Well, that is not anything too brilliant. One of them is a former Rhodes Scholar, McKinsey expert, and all-around prodigy, and the other is a 44-year old who doesn't know that Africa is a continent. Nevertheless, this item from Political Wire this evening caught my attention:
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) "was approached by McCain forces to gauge his interest in the vice presidency and told them he was not interested in being vetted due to his desire to continue on with his current job, to which he was elected just one year ago," the Washington Post reports.
That was the official reason. However, "there was also real trepidation within his political inner circle that Jindal might wind up as the pick... and be caught up in what they believed to be a less-than-stellar campaign that could pin a loss on Jindal without much ability to change or control the direction of the contest."
"The end result -- intentional or not -- is that Jindal, should he run in 2012, will be free of any taint of President George W. Bush or McCain."
Smart man. Jindal apparently saw the writing on the wall early, and wanted no part of going down with the H.M.S John McCain. Even Mitt Romney was willing to sell his soul to the devil (for about the 16th time) in order to get on McCain's ticket to bolster his 2012 plans. Not so for Jindal, who I think felt (at least somewhat) compelled to stay on in the job he won in 2007. Obviously, we cannot say the same for the governor of Alaska, who jumped at the offer even though she was less qualified for the job than 90% of the people sitting at the bar of a T.G.I. Friday's on a random Tuesday afternoon.
While I think Jindal is too politically extreme, his impressive resume and pure intelligence will make him a good potential nominee in 2012, much better than the vapid Alaskan, and especially if the economy is still in troubled water. Romney-Jindal anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I agree that Jindal is too right wing but I think the reason he won't be their nominee (unless as a sacrificial lamb) is because the GOP is not a risk taking party. Image wise, Jindal is uncharismatic, boring and lacks stage presence. And even though he is popular in LA, the GOP won't risk a golden opportunity to win the election by going with "new face". He won in LA because Kathleen Blanco bombed big time. He will be competing against many other southern governors with equally conservative records who fit the "traditional GOP image". The Dems may be risk takers with Obama, but the GOP would rather win than worry about making history.
I think that's probably true. Right now, for what it's worth, I think we'll see Romney-Jindal. In Jindal's defense, however, he almost won the race for the open seat in 2003 (that's where you saw a Bradley Effect in polling).
When I was making predictions for 2008 back in 2005, I said Huckabee would be the guy because he is so likeable, and I still think he might have a future. If he can get Dobson (and others) to back him early, he could seriously improve his chances. His views are crazy too, but the difference is he never comes off as hard-edged. Even Jindal comes across as too intense.
Democrats should hope the governor of Alaska who shall remain nameless is nominated. She would be crushed. But yeah, this is a party that has never nominated a non-protestant white dude. Putting up Romney would be as far as they can go in the near future. A baby step really.
Post a Comment