Free Republic

Romney couldn’t connect because he’s not a conservative, at least on the social front. Jindal is both an economic and social conservative.

OK, last comment on Jindal, I promise...

Palin, Jindal, and the other GOP Governors are meeting in Miami next week for their annual meeting. I predict that this will be the beginning of the Jindal introduction to the rest of the country — conservatives and folks out there are yearning for conservative leadership. I betcha that the media will talk up Jindal big-time next week. I’m confident that because he’s a social AND economic conservative, Jindal will connect with GOP voters. Welcome to 2012!

Did anyone in 2004 think Obama was going to be the Dem nominee for President, much less becoming the President in 2008? My point is that just because Jindal is unknown now doesn’t mean that he can’t be the nominee in 2012. Trust me, there are enough conservatives out there who are willing to raise money for him or support him... even now. Not being well-know is not a big obstacle if you have 4 years to change that.

I promise this will be the last Jindal-boosting posting (I’m sure everyone is sick of my posting as it is!). An excerpt from a local New Orleans article today — it’s very interesting and reveals much Jindal’s attractiveness:

Jindal blamed this year’s GOP’s losses on the party straying from the themes of fiscal conservatism, anti-corruption and policy innovation that worked in the previous decade. “You can’t beat something with nothing, “ Jindal said. “For too long it seemed the Republican message was, ‘vote for Republicans because the other side is worse.’ And that’s simply not a good enough reason to win elections.”

Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, said states likely will continue to be crucibles for experimentation during Barack Obama’s administration, as the new president will inherit record budget deficits that will make it tough for him to fulfill his ambitious domestic agenda. And that, in turn, could work to Jindal’s advantage. “We’re not going to have the resources or the votes (in Washington) to do sweeping health care changes, “ Ornstein said.

Allying both wings

Should Jindal enter the national fray, Republicans will be hoping he can help reconcile a party that occasionally has been riven by dissent between social conservatives and those who consider economic issues such as spending and taxes to be paramount.

“He is one of the few Republican politicians that has been able to fuse the two parts of the Republican Party, the social conservatives and the business conservatives, “ said Wayne Parent, an LSU political science professor.

Speaking of comparisons to Ronald Reagan, guess who called Jindal “the next Ronald Reagan:” Rush Limbaugh.

Call me a “ditto head”!

Umm, I don’t think managing two crisis during two hurricanes is resume-building. That’s actually doing something — it’s called being a competent Governor.

Umm, I don’t think cutting taxes is resume-building. Or for that matter, instituting new ethics reforms to get rid of Louisiana’s past corrupt practices. Again, that’s called governing.

True, Jindal is not the most popular governor; but he’s the second most popular governor in the country. Do you honestly think that Palin can out-debate Obama? Please. We need someone who’s a smart (emphasis on smart) conservative who can out-debate the heck out of Obama.

Palin is the past; Jindal is the future.

Jindal must be at the top of the ticket. Which means that Palin won’t do number two again, probably. I think about those swing voters in northern Virginia, suburban Indiana, Charlotte, NC: Who’s better at communicating the conservative vision? I think it’s Jindal

Look, Palin is folksy and does connect with ordinary voters. All I’m saying is give another guy a look in the primaries. I’m betting that Jindal will connect with conservatives better than Palin will (assuming, of course, both run in 2012).

Why can’t we have both? Why can’t we win elections AND stand for what we believe in? Jindal is the right person who can do BOTH.

You tell me why Jindal’s not right for this center-right nation. He’s young, fresh, competent, can communicate effectively, a total conservative. A child of immigrants who’s Catholic (he can get those rustbelt voters in OH and PA), extremely smart so the biased MSM can’t hit him below the belt on his intellect, a great executive who’s already proven to be competent in office, and can match Obama in any debate.

Look, I agree that she’s energized the base, and has tapped into something special. But she is no Reagan. Reagan was truly special — a type of person we’ll never see for a long time. Reagan’s twin accomplishments of cutting the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 39%, and ending the Cold War are unbelievable achievements. Truly special.

I could easily argue that Jindal is far more special than Palin (I really don’t like to get into these comparisons, but I will). Youngest Governor in the nation, competent as heck who handled the recent hurricanes, Rhodes Scholar, I mean the list goes on and on. And the best part, he won the Joe the Plumber vote in Louisiana by a landslide.

I agree, too, that she’s special. But ask yourself: is it enough to win the Presidency? Is it enough to win all those swing voters in Northern Virginia, Charlotte, NC, or Indiana (I still can’t believe Indiana is now a swing state)?

Yes, the Press has destroyed her. Yes, her treatment has been unfair. But who said politics is fair? It’s never fair. Look, the bottom line is I want to win. I think all conservatives want to win. Who is the best person that can win without sacrificing their conservative principles? It’s Jindal.

Wow, you’re comparing Palin to the greatest President in the modern era. Please, don’t insult the Gipper.

Look, I respect what Palin has accomplished. I’m just saying that there are better, more attractive conservatives out there who can reach out to swing voters. I agree that Palin energized voters, certainly moreso than what McCain was able to accomplish. But that doesn’t mean Palin is the best candidate in 2012. Remember, Obama is the incumbent? He has all the advantages of incumbency. We need someone smart, competent, and unapologetically conservative who can match Obama’s rhetoric. You guessed it.... it’s Jindal (don’t want to sound like a broken record).

Go Jindal, that’s what I say. Look, the fact that the party and the conservative movement is having this conversation about Palin shows how weak Palin is. Remember, what we need is a smart genuine conservative who can communicate to swing voters (by the way, Romney is NOT a conservative).

Let’s stop dwelling on the past, and look to the future!

You tell me what that has produced? Nothing, nada, zero, zilch.. We lost.

There are way better candidates in 2012. As I said, Jindal, Daniels, Ryan, Cantor who don’t have the baggage of this election cycle. It’s time to move on.

Five words: Smart conservative who can communicate. That’s what we need in 2012.

What is wrong with you folks? We were just clocked yesterday. We lost among college graduates! We lost among the middle-class! We need a conservative vision that deals with folks’ aspirations and kitchen-table issues, like health care, energy, — in addition to tax relief.

Screw McCain and Palin, there’s too much baggage there... Move on guys. There’s Jindal, Daniels (who says he’s not running for Prez, but I think can be convinced for VP), Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor — a whole host of other conservatives that are a helluva smarter than the McCain-Palin crew. We need smart conservatives who can COMMUNICATE a conservative vision. It’s time to look into the future, and move on from the past.

First of all, let’s be frank, guys. It took Nixon 8 years to rehabilitate himself and win the Presidency in 1968 after losing in 1960. She’s a great inspiration to the party, but she had her shot and blew it. And no doubt McCain is to blame for this as well since he’s the presidential nominee, but Palin’s responsible for Palin, so she should be held accountable for her performance.

We need a candidate in 2012 who can easily match Obama’s intellect, who’s unabashedly conservative in deed and rhetoric, and who can COMMUNICATE a conservative vision effectively (unlike the current President or our current presidential nominee). That person is Bobby Jindal! Jindal-Daniels 2012! (that’s right, Mitch Daniels would make a perfect VP, especially Indiana is suddently a swing state).

The Dems want McCain? That is convoluted logic. The Democratic candidates prefer Huckabee or Romney to fight against; all three mention McCain precisely because he attracts the Center (with a capital C) in this country.

While I admire and love President Bush, let’s be honest here: McCain is the BEST candidate to beat the Democrats. And let’s be real: The Democrats are on the best footing in history to beat us Republicans. Slowing economy, foreign policy troubles aboard... we need a goshdarn winner!

Who do they fear the most?

John McCain.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the Democrats and the MSM are ganging up to set up McCain as their opponent. All 3 of them fear running against McCain; they are quaking in their boots.

Then tell me, what is your threshold for change? Everyone says that victory is a democratic and peaceful Iraq at peace with its neighbors and an ally for the War on Terror. Iraq is nowhere close to that state. No one wants to ask, "What is the threshold for loss?" Let's assume we continue this way for another year or so (the UN mandates ends at the end of the year). Are you still going to argue that we need to finish the job? The basic problem is that to finish the job requires Iraqi buy-in, and given the recent internecine and sectarian attacks, we're clearly not there yet. I'm sick and tired of everyone saying we need to finish the job, when it's up to the Iraqis to finish the job. And they don't seem to demonstrate any desire sufficient to meet the job (sure, training an Iraqi Army is great, but it's political reconciliation that needs to happen--and it's not happening).

I may not agree entirely with Buckley on the premise that we've lost Iraq. But I agree with him that we need to consider alternatives. We can't have the same situation continue after the end of this year.

BTW, sure, the Dutch wielded influence, but I don't think you can say that the Netherlands guided the Indonesians into democracy. In fact, the Indonesians waged a war against the Dutch to establish their independence. Not exactly an example we want to repeat in Iraq.

Letting events take their full course? What does that mean?

Like any strategic thinker, he wouldn't be writing his piece without thinking of the strategic consequences that follow from recent events.

Let's be frank here: In 2003, the CPA did some really stupid things (abolish the military, de-Baathify without an effective PR campaign, underestimated the Anbar province, etc.). In 2004, we had to deal with a Shiite rebellion, courtesty of Sadr. In 2005, we had elections, but had a feckless transitional Iraqi government that barely struck the insurgency. And now, in 2006, we're dealing with Shia-Sunni strife--the possible outlines of a true civil war. Where do we go from here?

Our government's strategy of reaching out to Sunnis is now taking a huge hit. The Sunnis aren't even talking on the political level, much less on the neighborhood level. And now, bringing them in the US-backed Iraqi military is going to be an impossible feat.

Ok, then what in your view is defeat? Continued Sunni-Shia sectarian strife averaging 50 deaths a day? Or continued political dithering between Sunnis, Shias, Kurds that we have a feckless government? All those things are happening right now.

My take is this: If this keeps up at the end of this year, we have to consider options. Our strategic objective is to Win the War on Terror. And if Iraqis don't share in these objectives, then we have to consider alternatives. We can certainly continue to fund them in US military and economic assistance. But to put our boys and girls on the line in such a context (if it continues) is, in my view, unbelievably stupid.

There is this natural debate in conservatism, which Buckley understands, playing out between the temptation to be Wilsonian on the foreign policy front in the service of great ideals (like the war in Iraq) and appreciating the truly limited means we have to "make things happen" (if gov't can't properly work at home, why should we believe that our government can help re-make Iraq).

Even during the Cold War, President Reagan chose his battles wisely. If you recall, he never deployed forces in combat to countries larger than Grenada. After Vietnam, Reagan understood that to sustain the constituency needed to win the Cold War, he couldn't go willy-nilly into every hot war during the Cold War. Conservatism is also pragmatic.