Jindal Says No
Interestingly, it seems Bobby Jindal was being seriously considered for the Veepstakes but decided to say no in part because they feared that he might “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.”
Ross Douthat says this shows Jindal’s smarts. And perhaps so, though I actually have a hard time seeing a VP seriously taking the blame in a situation like that. It was never really my sense, for example, that John Edwards’ 2008 primary campaign was in any sense hampered by people blaming him for the loss of the Kerry-Edwards ticket.
Either way, I’m actually a bit skeptical of Jindal’s 2016 prospects. Discussion of this tends to begin and end with talking about whether the GOP is really ready for a non-white standard-bearer. I think a bigger issue may be that the next few years aren’t shaping up to be an especially promising time to be a governor. A governor presiding over an economic boom can cut taxes while increasing spending, and thus develop a reputation as a popular can-do pragmatist. Think of George W. Bush, George Voinovich, Christie Todd Whitman, and other classics of the 1990s. This also works if your state government is mostly financed by oil revenues and you’re in office amidst a commodities boom — Sarah Palin comes to mind. Louisiana does share some of Alaska’s petrostate attributes, but it’s not really the same situation, and right now he’s looking at the need to cut $1 billion in spending. Not his fault (though the decision to make up the budget shortfall with a mix of 100% service cuts and 0% tax cuts reflects the intellectually and morally bankrupt nature of contemporary conservatism) any more than the “free money for everyone” governors of the nineties were really geniuses, but it’s going to make it difficult for him to rack up the sort of Record Of Accomplishments that you’re usually looking for in a presidential candidate.
153 Responses to “Jindal Says No”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
There’s also the small matter of his having performed an exorcism.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
That doesn’t make him smart, I predicted (here, I think) that he would turn it down for that exact reason. Why risk it?
Also, he’s still a d-bag.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I think you mean “tax hikes” instead of “tax cuts” here.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Matt, take it one step further. Our budget shortfall is almost entirely because of this year’s repeal of the “Stelly Tax Plan,” the repeal of which provided almost no benefit to taxpayers but blew a huge hole in the budget.
I also recommend you read a couple of our local blogs, who have done stellar research on Jindal. Your Right Hand Thief is one of the best.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Ross Douthat says this shows Jindal’s smarts. And perhaps so, though I actually have a hard time seeing a VP seriously taking the blame in a situation like that. It was never really me sense, for example, that John Edwards’ 2008 primary campaign was in any sense hampered by people blaming him for the loss of the Kerry-Edwards ticket.
First, speak English (”it was never really me sense”) Second, no, losing VP’s don’t take blame. But their track record post-defeat is abysmal. It’s a sure way to never get elected President, and almost as sure a way to never get your party’s nomination. Here’s a list, pre-Palin:
John Edwards
Joe Lieberman
Jack Kemp
Dan Quayle
Lloyd Bentsen
Geraldine Ferraro
Walter Mondale (and he had already won once)
Bob Dole (here’s an exception – helped out, perhaps, by the fact that no one seems to remember him being Ford’s running mate)
Sergeant Shriver
Edward Muskie
William Miller
Henry Cabot Lodge
Estes Kefauver
John Sparkman
Earl Warren (yeah, he became Chief Justice, but his political career was finished)
John Bricker
Charles McNary
Frank Knox (FDR kindly put him in his cabinet after trouncing him and Landon in 1936)
Charles Curtis
Joseph Robinson (he did become Senate Majority Leader and a key FDR ally after his defeat)
Charles W. Bryan (went on to lose his gubernatorial campaign in Nebraska)
FDR (big-time exception)
Charles Fairbanks (went back to practicing law in Indianapolis)
Nicholas Murray Butler, Hiram Johnson (Taft and TR’s veeps, respectively)
John Worth Kern
Henry Gassaway Davis (fun fact – he was 81 when he was nominated to be Vice President. I guess the Dems realized they had no shot at TR)
Adlai Stevenson, Adlai Stevenson’s grandfather
Arthur Sewall, a Swedenborgian shipbuilder
So from 1896-2004, losing Vice Presidential nominees went on to be elected President once, and nominated by their party three times.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
You mention Edwards’ primary performance this year; one critical fact of that run is that it didn’t end in victory. Historically, that tends to be true: failed running mates almost never make it to the White House, while a large percentage of our presidents have also been vice presidents.
Incidentally, I think you may be right that the GOP is not ready for a non-white standard bearer at this point, but I think that’s another reason Jindal was wise not to jump the gun: he realizes he’s got many, many opportunities to run for national office ahead of him. And if there’s any doubt about whether history is on his side now, it’s in his interest to wait until it is. For the same reason, I suspect the chances he’ll run in 2012 are not as high as many make them out to be.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
It was never really me sense
Matt, I’m gonna repeat my offer from the earlier thread, and this time I’m offering to do it for only $20. What a steal!
November 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I think he’s being smart. He’s giving himself a chance to become prepared before facing the national media. Palin will have a difficult time in 2012 because she solidified a reputation for being uninformed and just plain stupid. That will be a tough hurdle even if she does learn some things over the next four years. Jindal avoided that. And he has four years to reverse some of his extremist positions.
As for governing in bad times, why is that a problem? Lincoln and Roosevelt governed during extremely bad times, but we regard both of them highly. Bad times can be a great opportunity of you’re a great leader. Not that Jindal is a great leader, but if he were, then the bad economy would be a good chance to prove it.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
So from 1896-2004, losing Vice Presidential nominees went on to be elected President once, and nominated by their party three times.
It’s worth noting that winning Vice Presidential nominees over that time frame–if you make the critical exclusion of those who inherited the Presidency through the President’s death (Teddy, Coolidge, Truman, and LBJ)–have basically the same record. One win (George HW Bush), three losses (Gore, Mondale, Humphrey), and one strange corner case (Nixon).
November 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
….Christie Todd Whitman… LOL ROFLMAO. Governor Whitman did well for a while. Until budget constraints had her doing things like selling off highways to the Turnpike to get some quick cash or stop collecting animal carcasses by the side of the highway. Few hundred pounds of rotting deer meat by the side of the road goes over real well in the middle of a traffic jam in August.
.. or the look on her face when she told the press that deep cuts in state aid to municipalities would NOT make local property taxes go up. The same Christy Whitman who told us all that the air around the World Trade Center wasn’t bad it was just the stuff floating in it that might make you sick… Yeah that one. ( I lived in New Jersey during the Whitman Administration. Well loved by one and all…)
November 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
right:
That’s sort of true, but Coolidge, Truman, LBJ (and Nixon) were all elected on their own. Granted, winning as an incumbent president is different from winning as an ex-VP.
But when you get down to it, if Jindal’s long-term goal is to be president, and his choices along the way are 1) run for VP when you’ll probably win, and 2) run for VP when you’ll probably lose, then 1 is highly preferable to 2. Of course, he might be best served with option 3–never run for VP at all.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
one strange corner case (Nixon)
I mean, he went 2-1 in Presidential elections and his second win was a massive landslide, while there are still a few historians who think 1960 was stolen from him. And at least winning Vice-Presidents get their party’s nomination at a high rate. It can be hard on them though – historically it’s just very tough for a party to win three Presidential elections in a row, you get voter fatigue. So if you’re a sitting Vice President trying to succeed a two-term President, no matter how popular, the odds are probably against you.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I think I mentioned it here before, but Jindal’s article about the exorcism is unintentional comedy gold. Jindal is not a reliable narrator, particularly when it comes to the emotions of female persons.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Given that Jindal’s positions are rock-solid conservative, I think that the GOP base – as it’s currently constituted – would go for him. On the other hand, I think a goodly number of primary voters might feel that such a “real” conservative wouldn’t stand a chance in the general and vote for a softer candidate.
On the gripping hand, the base always goes for the knuckle draggers in the CA govenatorial race, so I could be wrong.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
You can make the “tough economic times = bad political prospects” for pretty much any position in politics though. So what sort of position do you think its likely the next nominees will come from? If not state gov’t, where? Especially for the GOP which doesn’t have anything other than state gov’t. Maybe a military figure?
November 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
So basically, my conclusion’s this: you don’t want to run on a losing ticket, because it’ll probably end your presidential hopes. You do want to run on a winning ticket, because if you win (and win again in four years), you’ll be the favorite to be your party’s nominee. But don’t get your hopes set too high on winning once you’re finally nominated, because voters are tough on sitting vice presidents. So ultimately, a Jindal’s best chance of becoming President wouldn’t have been the losing veep nominee in ‘08, or even the winning nominee in ‘08 and ‘12, because the odds would be against him in ‘16. His best chance is (a) hope for an economic downturn in 2012, or (b) hope Obama gets re-elected in 2012, but by 2016 voters are tired of Democratic rule. Probably (b) is his best scenario; Republican primary voters will be more receptive to him in 2016 after a Palin, Huckabee, or Romney defeat.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Wait a second–isn’t Obama going to fix the economy? Problem solved!
Maybe Matt thinks that Obama’s record–a bad economy is what Matt expects the record to be–will somehow compare favorably to Jindal’s record. How would that work?
Oh, and this bit about 2016 is nonsense. Jindal is running in 2012. And his race won’t be a problem in the GOP primary, but it undoubtedly will be made an issue by Democrats in the general. (As will his lack of experience, his religion, the views of non-Indians abroad, Hindus who feel betrayed by his conversion, and his supposed lack of intellectual heft.)
November 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
It should also be noted that Jindal is a Catholic fundamentalist, not the usual Protestant variety. Non-Jesus freaks might not see much difference, but in that world it matters. I could be wrong, but I think that doesn’t make Jindal a shoo-in for religious right standard bearer.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I always assumed that Kay Bailey Hutchinson also said no. Aside from being pro-choice, she’d be a perfect fit with McCain. That factor would hurt with GOTV/rally-the-base business but would’ve moved enough moderate/independent supporters to be worth it and might’ve actually had a shot at winning over an HRC supporter or two.
Of course, caveats about positions on abortion could’ve been avoided altogether in McCain’s Veep selection process had he spent his months running unopposed raising money, building a campaign apparatus, and convincing the GOP base that he’d fight for them instead of going on vacation and fucking around in Annapolis and whatever he was doing. What a terrible campaign.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Granted, winning as an incumbent president is different from winning as an ex-VP.
Exactly. Incumbent presidents winning re-election is the rule, not the exception.
if Jindal’s long-term goal is to be president, and his choices along the way are 1) run for VP when you’ll probably win, and 2) run for VP when you’ll probably lose, then 1 is highly preferable to 2.
Well another choice would be: run for VP when the guy running for president is unusually likely to die in office. That’s probably the best option of all.
I mean, he went 2-1 in Presidential elections and his second win was a massive landslide
Well obviously we’re being unscientific here, but his second win is irrelevant because incumbent Presidents only rarely lose. Sitting VPs, though, have one solid win (Bush 88), and three very narrow losses (Nixon 60, Humphrey 68, Gore 00). Former VPs, have one narrow win (Nixon 68, over a sitting VP, natch), and one huge loss (Mondale 84). Losing VP candidates, have one huge win (FDR), and one solid loss (Dole 96). Tiny sample size obviously, but hard to make a rule one way or the other.
The best way to become President remains to be a successful governor from the sunbelt. Jindal is probably smart to stick on that path. He’s still young.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Right: what you’re missing is that losing VP candidates have only two nominations, if you don’t count Mondale, who had already been VP. You can’t get elected if you don’t get nominated. And parties don’t like to nominate their defeated VP candidates. They do, however, love to nominate sitting VP’s. The rule is to not run on a losing ticket, unless you’re Sarah Palin, who never would’ve been heard from if not for the exposure this got her.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
right, what’s this about incumbents rarely losing? Just in recent history, LBJ declined to stand because he would not have won, Nixon won, Ford lost, Carter lost, Reagan won, Bush lost, Clinton won, Bush won. I see a pattern more like, the incumbent loses when the economy sucks. Which admittedly must not be comforting for Obama supporters like Matt, who think the economy is going to suck.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Yes, Thomas, no incumbent has ever beat a recession rap, except for FDR, and he had turned a massive depression into a merely bad economy, so that doesn’t count. If things aren’t rosy on the jobs front in 2012, Obama will be cooked just like any other politician would be. Unless Palin runs against him… but she’s already looking way more articulate. Did you see her on the Today Show cooking in her kitchen in a suit, with her kids milling around? Genius.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
It’s probably between Jindal and Romney. If it’s still the economy, stupid, then Romney’s got it. That Prop 8 stuff also probably bought the Mormons a little additional street cred.
However, if the Hee Haw wing of the party wins out, it’ll be Jindal. They’ll tell their own followers how great he is, because he gave up his religion to become Catholic. They’ll try to tell everyone else how they’ve found the conservative Obama. Every bit as dark and every bit as smart.
Nevertheless, if Jindal is smart, he’ll leave it to Huckabee. Huckabee speaks well to the nonbelievers. Jindal doesn’t.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Err…isn’t Sarah Palin, um, taking the blame for it right now?
November 11th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Spurious, I think darker and smarter is more accurate. Obama didn’t get into Yale Law, did he? Jindal did that on the wrong end of racial balancing.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
DTM, isn’t there poli-sci guy pushing a 14-year-window theory? He says you get 14 years from your first significant office win to win the presidency. Jindal is five years in, by that measure. 2012 and 2016 are the end of the line for him.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I think we are forgetting about the economic “principles” of the GOP. Huckabee was crucified by the non-evangelical base because of his tax policy and other pragmatic solutions as Governor of Arkansas.
And in this economic climate, taxes will be raised by everybody. So pretty much you can forget about any current GOP Governor winning the GOP primary in 2012.
Duncan Hunter just might pull it off. And make 1964 look like a nail-biter.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
On the gripping hand, the base always goes for the knuckle draggers in the CA govenatorial race, so I could be wrong.
Can you reference Niven on a progressive blog?
November 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Thomas, Obama’s managed a few other things since then. Getting into Yale isn’t the be all, end all.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I have to agree with Ross Douthat on this one. Running as a VP on a losing ticket may give you national name ID, but it also exposes your flaws. I was an Edwards supporter, but by 2007, even I was sick of the “son of a millworker” routine. The truth is, politicians only have so many years in the national spotlight before they become old news. That’s why the only Senator to win the Presidency in recent memory was a relative newcomer. By staying in Louisiana, Jindal avoids the spotlight. Or, in other words, would you rather be Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin right now?
November 11th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I think MY now has enough posts on this theme that he could make a 400-page book out of them. Call it “The Crapshoot: How Our Presidents, Congreessional Majorities and Whole Political Universe Is Determined by Who Happens to Be In Office or Running For Office During Economic Booms and Busts”.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
It was never really me sense
Maybe it’s Talk Like a Leprechaun Day at TP. Otherwise, ye might want to be doin’ a wee bit o’ proofreadin’, me lad.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Crap. Forgot to close the italic tag. This place really needs a preview feature.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
“Or, in other words, would you rather be Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin right now?”
Jindal. But it has more to do with being a Rhodes scholar rather than an idiot, and less to do with who just ran for VP. After seeing Sarah Palin in the spotlight, the spotlight looks really really scary.
“The truth is, politicians only have so many years in the national spotlight before they become old news.”
Except of course McCain and Hillary, who have been in the national spotlight for a long time and came pretty close. McCain didn’t lose because he was old news. Neither did Kerry and Gore.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
It was never really me sense,
I’ll defend you this time. Others making fun of you don’t realize that it is International Talk-like-a-Pirate day, arghhh.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
“the decision to make up the budget shortfall with a mix of 100% service cuts and 0% tax cuts reflects the intellectually and morally bankrupt nature of contemporary conservatism”
I think MY’s strange notion that tax cuts can make up budget shortfalls reflects the extent to which insane conservative ideas have even infected the left.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
A policy disagreement becomes evidence of moral bankruptcy? Seriously? You’re being as hysterical as those reactionary Corner bloggers you poke fun at so much.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
“the decision to make up the budget shortfall with a mix of 100% service cuts and 0% tax cuts reflects the intellectually and morally bankrupt nature of contemporary conservatism”
I think MY’s strange notion that tax cuts can make up budget shortfalls reflects the extent to which insane conservative ideas have even infected the left.
I think he meant tax hike. But yeah, intellectual bankruptcy – I mean, Matt, you’ve read Nozick. WWND? All service cuts, no tax hikes of course. There are sound intellectual arguments for this sort of thing.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“It was never really me sense, for example, that John Edwards’ 2008 primary campaign was in any sense hampered by people blaming him for the loss of the Kerry-Edwards ticket.”
“It was never really me sense?” The writing quality is degrading here. Please make time for editing!
November 11th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
“Record Of Accomplishments that you’re usually looking for in a presidential candidate.”
Obama’s signature accomplishment was writing a book about himself, and that didn’t really seem to slow him down any.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
just in recent history, LBJ declined to stand because he would not have won, Nixon won, Ford lost, Carter lost, Reagan won, Bush lost, Clinton won, Bush won. I see a pattern more like, the incumbent loses when the economy sucks.
That is the pattern indeed. Back it up further though, to the timeframe discussed earlier (post-1896), and you see Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Coolidge, Wilson, Teddy, and McKinley re-elected, with only Taft and Hoover losing.
The other common denominator — besides a weak economy — is that each loser (except Hoover) was challenged significantly by the outside flank of his own party: Taft by Teddy Roosevelt, LBJ by Eugene McCarthy, Ford by Reagan, Carter by Ted Kennedy, and Bush by Pat Buchanan. Absent that dynamic, no incumbent aside from Hoover has lost since 1888 (which was a Bush-Gore-style popular/electoral vote split).
November 11th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
It didn’t make any sense to me, either, but I was an Edwards supporter. On the other hand, lots of people cited this reason to me when explaining why they preferred Obama. Usually with the added explanation that Edwards was supposed to carry the South for Kerry, which is kind of hard to do when Edwards was never sent to campaign there.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
you’ve read Nozick. WWND? All service cuts, no tax hikes of course. There are sound intellectual arguments for this sort of thing.
Nozick, as Matt has pointed out before, has a view that’s completely based on rights (as he sees them) and not on consequences at all.* He’d support all service cuts and no tax hikes if it meant that half of everyone would starve to death. I wouldn’t want a Nozickian within fifty miles of my government.
*OK, possibly not true, as DeLong argues here; I’m not sure that DeLong is right to say that Nozick implicitly relies on utilitarian considerations in his justification of original appropriation, but I agree with DeLong that if Nozick does this then we can consign all of Anarchy State and Utopia to the flames; and also that Nozick needs some kind of justification for how someone can obtain the superduperpowered property rights on which he bases his philosophy, and he doesn’t have one, which means that we can consign it to the flames anyway. And that’s without even touching rectification.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Re: Bush by Pat Buchanan.
A pretty trivial challenge, that one. More like the fact that Richard Nixon in 1972 was challenged by both a liberal and a conservative Republican.
Also, LBJ did not run in 1968 we we really shouldn’t include him the list.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Wouldn’t we expect to see a primary challenge when the incumbent is weak? I’m not sure the primary challenge indicates more than that.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
“Bobby Jindal was born in 1971.”
Do you have to remind me how old I am? Have some sympathy for those of us born in the Sixties. Granted, becoming old is better than the alternative, but still….
November 11th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
if Obama passes universal health care what will Jindal run on?
UHC probably won’t have taken effect by 2012 so he will be forced to run against something that is generically popular but no one has had any personal difficulty with.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Nozick, as Matt has pointed out before, has a view that’s completely based on rights (as he sees them) and not on consequences at all.* He’d support all service cuts and no tax hikes if it meant that half of everyone would starve to death. I wouldn’t want a Nozickian within fifty miles of my government.
So Nozick does have the classic Lockean “enough and as good” proviso in his theory; hence, no starvation. Basically some sort of minimal provision of necessities for all. Of course, his discussion of the Lockean proviso is incredibly shaky and it’s not clear how it fits into the theory as a whole or how strong it is or whatever. I might be doing a term paper on this, so if you’re around a month from now, I’ll get back to you on what the secondary commentators have had to say on this point and whether there’s a way to make the proviso coherent with therest of the theory.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
preemption, I think Jindal’s going to run against Obama’s tax increases, corruption, and deficits. I think he’s going to run against failed management. And I think he’s going to run against the bad economy.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Mark S.,
“Fundamentalist” has a specific historical and lexical meaning. It connotes someone who interprets all of their scriptures literally, and as such it only can apply to religious denominations which are “Sola Scriptura”, such as evangelical Protestantism and, arguably, Sunni Islam. Calling someone a Catholic fundamentalist therefore makes no sense.
Regarding the exorcism, it apparently wasn’t a valid exorcism, since Jindal wasn’t an ordained clergyman. While I accept the existence of exorcism in principle (Jesus is recorded as having performed quite a few) I’m doubtful that they happen with any frequency and I’m extremely doubtful that Jindal performed one.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
DTM, do you have Encore (been playing it lately) or just a general penchant for at-least-it-wasn’t-the-Michael-Bay-one disaster movies?
November 11th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Regarding the whole “exorcism” thing, can we just let that go? It might be a touch kooky, but insofar as it doesn’t have an impact on his governance, it’s irrelevant, and insofar as his kooky beliefs do have an impact on his governance, that can be discussed directly in terms of his policies as governor and their consequences. I really don’t see the big deal here. Theoretically, I suppose I’d personally prefer rational naturalists to be running the government, but that won’t happen any time soon, and in this election I voted for the guy for whom kooky religion is apparently a larger part of his life than his opponent. (I.e., Obama rather than McCain — I could be mistaken, and they’re both Christians, but from his speeches, writings, etc, it seems to me that Obama is more of a “true believer” than McCain. I don’t regard that as a good thing, but it’s something I was willing to put up with.)
November 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
“preemption, I think Jindal’s going to run against Obama’s tax increases,”
Obama’s tax plan is revenue neutral and only a few of us will face tax increases. McCain tried that approach and discovered that most people aren’t as rich as him. And when people actually see their tax bills go down, they’ll believe their bank account balance over delusional Republican propaganda.
“corruption,”
Huh? Slick Willie may have had some corruption issues, but I don’t see that from Obama.
“and deficits.”
The Republicans are strong supporters of deficit spending, and the Democrats don’t care much. I think Obama will try to avoid deficits, but will likely fail. But if that’s the case, many Republicans will vote for him because they love fiscal irresponsibility. Their record proves it.
“I think he’s going to run against failed management.”
Given the excellent management of his campaign, it’s hard to believe that there will be failed management. Obama ran a much better campaign than Clinton ever did. And Clinton managed this country better than any president in my lifetime. A good campaign is obviously not a guarantee of success (see Bush, George W), but it shouldn’t be considered a black mark. There is simply no reason to expect poor management from Obama. Granted, I expected good management from Bush and was disappointed. But that’s because I was not aware of Bush’s track record of failure in business. Obama has no track record of failure.
“And I think he’s going to run against the bad economy.”
Maybe. The economy that Bush has left us is truly bad and the problems may take more than four years to solve. But we will see improvement in the next four years. The first two years will be rough, as we can expect the Republicans to filibuster everything and probably shut down the government. But the Republicans will lose big when they do that. The second two years will go much better. Just in time for reelection.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Julian Elson,
McCain memorized key parts of the Book of Common Prayer, and led prayer services for his fellow inmates during his five years of captivity. I would suggest that indicates he is, at the least, a deeply spiritual person.
It doesn’t bother me if people bring up Jindal’s exorcism, in fact I rather like it. The more our religion is derided and mocked in the public square, the more opportunity it provides us to witness to what we believe. And who knows, a couple of you ‘rational naturalists’ may even come to reassess your world view.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“The first two years will be rough, as we can expect the Republicans to filibuster everything and probably shut down the government. But the Republicans will lose big when they do that.”
The Republicans can’t be that stupid that they’d go shut down the government. Midterm gains in 2010 are a near lock. It’s hard to predict what the economy will look like in 2012. I’m not sure that Jindal will be the nominee. A lot of the establishment will rally around Romney. The evangelicals are stuck between Palin and Huckabee. Palin will actually get a bigger conservative bigwig push between the two, as Kristol loves her and most of the leadership thinks Huckabee’s too much of a welfare stater and a flat tax kook. What wing of the party is Jindal the candidate of? The Ross Douthat wing? He doesn’t have a wing, he’s just a blogger. I’m also not too bullish on Jindal as a campaigner. He’s very nerdy and technocratic.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
fostert, you’re delusional. Taxes. Obama’s tax plan isn’t revenue neutral; Obama made a big deal about the fact that it’s a true tax cut–revenues go down. But the plan and the reality are going to be different, I’m betting. Corruption. Obama’s first hire is a Freddie Mac veteran who was elected to the House after Chicago municipal employees followed orders to walk the precints for him. Crony capitalism is corruption. Deficits. $1.3 trillion is my guess for next year, with nearly $2 trillion over the following two years. That’s the record he’ll take into the election year. Obama promised that after we stopped spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, everything would be fine. He scolded Bush for adding $5 trillion to the national debt over 8 years. Will Obama add $5 trillion in half the time? Not unless the health care plan is passed in year 1. (We are calling 2009 year 1 AB, aren’t we?)
November 11th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“I really don’t see the big deal here.”
There is a big deal. I have no problem with Christians. But I have a big problem with those who take the Bible literally. When you think that the Bible offers a clearer explanation of objective reality than science, you are delusional. That scientific results must be changed to be consistent with 2,000 year old writings by people with no scientific background is simply unacceptable. And anyone who thinks that the Earth is only 6,000 years old deserves a padded room, not the Oval office. This is a fundamental problem. That faith should be given more credence than objective observation is completely insane and a serious disqualification for public office. It’s not just about science, that philosophy affects everything.
I can see why you might accept the exorcism problem. I would too if that’s as deep as it went. But his belief in exorcism is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a fundamental reject of rational thought at play. He believes that science is just an opinion. And not even as good an opinion as that come up by shepherds more than two thousand years ago. If he believes that, he should be condemned to use only two thousand year old technology. Take his car away, and maybe he’ll realize that we scientists might have something to offer.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Why would Repubicans shut down the government? They want the Dems to own failure. The point is to get out of the way and make the Dems vote for everything without help and without the cover of bipartisanship. If Obama wants to bail out GM, great. Do it without any Republican votes. Want to raise taxes? No Republican votes. And so on. Save the filibuster for judges and any truly irreversible health care plan.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
fostert, if you think that Catholics like Jindal are biblical literalists, you’re a moron. Look it up.
Also, scientists don’t make cars.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Thomas, our side won’t be able to make that much hay out of deficits. People fret about deficits when things are going well enough to not be busy worrying about bigger issues (see the 90s), but no one’s ever lost a presidential election over deficits. Reagan got away with running up huge deficits, and when Bush acted to correct that, it led, in part, to his defeat.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“The Republicans can’t be that stupid that they’d go shut down the government.”
Oh really? They’ve done it before. I thought they wouldn’t be that stupid the last two times. But I was wrong, and I know that now. And just what about the current Republican leadership makes you so confident that they won’t do it again?
November 11th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
That was me on deficits, not Thomas.
About shutting the government down, it’s real tough when you don’t have a majority in Congress. Besides, the shutdown debacle of 1995 is sort of the equivalent for Republicans to the healthcare debacle of 1993 for Democrats – the one thing that the party’s learned it can never repeat.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
“if you think that Catholics like Jindal are biblical literalists”
Did I say that? I only said that Jindal is. Catholics usually take a non-literalist approach. But not Jindal. He is at the very least a strict creationist. And he does think the Earth is 6,000 years old. That flies in the faceof reality.
“Also, scientists don’t make cars.”
No, but scientists created the concepts of thermodynamics that make them run. Take away our understanding of thermodynamics, and we don’t have cars. It is true that engineers design the useful things in our lives, but we can’t do it without science. And many of us engineers are scientists, too.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
“the one thing that the party’s learned it can never repeat.”
Have they learned that? We’ll know by August 2009. But given their preference in faith over objective reality, I’m betting they haven’t learned anything. Let’s face it, most Republicans still think that Sarah Palin is an intelligent and visionary person. If you can show me some evidence that Republicans have learned anything from this election, I’ll be willing to believe that they are capable of learning. i have yet to see such evidence.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
“They want the Dems to own failure. The point is to get out of the way and make the Dems vote for everything without help and without the cover of bipartisanship.”
They tried that with Clinton’s first budget. And you know what? Democrats own the prosperity that created. Of course, they’ll do it again. And the Democrats will own the recovery. Again.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:12 am
“Taxes. Obama’s tax plan isn’t revenue neutral; Obama made a big deal about the fact that it’s a true tax cut–revenues go down. But the plan and the reality are going to be different, I’m betting.”
Independent analysts say it breaks even, Obama was fudging a little there. Will reality be different? Of course it will. It always is. But we can only argue about what’s in front of us. When the real legislation comes, we can argue about that, too. But arguing about your speculative interpretation is pretty much worthless. We can all speculate about anything. I could say that Sarah Palin intended to assassinate McCain and then launch a nuclear strike against all non-Christians. But would you bother arguing about that? Of course you wouldn’t, Sarah didn’t say should would do that. But given her End of Days philosophy, it’s in the realm of possibility. I doubt she’s confident enough in her Rapture to try it, but I’m glad not to find out.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:14 am
fostert, the budget didn’t create prosperity, it allowed believers in magic to credit prosperity as they wished.
remember, we were a year and a half into a recovery in early 1993. we’ll be a year and a half into a recovery in late 2012. republicans will argue–rightly!–that the obama economy is the worst economy since the great depression. jindal will move in to the WH and take the credit sometime in 2014 as jobless rates finally fall below 6%. our plan is working, he’ll say.
and, no, there’s no evidence to suggest that jindal is a young earth creationist. none. his catholicism very nearly prevents it.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Have they learned that? We’ll know by August 2009. But given their preference in faith over objective reality, I’m betting they haven’t learned anything. Let’s face it, most Republicans still think that Sarah Palin is an intelligent and visionary person. If you can show me some evidence that Republicans have learned anything from this election, I’ll be willing to believe that they are capable of learning. i have yet to see such evidence.
I mean, there are a lot of distinctions you’re muddying here. A lot of Republican voters like Palin. It seems like a ton of the leadership, though, is openly blaming her for the loss. I think the lesson the leadership will take from this is that (a) putting the most moderate guy you’ve got out there doesn’t help if he doesn’t run as a moderate, (b) we can’t just cast the social conservative wing of the party aside, but we’ve got to dress it up in a less folksy face. I’m from the suburbs of Philadelphia, where we were represented by R’s in the House from 1916 to 1992. Then we elected Mezvinsky – she was the 218th vote for Clinton’s tax hike, and we kicked her out in 1994. But her replacement didn’t last long, and the county hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988. We went 60/39 for Obama. People here are pretty prosperous, but socially quite liberal and culturally a little pretentious, especially as you get closer to the city (though not too close!). Whole Foods is big. The Republicans can’t just sell out the pro-lifers, but they do need to run someone who speaks unaccented English (no dropping your g’s, no you betcha’s) if they want to win here. And they need to win here if they want to ever take PA back.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:18 am
The Tax Policy Center said this about the tax plans: “Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.9 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years.” They said this in September.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:20 am
“(We are calling 2009 year 1 AB, aren’t we?)”
No. Only Republicans believe in that Obama as messiah crap. The rest of us know that he’s just a human. A good one,but still human. Of course, Republicans believe he’s a false messiah, the anti-Christ. You need to pull your head out of the Bible and recognize that the Book of Revelation was meant as an allegory. What has happened in history follows no prophecy. It results from the decisions made by normal humans. For better or worse.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:20 am
1. Jindal refused to be vetted. If he were, that would not have ensured his selection.
2. Any serious vetting of Jindal would have entailed finding the woman he helped perform the exorcism on.
3. So far Jindal is popular in Louisiana only because he is not Kathleen Blanco and because he hasn’t really done anything save not totally screw up the handling of Hurricane Gustave.
4. He has cut taxes by eliminating the Stelly Plan in Louisiana; he cut them, unfortunately, at a time when the state actually needs the revenue.
5. He is as bland as rice pudding.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:23 am
fostert, I’d need to locate a copy of the bible–I know I have one around here somewhere–first. I should say that my copy would call Revelations something else, but you know that. Anyway, the AB is a joke about a Spike Lee quote going around the internets.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Okay. So McCain is a true believer, I guess. I don’t care. That’s a very mild strike against him in my book (just as it’s a mild strike against Obama), but it’s not as if I were a huge McCain fan in the first place (not that I really despise him either).
Regardless of what I say about exorcism, I’m sure Christians in the public square will have plenty of opportunity to witness their faith. In 2012, 2016, 2020, whatever, I’m sure that both candidates from both parties will be Christian — possibly Jewish, almost certainly not atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, Baalist, or anything else — who will witness their faith quite openly with no need for atheist provacateurs to instigate them. So it has been since shortly after the Revolution. I could be wrong, but I suspect all of that witnessing won’t cause me to reconsider my world view, any more than it has so far. I might, though, just as you might reconsider yours. How much this irrelevant stuff about Jindal-the-exorcist get brought up probably won’t matter.
All of our presidents since maybe Thomas Jefferson have tended to believe that a guy who died of crucifixion and spear wounds later came back to life 2,000 years ago. Jindal won’t be a change from any of that. He may be more fervent in his belief than some, but his record in Louisiana will tell the story of whether or not that — solely or in combination with other factors — has prevented him from being an effective executive.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
“there’s no evidence to suggest that jindal is a young earth creationist. none.”
So why does he support the teaching of Creationism in schools as a legitimate scientific theory? That would seem to be evidence of creationism. And he’s made statements that suggest that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Is he just lying to win votes? Or does he believe the words he’s saying? Either way,I can’t trust him on any scientific issues.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:38 am
“I should say that my copy would call Revelations something else, but you know that.”
I sure do. But I’m not alone. The Catholic Church doesn’t take it literally, either. As do most scholars from other Christian sects. It’s a really fun text to read, but it should not be used as a basis for decision making. So why can’t you find your Bible? I have four versions, and I know where they all are. And I’m not a Christian. I also know where my Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching, Four Noble Truths, and Book of Mormon are.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:44 am
5. He is as bland as rice pudding.
Pretty much. And as bright as I suppose he must be, when he goes on TV he just talks talking points. Not like Obama, where you could see the intellect even when he was BS’ing.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am
fostert, from what i’ve seen, jindal doesn’t support the teaching of creationism, in the sense that he’s supported adding creationism to the curriculum of any school. i haven’t seen any statements from him on dinosaurs, so i don’t know what that’s all about.
my copy is catholic, so it doesn’t call revelations by that name. and were i to read it again, i wouldn’t read it literally. no idea why it would be thought a fun text. i can never find my books. too many books, too many moves, too many kids, too many friends borrowing.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:48 am
“we can’t just cast the social conservative wing of the party aside, but we’ve got to dress it up in a less folksy face.”
No, they need to become rational. You can dress up a pig in the finest garb, but we’ll still see it as a pig. The idea that faith trumps rationality will never be accepted. That is simply a fatal flaw.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:50 am
this rice pudding bit is really unnecessary. there’s more to indian cuisine than rice pudding, and it isn’t bland.
what’s next? obama’s sweet like watermelon? it’s offensive that you’d start down this path.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:55 am
No, they need to become rational. You can dress up a pig in the finest garb, but we’ll still see it as a pig. The idea that faith trumps rationality will never be accepted. That is simply a fatal flaw.
Well take me for example. I’m a rational enough pro-life Jewish kid who goes to synagogue once a year. That’s the sort of thing that could work. I don’t think you need your Republican candidate to speak in tongues, but being pro-life is a requirement. And most Americans are religious, after all. It’s just a question of how religious. McCain himself is a good example here. He’s not religious at all; Palin was the problem. In a better economic climate, a McCain-Pawlenty ticket wouldn’t have pushed anyone’s born-again-phobic buttons.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:59 am
“from what i’ve seen, jindal doesn’t support the teaching of creationism, in the sense that he’s supported adding creationism to the curriculum of any school.”
So far he hasn’t proposed legislation, but he has stated in press conferences that he would accept it. Apparently, the Louisiana legislature is more sane than he, and that’s pretty damn scary. That legislature doesn’t exactly have a reputation for sanity.
“no idea why it would be thought a fun text.”
What are you talking about? As an allegorical commentary on Roman rule, it’s fascinating. It’s a great insight into the politics of the day. Maybe you don’t think that’s fun, but I do. But then again, I think that reading religious texts is fun. I’m probably the only person without a religious studies degree who feels that way. And most people with religious studies degrees have read fewer texts than I.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
“It’s just a question of how religious.”
It’s really not. I have no problem with devout worshipers of any religion. The issue is with literalism. If you will reject scientific results because they conflict with your religious dogma, that’s a problem. And damn near every religion does that. But most followers of those religions do not. But one religion deserves some credit here. The Dalai Lama has stated that if anything determined by science is in conflict with their texts, their texts need to be corrected. And they are in the process of doing just that. I have no problem with spiritual belief so long as it does not defy objective reality. And most believers are with me on that. And for good reason. The stories told in religious texts offer excellent insights into human behavior. And taken as allegories, they give us great lessons. But the details shouldn’t be taken literally. That’s why people like Palin and Jindal disturb me. And why people like Obama and Clinton do not.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:22 am
fostert, I think your partisanship colors your reaction. Obama and Clinton, if they believe as they say they do, believe the same sort of things that Palin and Jindal believe. Neither Palin nor Jindal is a fundamentalist or a creationist. All of them are Christians of one sort or another.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Thomas:
Jindal has said
in Face the nation. This is the classic ID code word that The Discovery Institute itself uses all the time.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:43 am
“Neither Palin nor Jindal is a fundamentalist or a creationist.”
Maybe, but they say otherwise. If you have some special insight into why what they say in public isn’t true, you need to offer it. Until then, I’ll believe them when they say that Creationism is a valid concept. The difference is that Palin and Jindal publicly say that the Bible is literally true. Clinton and Obama say that the Bible offers them insight and guidance. And let’s face it, the Bible, among other texts, offers me insight and guidance. There’s a difference between believing that the stories are fables or that they are scientific treatises. Not all Christians are the same. Most are actually very cool people. But some are just Bible thumping assholes. And that same principle applies to all religions (the Dalai Lama’s approach only applies to Tibetan Buddhism, the Theravedas still believe in a lot of nonsense).
November 12th, 2008 at 2:14 am
As someone who loves good kheer, or at least used to before cutting out dairy (maybe I should try making vegan kheer some time), I must say that I’m embarassed that the racial insinuations of “rice pudding” went straight over my head until Thomas pointed them out. I don’t know whether wmb had any racist intent when mentioning that, but looking at it in retrospect, I’d say that he certainly could have been slightly more careful in his phrasing if it was unintentional, and is offensive if it was unintentional.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Offensive if it was intentional, I mean.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:22 am
“Theravedas still believe in a lot of nonsense”
Ooh, I need to correct that. They certainly practice some nonsense, but I’m not sure they really believe it. They’re just rituals. I’ve asked a lot of Southeast Asians about the literal truth of the story about Mother Nature and the Buddha (a particularly questionable story). The Thai usually praise you for asking a question with such insight, and tell you that you should ask someone with better knowledge. They unask the question. The Lao usually say that nobody can possibly know what is really true, unless they are a Buddha. And if you are a Buddha, you wouldn’t need to ask. The Vietnamese often respond with “I hate the f***ing Buddhists,” even if they are one. And the Cambodians had their culture wiped clean. They’re still learning it again. So I can’t really say the Theravedas believe anything. But they take it seriously anyway.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:41 am
“I must say that I’m embarassed that the racial insinuations of “rice pudding” went straight over my head until Thomas pointed them out.”
I’m even more embarrassed by not knowing what the insinuation is. I’m a white guy who grew up eating rice pudding all the time. It was my favorite dessert as a kid. And my parents considered it to be a British dish. Although a quick check on Wikipedia says that it’s native to almost everywhere but England. But they surely brought it over after the colonization of India. Now I do know that you can get some damn good rice pudding in India. And I’m sure that’s the insinuation. But how many people get it? I had to do some traveling and research to get it. And given that rice pudding is a native dish to most of the world, it really doesn’t make any sense.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:54 am
“(maybe I should try making vegan kheer some time)”
I’m not really sure how you would make a good vegan Kheer, but I’ve probably eaten one. Many Indians follow a Jainist diet. If you get on a cooking blog from India, there will certainly be a good recipe. It’s worth checking out.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:03 am
I think what I’ll do is Google “vegan kheer,” look over a few recipes, then never actually get around to making it. Then maybe in a month or so just before I fall asleep one night I’ll briefly think “hey, didn’t I intend on making vegan kheer some time?” Then I’ll forget that I ever had such a thought by the next morning.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:18 am
Julian: Maybe your local Indian restaurant already makes one. That might be easier.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:32 am
I frankly don’t see how any plan could possibly be easier than the one I outlined in #96.
Okay. Sorry to drag us off topic.
Anyway, one thing I remember reading — I think on one of Matthew Yglesias’s old blog — is that Jindal is, in many ways, a beneficiary of Katrina. By driving so many Democrats out of the state of Louisiana, Katrina left a more Republican electorate, which subsequently voted in Jindal. None of this is Jindal’s fault, of course, and rationally there’s no reason to begrudge him for taking advantage of a bad situation when it benefits him so long as he isn’t making it worse by doing so (and no doubt believes that he’s making it better.), but I wonder whether this somewhat ghoulish aspect of Jindal’s rise to the governor’s mansion might come up if he ever decides to campaign for higher office.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Ooooh, I don’t think anyone wants to go there, Julian. It is probably true, but that’s an argument that’s likely to backfire. You’d only do something like that when you’re behind and desperate. It’s like banking your campaign on Joe the Plumber. Oops, someone actually did that. But you can see how well that worked. But that’s just too fine a line to walk. I just don’t see how the Dems would even touch that against a brown-skinned opponent. Even if they were desperate. But they don’t usually get desperate. They’re happy to lose.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Re: You need to pull your head out of the Bible and recognize that the Book of Revelation was meant as an allegory. What has happened in history follows no prophecy.
Huh? An allegorical prophecy is still a kind of prophecy. You need to decide if you think that Revelation is an allegorical prophecy or has no prophetic value at all. Personally I go for the allegory idea. You don’t think that _anything_ has ever been correctly prophecied in human history? Didn’t Revelation correctly predict the fall of Rome?
Belief in creationism (as opposed to belief in the Book of Revelation) is a legitimate point against Jindal, but I don’t see any reason to believe that Jindal is actually a creationist, as opposed to someone who uses pandering weasel words.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Re: It doesn’t bother me if people bring up Jindal’s exorcism, in fact I rather like it.
I don’t. The Roman Catholic Church (Jindal’s church I believe) has a strict protocol for exorcisms, and clergy especially trained for this purpose. An untrained layperson has no more business performing exorcisms than he would have performing major surgery. The incident shows Jindal as reckless and foolish– and not really taking his Church seriously.
Re: But not Jindal. He is at the very least a strict creationist. And he does think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Please provide some back-up for this. The Louisiana legislature did pass ID lgislation (note: ID makes no claim about the age of the Earth, in fact it pretty much accepts all that science has to say there). Jindal had no part in the legislation but did sign it into law as it was part of a larger education package.
Re: remember, we were a year and a half into a recovery in early 1993.
???
If we’re looking at analogies here then 2012 will be like 1984 or 1996 or 2004– the economic downturn will be decidedly over, even if the economy isn’t going gangbusters. And even if the downturn is still ongoing (which I regard as very unlikely) your theory would predict that FDR should have been bounced from office in 1936 when instead he won by landslide.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Re: Re: It doesn’t bother me if people bring up Jindal’s exorcism, in fact I rather like it.
I didn’t mean that I liked Jindal’s exorcism. You’re right that it shows him to be reckless. What I do value is the opportunity to discuss religious issues in the public square.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Heyo, Asher, didn’t come back to the thread for fifty comments, but:
So Nozick does have the classic Lockean “enough and as good” proviso in his theory; hence, no starvation. Basically some sort of minimal provision of necessities for all.
But doesn’t the Lockean proviso apply only to original appropriation? I don’t see that, once people have property rights, Nozick says that the government can require them to give anything up for the provision of minimal necessities for anyone else. It’s been a while since I’ve read it, though.
Of course, his discussion of the Lockean proviso is incredibly shaky and it’s not clear how it fits into the theory as a whole or how strong it is or whatever.
Agreed with that. Anyway, I may or may not be around these comments in a month, but if I happen to have a post up at my mostly-abandoned blog then you could leave a comment there. Good luck with the paper.
…oh, and on the original subject, I think that no public official in the US holds anything like a consistent Nozickian philosophy, so that’s not the explanation of Jindal’s policies.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
JonF, NBER says the early 90’s recession lasted from July 1990 to March 1991. When Clinton took office in January 1993, we were nearly two years into a recovery. Consider the record corrected–18 months isn’t right.
Recall that unemployment typically lags. Even if we’re growing in two years, peak unemployment may come later.
The suggestion that Jindal was “reckless” as a college student may actually help him. I mean, we know he wasn’t using hard drugs like Obama, but it may humanize him all the same.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:19 am
duBois, I must not have been clear. Peak unemployment isn’t the same as a peak of economic activity, nor is it the same as the trough of economic activity. The 2001 recession, according to NBER, lasted about 8 months, but unemployment peaked in 2003, well into the recovery. If, as many suggest and as Matt thinks, the economy doesn’t begin to recover until 2010, unemployment may peak in 2011 or 2012.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am
anybody who underestimates Jindal’s smarts will be taken to the cleaners. If you watched Louisiana prepare for hurricanes this year you had to be impressed. Dude is articulate and has just as much info at his finger tips as Obama or Clinton. The exorcism stuff is a red herring, just as Rev. Wright was for Obama.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I know 2016 is a long way away. I know that it is silly and stupid to speculate. I know these things. I still like Jindal more than any other human being on the planet for republican nominee. For democrats I like Mark Warner. Yeah Jindal has some fundie baggage but Obama’s religious bent is more alien and troubling to more people than Jindal’s.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:12 am
It was never really my sense, for example, that John Edwards’ 2008 primary campaign was in any sense hampered by people blaming him for the loss of the Kerry-Edwards ticket.
late to the thread, but… I don’t know why this has ‘never been your sense’, MY. The above was actually a stock argument against Edwards in 2008. That and the fact that he didn’t deliver the winning margin of white voters. It wasn’t a *good* argument, but it was used constantly.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am
When I call Jindal a fundie I just mean it as generic pejorative for someone that takes their faith ‘too seriously’ the exorcism, and his super hard line stance on abortion are examples.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Michael Foody,
Oh, I see. It serves you as an all-purpose term of abuse for anyone who has a serious faith in the tenets of their religion. Unlike hip agnostic cosmopolitans like Mr. Yglesias, I suppose. Glad to have cleared that up, although I already rather suspected it.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
As for abortion, Mr. Jindal’s stance is much more extreme than I would support, and I deplore that he would not make an exception to save the life of the mother. However, his stance is no more extreme than that of the Catholic Church, and no more extreme than that of the government of Nicaragua, which I would assume most progressives support.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
It seems to me that most Republicans believe this *cannot* happen because we are a center-right country and when people see Obama’s liberalism they will reject it.
I think those Republicans are nuts and the country is a lot more receptive to the Democratic agenda than they think.
And consider this: Pundits across the political spectrum agree that we are on the verge of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. If the economy looks even fairly mediocre in 2012, and graphs of the economy’s performance under Bush and Obama look like the graphs of the economy under Hoover and FDR, then Obama is the savior of the country and politically invulnerable – it will be hard for the Republicans to even find someone willing to try to run against him. (What are you going to run on, if his record is good? Lack of executive experience, or the fact that we just don’t know who he really is?)
November 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
You mean 2012 after the abject failure of the next four years. The best we can hope for is stagnation. The worst is 20% unemployment. The more The One(TM) intervenes and regulates carbon emissions and subsidizes “green” jobs and clamps down on free trade the worse things will be.
What we should do is stop all bailouts, cut spending to the bone, and slash taxes to match, allow interest rates to float on the market and kill inflation. (I’m not coming back to argue with you. It’s government that inflates and government that can stop inflation.)
For your education on the Business Cycle and the current financial crisis. http://mises.org/story/3128
November 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Chris–yes, pundits say we’re “on the verge of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.” Which means we haven’t seen them yet–they’ll happen when Obama is president.
Matt’s point, clear at the top, is that the economy is going to suck for the next few years, so it isn’t a good time to be a governor. My point is that it also won’t be a good time to be president.
If you want to compare Bush’s first term economic performance to Obama’s, let’s do that. Will you support the Republican nominee if the average unemployment rate in Obama’s first term is higher than it was during Bush’s? We could expand it to things like median wage growth, GDP growth, and the size of the budget deficit.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Some of us were predicting a recession in 2000–the economy actually shrank at the end of 2000. That didn’t change the politics. Predictions are not results.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Hector, Yeah that’s exactly what I mean. I don’t respect peoples religious beliefs. I would prefer that they took them less seriously if they have to take them at all. People that believe in a god are almost certainly wrong about it. People don’t deserve respect for believing silly things, sort of the opposite.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
You write- “difficult for him to rack up the sort of Record Of Accomplishments that you’re usually looking for in a presidential candidate”–LOL, what record of achievement does our current President-Elect have ?? A part time state senator who voted “Present” most of the time and then 143 days of watching the U.S.Senate proceedings- that sums up the President Elect’s record of achievement !!
November 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
After electing Barack Obama, no one in America can ever again seriously ridicule any candidate’s “record of accomplishment.” This rule holds particularly true for any pundits on the Left, who told the world for more than a year that Obama’s experience running his campaign was equal to McCain’s three decades in the U.S. Senate. Jindal is beginning his campaign now, from what I hear. Certainly, then, his experience as a major presidential candidate for four years, coupled with his years as governor of Louisiana, should make Obama’s pre-2008 experience seem insignificant in comparison.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“whether the GOP is really ready for a non-white standard-bearer.”
What?
Of course they are.
It is the left that sees color. Obama would not be where he is if he was white or Asian and had the same resume.
True conservatives do not see color.
There are (of course) a few % of people on the right that are racists, just like there are those on the left.
If Bobby wins, it will be because of his views and accomplishments, NOT because of his minority status or color. Unlike the left.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
DTM, I guess we’re going to have to disagree about this point. I think people expect Obama to fix things, and yet Matt and I both expect things to get worse, not better.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
A time honored tradition in presidential politics: gaming the next election, even if it is four years away. The Republicans really don’t have an “anointed one,” and I just think that Jindal is too rightist to appeal to most centrist Americans (you know, the ones who decide elections). Until they find a message that is appealing to these voters, Republicans will remain in the wilderness with no true prophet.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
His biggest problem? He’s an Indian Alfred E. Newman.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
though the decision to make up the budget shortfall with a mix of 100% service cuts and 0% tax cuts reflects the intellectually and morally bankrupt nature of contemporary conservatism
Oh, it’s immoral to want to keep your own money, is it? Please explain why taxation is not legal theft. And please explain why I should be forced to pay for services I don’t want or need. You need to face the truth that the state is a bunch of thieves and con artists.
Statism is just a mask for your own immorality, Mr. Yglesias.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Thank the seven-horned beast that Mark F. is here to talk some sense, albeit off-topic. Dissolve the Armed Forces!
November 12th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Great post. Interesting to know that he essentially turned McCain’s campaign down.
I’m really pushing for Jindal in 2012 (obvious). I like where he sits on the issues and think if he can get elected in Louisiana he can get it done in the U.S. election.
Once Obama gets done making a mess of things, Jindal will be ready to step up and have his turn. Watch Louisiana close…if he can turn things around there…
Jindal 2012 Blog
November 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“but it’s going to make it difficult for him to rack up the sort of Record Of Accomplishments that you’re usually looking for in a presidential candidate.”
As evidenced by the Record of Accomplishments that got Obama elected…….
November 17th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Prescription pills http://MyRxPill.com
November 30th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
going to make it difficult for him to rack up the sort of Record Of Accomplishments that you’re usually looking for in a presidential candidate.
Luckily that isn’t an requirement for progressive candidates.
January 11th, 2009 at 5:14 am
http://www.batteryfast.com/
http://www.batteryfast.co.uk/
February 17th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Sorry. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
I am from Haiti and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Play free video poker and learn to win! For instance, a triple play draw poker machine.”
Waiting for a reply :p, Brice.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:59 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
cialis
Great site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Good site ,it is very useful,thank you very much!
wholesale jewelry
handmade jewelry
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Thanks for the review! viagra