Jindal Now Targeted by National Mainstream Media

Wonder why the media have been looking at Republican presidential contenders for three years, 11 months from now, and paying quite a bit of attention to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal? The push on to make him the frontrunner way in advance has more to do with the left’s agenda than covering a good horse race.

Ever since Jindal succumbed to the electoral politics bug, liberals have recognized the danger he presents to their agenda. Jindal does not apologize for his conservatism but neither does he come off as much of an ideologue; he articulates it well both at a philosophical level but also in terms that demonstrate its superiority to the typical citizen; and, worst of all from the liberal perspective, his life to date explodes the myths of racism and upper-class warfare that liberals desperately want to con Americans into thinking, particularly when it comes to conservatives and Republicans.

The only missing ingredient that could make Jindal a virulent political force against liberalism, now with its most complete control over policy-making at the federal level in history, is a sustained record of success in governance. A candidate with this quality not only would win a decision in 2012 over president-elect Barack Obama, given that Obama appears at this point not be to wavering from his stated agenda, but would score a Reaganesque knockout of Democrats and liberals.

Smart liberals know two things, that if they really do try to implement their agenda they are going to make quite a mess of things principally economically, and that they cannot allow conservative candidates with credibility who effectively communicate the flaws and internal contradictions of liberalism contrasted to conservatism to emerge to point out the problems the undiluted Obama agenda is sure to bring. As things go sour on many fronts, they have to be able to distort and to distract to deflect the public from making this realization.

If Jindal can establish a good governing record to go along with superior communication, liberals lose. They can’t do much about the communication aspect, but they can try to frame Jindal’s record. And this is where the media, who will provide many willing, if not eager, allies, can come into play.

By focusing on Jindal now, they want to be there every step of the way to control the public’s image of him. This is a longer-term version of the tactic utilized against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the wake of her vice presidential nomination, where because of the compressed nature of the campaign quicker hits with less time for rebuttal from forces outside of the media made her easier prey. With Jindal, they want to be able to spot episodes that potentially can be exploitable to damage Jindal’s credibility, and only through constant monitoring can this be maximized.

History shows that the presumed “frontrunners” in presidential nomination contests often fare poorly, precisely because there is so much attention paid to them that any warts discovered can be emphasized time and time again to fatigue potential supporters. Worse for Jindal, that he is an ethnic minority member and conservative invites, if history is any guide, even more media scrutiny and criticism (such as that paid to another potential GOP presidential candidate of the future, former Ohio Sec. of State Ken Blackwell).

So let’s recognize this mainstream media attention for what it is for many: the opening salvo of a national campaign that hopes to neutralize Jindal as a force to be reckoned with in 2012. Whether he will be able to resist that will depend in part on his political skills, and some may be fortune simply beyond his control. Regardless, the battle is commenced.

Jindal is a U.S. citizen by birth, a native citizen, not a natural born citizen (probably). His parents were recently from India, thus he would have divided loyalties, as did Obama with his father being a student from Kenya.

As I said, read Defining Natural-Born Citizen by P.A. Madison. Some excerpts:

The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Thus Obama may be disqualified and McCain may be disqualified. So might Jindal. Go through the 1001 Obama citizenship threads if you want more information.

I guess it up to the courts to interpret the Constitution, we'll see.

I wonder if they are bringing up Jindal, saying, if you want us to accept Jindal as natural born, you have to accept Obama as natural born. For the record, I think the issue of divided loyalties is a tricky one. Most legal immigrants are far more loyal to the United States than a lot of natural born citizens. I know that Jindal is a great loyal American. I do not know that of Obama.

Those are all nice theoretical points. From a practical standpoint, they mean zip. There have been too many hundreds of thousands of children born in the USA to non-native parents who have already been recognized as "natural-born citizens", to use your parlance by "no act of law".

"Anchor babies also do not qualify as natural born as their citizenship was created by an act of law and they have divided loyalties."

And what "act of law" was it that "created their citizenship". Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. And neither will the courts.

Well, Leo Donofrio's case if going to conference Friday at the Supreme Court, so we'll see what comes of it.

Few notes from Donofrio :

The "anchor babies" issue deals with whether those children are "citizens", not whether they are "natural born citizens" eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. They are not eligible since, at birth, they are also subject to the jurisdiction of the countries their parents were citizens of.

Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court, once again, that had the legislature intended to grant "natural born citizen" status to all who were born on US soil, then the 14th Amendment would contain the words "natural born citizen", but it doesn't.

And so this proposition leads to the logical conclusion that a natural born citizen is a citizen born in the United States to parents, neither of which is an alien. Having an alien parent would tie such person at birth to the possibility of other loyalties and laws. And such a person, even if he be as loyal and devoted to this country as Senators Obama and McCain have proven to be, is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

John McCain was neither born on United States soil, nor was he naturalized. He is a citizen at birth by statute. ... McCain is in the class of citizens who obtain their citizenship at birth, but not from the Constitution, but rather federal statute. ... So, not being born on US soil, McCain cannot be a "natural born citizen".

A lot more arguments there if you care to read them.

"A lot more arguments there if you care to read them. "

I've seen them. For the most part, they are bullshit. A "natural born citizen" is one born on US territory (and in the case of John McCain in particular, the article is TOTAL bullshit, because he WAS born on US territory, as, at the time of his birth, the Panama Canal WAS "US territory"). The courts have accepted that definition for many decades---it's settled law.

The problem with Obama is that he was likely NOT born on US territory.

"If Jindal gains traction as a Presidential candidate expect posters here to question whether if Jindal is a Muslim or if any of his family members are illegals."

And they will prove themselves to be idiots. Jindal's background, unlike Obama's, is an "open book". All the relevant facts are matters of public record. He was certainly born in the USA, in Louisiana, in Baton Rouge. His parents were (and are) Hindu, and were here legally, and the facts of his converstion to Catholicism are well known. At precisely what point his parents got green cards and became citizens, I haven't seen---but there is no question of their "visa status".

I respectfully disagree. Sarah has accomplished as much, if not more, in her time in office than Jindal. Her level of accomplishment is much higher in the area of routing scum bag republicans and democrats, in other words "the good old boy network", and exposing them and in doing more for Alaska in two years than any other Governor of Alaska in the last 50 years, not to mention her effort to bring energy independence to the states.

As far as I am concerned, Sarah/Jindal 2012. When Jindal starts brining in the crowds the way Sarah does then I might think about him at the top, until then, which is to say never, I want Sarah as POTUS candidate for 2012 and I am not alone in that thinking.

They’ll probably attack his faith; I understand he’s a fundamental Catholic.

He's Catholic. I'm not sure what "fundamental" means, in reference to Catholics.

The media will savage him.

The real question is: will the Romophobic idiots on FR savage him?

"I respectfully disagree. Sarah has accomplished as much, if not more, in her time in office than Jindal."

Sorry, but I'm not willing to limit it to "her (his) time in office". That is far too limited a snapshot of overall ability. Jindal simply demolishes Palins overall track record.

"When Jindal starts brining in the crowds the way Sarah does then I might think about him at the top, until then, which is to say never, I want Sarah as POTUS candidate for 2012 and I am not alone in that thinking."

In other words, just like a Democrat, the only thing that matters is "charisma". Yup, Palin has more charisma than Jindal, but Jindal has more of everything else than Palin--which is why a Jindal/Palin ticket is the overall best. Palin needs seasoning. Jindal does not.

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.