Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The big problem with the GOP is their dependence on uneducated poor voters in rural areas.
I agree with Jindall but it won't work. He is an outsider and isn't one of them. The GOP elite only listen to old white men... until they die off it will be more of the same.
The big problem with the GOP is their dependence on uneducated poor voters in rural areas.
I agree with Jindall but it won't work. He is an outsider and isn't one of them. The GOP elite only listen to old white men... until they die off it will be more of the same.
Jindal is polling well for a potential white house run in 2016. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. He is popular with the establishment...I just hope that he can move the establishment to the middle a bit and away from the Huckabee, Santorum, and Akins of the party.
To be honest...a problem I think Jindal will have is that he is butt ugly...lol
I know it sounds juvenile but a lot of people notice that stuff. My mom is one of them, sadly.
I'm usually not a huge Jindal fan but I think he is right on the money in this article. The GOP can't get by anymore being the party of helping rich folk keep their stuff and dumbing down Conservative economic ideology to bumper stickers and 30 second sound bites. Fiscally conservative policies are attractive to a lot of people...particularly moderates who tend to agree with the left on social policy but the right on economic policy. If we can make our message more moderate on social issues and hold firm on our fiscal policy we WILL attract more voters. The GOP MUST hold the Akins responsible because they do nothing but screw us over in the end.
I've been saying this since the primary season. If we keep letting the Tea Party and Religious wing of the GOP control our political discourse we are going to be as relevant as Nick Lachay.
Well, I agree, of course. I think the GOP used to be seen as the pragmatic party. The dems were full of utopic visions, but the GOP would ask, "Ok, but who is going to pay for that?" Lately, the roles have reversed. The GOP is full of idealists who imagine a libertarian /Ayn Randian utopia, and the Dems are saying that would be a disaster. The mature, rational skepticism of moderate republicans is a good service to the larger society, but I don't see you chasing the crazy train out of the roundhouse easily. The uber rich know that duping the social conservatives is their meal ticket, and they are not likely to stop funding that unless it is clear that it is a losing hand.
I agree with his comments and have long admired his more reasoned conservatism. This will be interesting to watch. If we had more guys like this and Huntsman, the GOP really could rebuild that big tent.
I agree with his comments and have long admired his more reasoned conservatism. This will be interesting to watch. If we had more guys like this and Huntsman, the GOP really could rebuild that big tent.
I am watching Huntsman. If the Dems trot out Clinton, I will likely give him a shot. I don't care for dynasties. More generally, I think Americans will want to go GOP after eight years of Obama, IF the GOP can nominate someone who is worthy of bipartisan respect. They hosed themselves twice in this election. First, by electing crazy and vindictive congressmen to sabotage Obama's recover efforts, and second by nominating two transparently dishonest candidates.
I don't know that much about Huntsman, but three things impress me. First, he has lived abroad as a diplomat and can speak Chinese. Clearly, he is curious and knowledgeable about the world. Second, he believes in anthropogenic global warming (that doomed him in the primaries, but showed the general population that he is a rationalist). Third, he refused to sign Grover Norquist's pledge. Taken together they show a person with a healthy intellect and world knowledge, and someone who thinks for himself.
I'm usually not a huge Jindal fan but I think he is right on the money in this article. The GOP can't get by anymore being the party of helping rich folk keep their stuff and dumbing down Conservative economic ideology to bumper stickers and 30 second sound bites. Fiscally conservative policies are attractive to a lot of people...particularly moderates who tend to agree with the left on social policy but the right on economic policy. If we can make our message more moderate on social issues and hold firm on our fiscal policy we WILL attract more voters. The GOP MUST hold the Akins responsible because they do nothing but screw us over in the end.
Having said that, when you feed snake and use it for your gains, chances are, you will get bit sooner or later. May be the GOP establishment will be smarter and act more like Lee Atwater were in-charge (tone down social issues but still target it as something more attractive: fiscal policies), again, adapted with the time (of course). From this in 1980-81...
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*, n*, n*." By 1968 you can't say "n*" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites"
... to something similar in 2015-16. But, would it help in the longer term? You can, hence, use and abuse "fiscal conservatism" while still stimulating the soul of the bigots. What do you think chances are, for this to be approach?
I am watching Huntsman. If the Dems trot out Clinton, I will likely give him a shot. I don't care for dynasties. More generally, I think Americans will want to go GOP after eight years of Obama, IF the GOP can nominate someone who is worthy of bipartisan respect. They hosed themselves twice in this election. First, by electing crazy and vindictive congressmen to sabotage Obama's recover efforts, and second by nominating two transparently dishonest candidates.
I don't know that much about Huntsman, but three things impress me. First, he has lived abroad as a diplomat and can speak Chinese. Clearly, he is curious and knowledgeable about the world. Second, he believes in anthropogenic global warming (that doomed him in the primaries, but showed the general population that he is a rationalist). Third, he refused to sign Grover Norquist's pledge. Taken together they show a person with a healthy intellect and world knowledge, and someone who thinks for himself.
Romney fails all three.
To be fair Romney should get one check...he is a fluent Francophone after living there for his mission trip...but I get what you're saying.
Huntsman is by far my candidate of choice and he was during the primaries as well. Huntsman represents what the GOP needs to be. He is a smart businessman with solid ideas. Just the fact alone that the served in Obama's adminstration served in damning him in the primaries. It's a shame that bipartisanship today is such a negative. I wonder if the democrats would scapegoat a candidate for working with the GOP in the past...hard to say I guess. But anyway...Huntsman's governance of Utah was exceptional and he did a great job at managing the state balance sheets. I believe that it was regarded as the "best run" state in the US during his tenure. Huntsman also grew up Mormon but I definitely wouldn't define Huntsman as a "mormon politician."
The GOP needs more representatives like Huntsman and Jindal...but we also need to start shedding Akins and Bachmanns.
The GOP can't get by anymore being the party of helping rich folk keep their stuff
Michelle Obama can wear a pair of $540 dollar sneakers to a Food Bank and have lavish vacations worth millions at tax payers expense. Sure we can all keep all our stuff in the name of redistribution.
Actually, his name is Piyush Amrit Jindal, not "Bobby" Jindal.
He doesn't have a chance at being the republican nominee in 2016, republicans won't vote for an Indian.
That's ridiculous. If Louisiana Republicans can vote for "an Indian", why would the rest of the party have a problem with it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
