. Of course, you will fail, since they don’t exist. But maybe doing the search might help you get over this obsession of yours.

BTW, your other statement is also inaccurate, but as it’s rather old history now, i’m letting it slide. But for your edification, “years running” is a gross overexageration. Your perjorative label isn’t fact or fiction, it’s just childish, uncivilized, nasty name-calling, but I’ve never expected any better from you on that score, even though it too is inaccurate as I’ve explained previously.

As I said, you are an unrepentant liar, a person who in this case could care less about the truth, one who bears false witness, and behaves in a cowardly fashion.

The Swiss Ninja is not a “Romneybot nickname”, whatever you think that means. It was a nickname assigned to me by another freeper which I thought was funny, especially as it implied I was stealthy, something I am most decidedly not.

And while your statement now isn’t exactly like your previous statement, it still seems to have two glaring falsehoods, although as I said since the one is simply a gross exaggeration coupled with a childish, uncivilized insulting nickname, for which there is no hope of redeeming you, I’m letting slide.

The other statement is simply false, even in it’s new incarnation; although I expect that if you keep lying enough, you might actually make it come true (as “being known for” isn’t really the same as “being”, since if people are stupid enough to believe a word you say, they might believe your lies). It is this slim possibility that forces me to call you what you are, a liar.

See, I don’t care that you childishly sling stupid insults like “Romneybot”, because I don’t think other freepers are taken in by juvenile name-calling, especially when I doubt even YOU could come up with a coherent definition of the term that would actually fit.

But the absurdity of you running around calling Palin supporters “anti-palin trolls” must be pointed out.

Of course, you have also introduced a new lie, that I have “pro romney friends” who have been banned. I speak for myself, and myself alone. I don’t “make friends” online. People are being banned for speaking their mind in a manner that has been banned for this site. I’m here because I respect the rules set forth by the owner of the site.

I note that you refuse to follow my suggestion of looking for actual evidence of your claim. I’m a little surprised; I would think that, in order to recover some tiny speck of dignity, you’d have tried to manufacture SOME piece of evidence of my “anti-palin trolling” that you insist is widespread and well-known.

I’m certain I’ve said SOMETHING that you could twist into an “anti-palin” posting. Heck, I even said bad things about Mitt Romney during those couple of months that he was my formal choice for President — no candidate is perfect.

But I’ve been a pro-Palin freeper since the first days she was chosen by McCain. I’m simply not one whose judgment is clouded by hero-worship of a candidate, or one who lies (as you do) to try to support a candidate I like.

You seem to be lying about what I said in the very post you quoted, and tried to hide your lie by claiming I had an "odd way" of saying something, and then saying the opposite of what I said.

There was nothing odd in my statement. Unlike you, I won't lie for a candidate. I didn't tell lies about Romney, although I'm not going to argue THAT one with you since will just argue that differences of opinion are lies, and also we are banned from discussing and defense of Romney on this forum. Which may be why you keep pushing this, and bringing up other banned freepers. I'm still here.

As I said, your timeline is grossly exagerated. I actively defended Romney against what I believed were false attacks during 2007, and into early 2008. Once he dropped out, I only occasionally corrected false or incorrect statements when the statements themselves were important. I haven't defended Romney as a candidate since he dropped out. I didn't even argue for him as VP, and supported the Palin choice

Your lies here are how you earned your nickname from the anti-Romney crowd

How do YOU think I got the nickname? Didn't ejonesie22 give me that nickname (that's what another freeper just said on another thread, and you didn't object to that claim)? I said "It was a nickname assigned to me by another freeper; how is that a lie? I made NO comment on how I "earned" the name, your suggestion that I did is another lie.

And I see you still can't find any evidence for your claims, even though it should be easy for you if you aren't lying.

Let me help. Here's a thread: Cheney Mum on Palin's Qualifications

Oops, that's a pro-palin thread I posted

Wait, here's an attack comment: Post 20, "Sarah Palin: Newsweek"

Oops -- that's a comment where I agree Sarah Palin saying: "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now". I did attack pro-palin people who posted pictures of Palin in a similarly sexist manner.

Here's one: COmment 20, "Media barred from recording or photographing Sarah Palin at Florida events": Oops, I DEFENDED her in that comment as well.

OK, here's one: COmment 46, "Ok, This needs to be said..(Message for Sarah Palin)"..... No wait, the thread attacked Palin, and I posted to defend her.

You lie saying that I am a well-known Palin basher. You call me an "anti-Palin troll". You post NO evidence. I can post link after link showing that I am NOT anti-Palin. But the real proof is found using search.

If you weren't lying, you would already have done what I just did, only posting the dozens of links that would show you weren't lying.

Instead, you post responses bringing up mormonism. I'm a Presbyterian.

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.