Should Bobby Jindal Be Romney’s Vice President?
- Posted on July 18, 2012 at 11:59pm by
Mytheos Holt
- Print »
- Email »
In the aftermath of a report from Reuters suggesting that GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney had narrowed his potential running mates down to three people – Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal – vice presidential speculation has been on a tear. Surely none of these names were people who would have been expected before the process began (with the possible exception of Jindal), yet here we are.
Depending on your convictions, either one of those names probably jumps out at you as an overwhelmingly good choice, or none of them does. All the same, that hasn’t stopped members of the press from making the case for and against each of them obsessively. To that end, today’s entry in the “reasons why so and so should be Vice President” trend comes from Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post, who has taken it upon himself to set out the case both for and against Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.
Bobby Jindal
Today, he’s arguing for him. See if you agree with his reasons:
One of the major problems for Republicans in 2008 was that they were running against history. Then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was the first African American presidential nominee for either party, and the chance to elect the country’s first black president clearly had an emotional and symbolic pull on many voters that Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) was simply unable to combat.
McCain and his team tried to match history against history by picking former Alaska governor Sarah Palin — she was the first Republican woman on a national ticket — but it blew up in their faces (to put it kindly). Picking Jindal would allow Republicans a historic do-over; he would be the first Indian-American on either parties’ national ticket and, unlike Palin, is much more of a known commodity — and hence less of a risk.[...]
Jindal wouldn’t likely overshadow Romney — as Christie and Rubio clearly would — but neither would he be lumped in with the “boring white guy” pick that might not get Romney the sort of bump he is looking for.[...]
In his four-plus years in office, Jindal has built a very impressive record that would fit nicely with Romney’s promises to bring conservative principles to the federal government.[...]
If Romney wants to prove that he is serious about repealing President Obama’s health care law and replacing it with a more conservative approach, there is no one on the Republican side — with the possible exception of Romney himself — who knows the issue better than Jindal.[...]
The Republican professional class knows that the stereotype of the party as a bunch of old white guys is terrible for them — and has to change. Picking Jindal would address much of that criticism. Not only is he Indian American but he is also just 41 years old — more in Barack Obama’s generation than Mitt Romney’s.
Now, we realize that Cillizza isn’t voicing his own opinions, but is instead playing devil’s advocate for one particular point of view, which he will endeavor to take on in later pieces. Nevertheless, at the risk of stealing Cillizza’s thunder, we have to wonder if all of this is a bit too clever by half, and overlooks a few glaring problems with Jindal’s record.
Moreover, some of Cillizza’s is self-contradictory. For instance, how is Jindal supposed to look like a wonderful fresh face, if he’s not terribly exciting (as this article implies), and thus wouldn’t be noticeable in the first place? And what if the parts about him that are noticeable are all the bad things, like, say, the exorcism he apparently participated in in college? With a doozy of a story like that, it would seem that one needs a more compelling image to counteract it.
Nevertheless, it would be fascinating to watch Jindal debate Joe Biden. If nothing else, it would be a teachable moment for Biden regarding what Indian-Americans do besides (according to him) working at 7-11.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 585 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (260)
loneindividual
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:13amRand Paul, Paul Ryan, Allen West.
That’s my short list…wish I could add to it but the GOP sucks cuz they are in still in REHAB.
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:22am“Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Allen West.”
Agreed! That is my list in that order.
The GOP is full of fools and progressives.
Report Post »moosern
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 2:57amThe GOP is getting back to it’s roots then. It was the progressive party once upon a time: ending slavery, breaking up monopolies, establishing national parks, women’s right to vote, the Civil Rights Act, and national healthcare coverage.
Report Post »DetritusScreener
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 3:36amI agree with your short list perfectly.
“Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Allen West.”
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 5:34amRand Paul- Substance over style.
Report Post »poorrichard09
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 8:23amHe’s a nice guy, but we need a fighter in the VP slot: Allen West, Rubio, Rand Paul.
Report Post »Redd
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 8:43amThe Sarah Palin pick blew up in their faces? What kind of article crap is that?? Is the author some kind of rino idiot? As far as Jindal goes, that will BLOW UP in their faces because he is NOT eligible for president, same as the commie usurper in the white house with his feet on the desk.
Report Post »Silversmith
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 8:54amLove your list. But the list being touted here in this article makes me pretty sure that Romney has no intention of winning. This is a red herring campaign.
Silversmith
Report Post »Iron_Wyll
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 8:56amGuys: I don‘t know if you really care about our Republic’s future, or if you just want to drive your own point of view. We need to get the conservative base and a better than half the independents to vote for the GOP candidates across the board. Some personalities just don’t have that appeal. Rand et al are like that.
Report Post »carbonated
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 9:09amI’d be OK with Jindal as well.
Report Post »Machtyn
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 9:10amRedd: I voted for McCain because of Palin. Most people were severely turned away because of Palin. Unfairly, yes, but that is what happened. Of course, Palin is no longer a darling. She is ONLY looking out for herself.
Jindal, T-Paw, Rubio are my choices, not necessarily in any order. However, I know Romney will make the best decision. He rarely makes bad ones.
Report Post »Verceofreason
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 9:20amHalf the Rubepublicans in America think Jindal is a Muslim.
Report Post »BetterInformed
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 9:41am@Verceofreason
Report Post »And a link to your evidence. Oh, don’t have one. Maybe your personal Islamaphobia is showing through.
Born in America, Catholic, Rhodes Scholar and parents from India where 81 % of population is Hindu.
Intelligent Republicans don’t think he is a Muslim.
TexasHunter
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 9:45amFrom what I have seen this guy has credibility. That is something I do not take for granted compared to Owebama.
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:01amMitt should step down as candidate, for a job in the state department. Something useless that does not require a backbone. Or he could be the PC Tsar, in fact he could be that for Obama being they have so much in common.
Ron Paul or Gary Johnson are the only viable candidates that has the backbone, and philosophy that will bring about the required change.
I have always liked Bobby Jindal though and would vote for him as president if Romney wasn’t on the ticket.
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:03amMitt Romney = Barack Obama
Illegal alien criminal Dream Amnesty?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Executive Ordered sodomite/lesbian “marriage?”
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Subsidized student loans?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
BAILED-OUT welfare queens as leading “contributors”?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Support TARP?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Support the “Patriot” Act?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Support gun-grabbing?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Supports abortion (when politically advantageous)?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
State-funded abortion?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Chickenhawking?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Support NDAA?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Mandated purchase of healthcare?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Support PRIVATE Federal Reserve?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
REJECTION of the Enumerated Powers?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
REJECTION of the 10th?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
LEFTIST judges?
Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
Report Post »Sent from my iPad
jsciai
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:16amblock, uh, I mean squarehead:
Report Post »You had better watch out. Bro. Winston and soybean are going to sue you for copy and paste-right infringement. Or perhaps you are him/them?
SquareHead
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:27am@JSCIAI
I stand guilty of Copy and Paste, though it is not infringement, I am merely amplifying their great work in the name of liberty.
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 11:39am@square
JSC just doesnt like facts about his progressive liberal nominee who is running to lose. If he took Jindal I would maybe start to think he is trying to win. The problem is Romney is running to lose, so he will pick some another progressive.
Report Post »napoleon_solo
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 7:02pmPoorRichard09 thinks that Rubio is a fighter?
Report Post »SquareHead
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 8:33pm@MUTINY
Be nice with JCIAI. Him like most of Mitt supporters is either a, Becktart, or a government employee, or works in a business or position that would not existing in a truly free market economy, or in a regulatory related business.
Regarding Mitt. I do think he is running to win. He is just stuck in his establishment PC bubble. Either way, I hope he looses. Since Obama will do a better job of invigorating the Liberty Loving Base. Mitt “The Weather Vane” Romney will lull much of the new small government energy back to sleep, and we will loose some of the gains the movement has made as we saw in 2000 when we got Bush (the Trojan Socialist)
Al Gore with all of his stupidity would have have been able to do the damage Bush did, as Congress would never have passed the Socialist bills they passed under Bush.
I am hoping that God will intervene and that we will get Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.
Report Post »Thatsenough
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 5:32pmI was waiting for Bobby Jindal to come up…he would make a great president!! Just a thought.
Report Post »rsanchez1
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:12amI like Jindal. Jindal has a proven conservative record, and he seems like a very approachable guy which, unfortunately, is not a strength of Romney. Jindal will give a more “folksy” touch to Romney’s campaign. Jindal seems more friendly than Marco Rubio, and it’s not a given that Marco Rubio will help turn the Hispanic vote over to Romney since unfortunately, they are getting just as enslaved on Democrat welfare as the black community.
Report Post »Consteacher
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 6:01amFolks, I voted for Jindal the first time, thinking, like ,ost of you, that he was a conservative. He most certainly is NOT a conservative! He has increased spending in Louisiana by over $1.5 billion. He put a hiring freeze back 4 years ago and hired over 2000 new employees. He has another freeze in place right now. I wonder how many new hires this freeze will produce. Is bobby a good guy? Sure. Is his family nice? Sure. But to call a RINO a conservative, NO WAY! Jindal won reelection because his opponent was really weak. Do I hate/dislike him so as to prompt this? No, I like the guy but he would NOT be a conservative president should Mitt fall. Prep and pray, the end has arrived.
Report Post »DIVINEPROVIDENCE1776
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 7:51am“he seems like a very approachable guy which, unfortunately, is not a strength of Romney.” I went to Romney’s town hall rally in Bowling Green, OhIo yesterday. You are wrong. Romney was a very approachable guy and he oozes with genuineness and integrity. He knows this election is “a battle for the soul of America”. Romney was not my first choice, but now I really like the guy. Him and Ann will bring class and patriotism back to the WhiteHouse and he will not go around making friends with our enemies. Mitt loves America and it shows in his speeches and actions.
Report Post »BetterInformed
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 8:20am@Consteacher
Report Post »An obvious Louisianian ( you voted for Jindal). The reason he won re-election was not a weak opponent it was a 64% approval rating. Only a fool like yourself would think it a wise choice to waste millions of dollars in that election.
Jindal has reduced state employees by 12 %. He was first to thumb his nose at Obama’s health care and high speed rail. He has brought hundreds of millions of dollars in bushiness to Louisiana, The unemployment rate is 7.1 % in Louisiana. Reduced the Louisiana debt by over 2 billion dollars. He has so much clout in the legislature Louisiana’s education system will reap huge benefits, etc.,etc.
In all likelihood you’re the rino longing for the days of Edwin Edwards or maybe just some of the fat Bobby Jindal cut from the budget.
pavnvet
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 8:54amOne thing bothers me if he were to be named is the Natural Born Citizen issue which has never been decided. Yes, the governor is a citizen of the United States. I fear if he were VP, the Dems would launch an attack and some liberal judge would all of a sudden come out and say yep you are right.
I never met him, but have met a cousin of his, who is a doctor, who says what you see is what you get. Meaning that he has the same public persona as he has in private.
Report Post »loneindividual
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:04amRand Paul is more…conservative…and believe it or not I’d really like to test the conviction of all those die-hard Ron Paul supporters.
Besides, the Libertarians and libertarians know that Romney needs their vote and the rest of us know that we need them.
If we lose, in all bitterness I will blame them. They won’t care anyhow cuz they are already prepared…all they will do is watch as everyone else dies. They are guilty of exactly what Democrats accuse Republicans of TO THE CORE. They are graceless, stupid, & impatient in their implimentation of that political philosophy on the personal level.
I’m a conservative libertarian but these guyz just wanna move too fast. They are the sort that leave people behind.
Marxists and Libertarians nowadays sadly have too much in common. I’m a Lockean myself and I know that way too many have fallen for the trap. They are useful idiots that think they are no one’s idiot anymore.
Listen guyz, it‘s fine as a personal philosophy cuz at least the fate of the country doesn’t depend on you being perfectly merciful and just at the same time.
Personally, I’m gonna prepare for the worst yet hope for the best…for others that is.
Brave enough to die, too scared to live. Be Ok. :)
Report Post »brntout
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:51amDude,get a grip.. The Paul’s seem to be your answer, but hanging yourself won’t help…Or will it? ABO and in case it needs to be translated Anyone But Oblamer
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 4:46amDie-hard Ron Paul supporters are mad at him for backing Romney. We don’t need the bots to win. The bots couldn’t even get RP a win in his home state. You are giving them to much credit. Let them slither back to the demorat party where NeoLibs belong.
Report Post »loneindividual
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 9:13amI’m not gonna hang myself. That would mean I leave a mess for someone else to clean up. I am only capable of leaving emotional messes. (I know how to leave on a bad note)
If anything, I’ll wander into the wilderness and cast myself into the earth and return to the dust.
The other option is to Go Nova! if these false lightbearers keep trying to dim or contain my light…or disturb my slumber when I take to sleep. (damn necromancers forcing dead people to vote. Such unholy power)
I will shine or shadow and all who try to wield my fierce light or wear my cloak will be destroyed by them…except this girl named Dawn….lotz of irony…but theres too much to tell.
Ah youth. I have found the meaning of life yet cannot partake.
Anyways, those who live by the sword shall die by the sword right? Well I’ll dominate the dominators and devour Fenrir. :)
I’ll drag down to Hell all the devils of this world. Misery loves company right? Well I’ll be the best. :)
Revelations 20:1,2,3
Somebody has gotta do it. I’ve got nothin better to do.
ps: Obama is not the anti-christ so all of you crazies just stop making bombs. That’s just plain stupid. lawful militia‘s can’t use homemade explosives. It’s not regulation as much as the lack of purposeful application. You’re only gonna make yourself look like a terrorist swinging a god-damn broadsword.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:59amloneindividual
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:04am
If we lose, in all bitterness I will blame them.
=====================================
Why though?…..you nominated a liberal…..
The Paul supporters have steadfastly maintained from Day 1 that they won’t vote for another liberal ever again.
Report Post »SUNBURST
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:04amGov Jindal would be GREAT as the veep candidate.
Report Post »Ryan, Rubio or Jindal…any of those three.
NO Condi, NO Christie, NO Pawlenty, NO Portman PLEASE!
lel2007
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:02amNOT Condi Rice.
Report Post »kindling
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:09amWe are lost if he picks her. She is not a conservative and between the two of them we would not be much better off than with Obama. I don’t dislike her, she is just a bit to liberal for my taste.
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:17amRand Paul is the only clear choice
Report Post »nzkiwi
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 3:56amCondi will not accept. I don’t think that she can make that any clearer.
Report Post »Magyar
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 7:50amOh please not Portman– nice guy but as lack luster as Rom-bama!
Allen West, Rubio, Jindal –Geez please someone who can deliver a message without, ah, eh, um, stutter, …Romney is just awful!
Report Post »KingCoal59
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:01amNo. Boring and awkward. Santorum would be helpful.
Report Post »mayancalendar2012
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:55amWest, Rubio or Christie…They are the only ones with the balls to go on the attack. This is gonna get so ugly by November, and the last thing we need is Portman, Pawlenty, or some other softy trying to keep the conversation civil, for civility’s sake. No, no…We need someone to point their finger at Obama and Biden, and call them on all of the lies they have told, and will surely continue telling until some shuts their mouths for good.
Report Post »MeteoricLimbo
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:55amI honestly don’t know enough about the man to say one way or the other. I watched his response to the State of the Union and frankly was not that impressed. He sure has done a lot for Louisiana.
Report Post »I do like Marco Rubio because of his dynamic ability to think on his feet. Allen West is also very sharp.
Simonne
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 4:19amMy first choice is Rubio but it really doesn’t look like he will be picked. I feel the same way about Jindal but West, he would hurt the ticket. He is too much over the top at times & accusing a bunch of Congressman of being communists or close to it is not what you want from a vp nominee. More than likely it will be Portman or Pawlenty so I guess Jindal would be more interesting.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 4:34amI agree with you but Bobby Jindal is the safe choice. And I believe he can step up to the plate
Report Post »christos
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:53am,,,Bobby Jindal would be a Great Choice for VP.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:52amEveryone is missing the big picture.
It should be JEB BUSH.
Here is why, first Romney comes in and becomes the second coming of Ronald Reagan. He gets elected for his second term, then Bush gets elected for his first term. WE will then have a 3 party race in 2020, Chelsea Clinton, a very Old Donald Trump (Still has the hair baby), and Jeb Bush. Chelsea wins with 41% of the vote, she tries to pass the Bestiality Marriage Amendment and ban the 2nd amendment, 2024, we elect Rand Paul and a full Tea Party Congress. We have a blissful 8 years of Govt reduction, and in 2032, Obamacare is finally ruled unconstitutional and revoked. At that time the only ones screaming will be the Barbers, because they went back to their old profession of Barber and Surgeon.
2032, is also the year the combustible engine is lawful again; the last Volt is ceremoniously destroyed, (but ironically catches on fire before the ceremony).
2036, the first American returns to space in 16 years.
2040, Harvard Medical school reopens.
2044, America forgets and reelects Chelsea clinton.
2045, the first Donkey/Man legal marriage is allowed, 2042, the donkey sues for divorce taking Bill Clinton Jr. to the cleaners.
So that is why we need Jeb Bush, I just want to see Bill Clintons Grandson marry a donkey.
(but ironically catches on fire before the ceremony).
2036, the first American returns to space in 16 years.
2040, Harvard Medical school reopens.
2044, America forgets and
Report Post »brntout
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:23amWow, and I thought times were tough. Nice time-lineage!
Report Post »brntout
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:57amI hear O’Blamer referring to the Busch years as being baaaaaaaad. Go Anhauser/
Report Post »pcisbs
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 6:34amJEB BUSH? GET A GRIP! A RINO< OPEN BORDERS CANDIDATE IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT ROMNEY NEEDS TO ADD TO HIS TICKET. On What planet are you living? Rubio is the only sensible choice. Forget Jindal, he adds nothing to the ticket
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:44amJan Brewer is fine with me……..Allen West, is fine with me, but jindal looks like a pencil neck geek…..
Report Post »pattybbb1
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 12:06amJan Brewer would be great! She is definitely a fighter.
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:42amI think Jindal would be a good choice. I havent done much research on him but living in a MS I have never heard anything but good things from LA friends.
Report Post »oceandove
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:38amIs Jindal a Natural born citizen? Were both parents U.S. citizens when he was born?
Report Post »DEFCON4
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:51am@ OCEAN, easy answer to your questions. President Obama’s father was never a citizen.
Report Post »MeteoricLimbo
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:01amIt is very curious that his fathers country of origin was stated as Kenya on the 1961 BC and Kenya wasn’t even Kenya until 1963. Perhaps I am confused, it’s happened before
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 2:01amMeteoricLimbo
Report Post »You are confused. Kenya did not become independent until 1963, but it had been called Kenya since 1920.
iamhungry
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 3:01am@METEORICLIMBO, Kenya became Kenya in 1920. It became independent from Britain in 1963.
You can double check what it was called in 1961 by googling ‘Kenya’, going to the News section and then filtering to only show news from 1961.
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:40pmLMAO
Did you get an answer, Ocean?
The responses I see say that apparently if one person is a scofflaw, everyone is allowed to be . . .
Report Post »alshere
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:30amJindal wouhld be a great choise. He is well spoken and quick on his feet. He has turned his state around and would eat Biden alive. His quiet yet authoratative way would compliment Romney’s personality.
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:44amI am not sure Romney will go this route because it would be similar to the Palin VP. Jindal would over power Romney.
Can we just drop Romney and take Jindal?
Report Post »jsciai
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:26amMuttly, come on now. First it’s Paul, then Johnson, now Jindal. Make up your mind, man. By the way, Jindal wouldn’t be running for president but then again, for all practical purposes neither is Paul or Johnson.
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 11:37am@jsc
This article was about Jindal. I would prefer Jindal over Romney. Jindal is a conservative, Romney is a progressive liberal.
Why do you want to vote for a progressive liberal? Oh yeah, you are also one. That will be all JSC. You lose again.
Report Post »jsciai
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:42pm@Muttly,
Well, actually I’m pretty libertarian by nature and politics. I PURPOSEFULLY live outside of city limits so I can minimize government intrusion in my life. I firmly believe most of our modern day problems are caused by 1. Government interference and 2. Individual lack of self control. A nation of people who will not control themselves will BE controlled by others.
HOWEVER, I’m not so naive as to think supporting a completely lost cause just to make a point is very smart. Romney is not obama and he WILL be the start of turning this nation around. A conservative house and senate will guarantee that.
Report Post »Pray for USA
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:21amI look forward to the debate with Joe Biden–no matter who the Republican vp candidate is.
Report Post »handsmcml
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:19amJindal has the same problem as Rubio and Obama. He is not constitutionally qualified. There is a difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. The writers of the Constitution understood that difference and put the phrase in there for a reason. Allen West would be an excellent choice.
Report Post »gestroud
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:47amPlease don’t start another “birther” movement. Jindal was born in the United States in Louisiana.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:52amYes, the difference is that natural born citizen excludes naturalized citizens – those born in other countries who became American citizens later in life. Contrary to all the bogus arguments of all the crackpots who have posted pseudo-scholarly nonsense on the internet since Barack Obama got elected, every judge and elected official understands that according to the real laws of our country, that is the only difference.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:53amA Natural born citizen is one born of TWO parents who were born in the US. This is why Barry is also illegal, no matter where he was born.
Report Post »TrueSoundsOfLiberty
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:17amYep, Piyush Jindal was born six months after his parents came to the US. Don’t want to have a double standard on our hands now would we.
Report Post »moosern
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 2:46amBooger, you are wrong. A natural born citizen is one who is a citzen at birth. That can be accomplished by either being born in the US, regardles of citizenship of parents (US vs Ark, 1898); born abroad and both parents are US citizens as long as one had residence in the US: and born abroad to at least one US citizen meeting certain criteria depending on when person was born. FYI, for Obama the criteria are as follows:
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[8]:
1.The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
2.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
4.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:
1.the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
Report Post »2.the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth
8/9 maybe 9/9 of the first Presidents weren’t even born in the US (it didn’t exist yet), yet alone their parents being born in the US. Obama isn’t even the first to not have both parents be citizens (Chester Arthur was the last before him)
WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:45pmSo, Moose, Chester Arthur RAN for president? What year was that?
By your ragged analysis, the child born in this country to two illegal aliens is eligible to be president of the U.S. Is that what you believe our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 9:04pmI don’t know what the founding fathers would have wanted. They didn’t agree about much. Some of them probably never intended that there be any such thing as an illegal immigrant, because they couldn’t envision a world in which people would be able to travel between continents so easily that they could arrive in greater numbers than a land as big as America could absorb. The real question is why do you think that a man who was born here, was educated here, has lived here all his life and has so distinguished himself in public office that his fellow citizens believe him fitted for higher office should not be allowed to run? Aside form a bunch of obsolete legal arguments that you have chosen to embrace because you don’t like Obama, why do you think that Bobby Jindal shouldn’t be allowed to run for Vice-President, even though the opinion of everybody who matters is that there is no legal reason he can’t?
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 9:56pmOh, my Chet! Why are you such a discriminatory person?
“The real question is why do you think that a man who was born here, was educated here, has lived here all his life (MY INCLUSION: “other than for the few weeks after he was born”) and has so distinguished himself in public office that his fellow citizens believe him fitted for higher office should not be allowed to run?”
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:45pmI never said that such a person should not be allowed to run. However, the Constitution says that he should not, and changing the Constution is something not to be done without thoughtful examination of all of the issues involved. You never answered my question, why do you think it so important that Bobby Jindal not be allowed to run that you would reject the wisdom of competent legal authorities and embrace the ravings of internet cranks just to bolster your belief that there is some foundation in the law for your position?
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:48pmOops, my editing wasn’t complete. I meant to have that comment say:
“The real question is why do you think that a man who was educated here, has lived here all his life (except to the first few weeks of his life) and has so distinguished himself in public office that his fellow citizens believe him fitted for higher office should not be allowed to run?”
I mean if you are going to allow a naturalized citizen the right to be a Senator, why would you be so DISCRIMINATORY as to not allow same to run for president? Would that be because the Founding Fathers made A distinction, which you are perfectly comfortable with?
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:53pmWow, Chet. Now you truly show your ignorance. Changing the Constitution is something WE CANNOT DO by just submitting our comments on this website (regardless of ANY thoughtful consideration), yet that is what you are attempting every time you address this subject.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 12:21amI am no more ignorant of the bizarre illegal theories that you cling to than you are ignorant of the fact that the only judges whose time was ever wasted by having to listen to this rubbish in a court of law all said that I am right and you are wrong, or the fact that no judge or elected official has ever even suggested that there is any legal merit to the ravings of the not eligible even if he was born here crackpots.
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 3:10amThat is truly ignorant, or you are a liar. The Arizona court ruled that the case was not filed in the proper venue. The Indiana court, to which only the state of Indiana is bound, gave full faith and credit to the purview of Hawaii’s statement of “authenticity” as to Obama’s BC. Sheriff Joe’s investigation, and indeed, other sources, reveal that Hawaii’s birth certificate procedures where fairly lax back in the infancy of its statehood; the additional tidbit that Blazer Sue Dornhan (sp?) brings up in her comments on these types of posts is the ability in Hawaii for a law enforcement official to “change” BC information, such as for witness protection.
All of this ‘so supposedly fatal to my position’ evidence does is give rise to the my position that natural born citizen means born to two citizen parents! So the Indiana court KNOWS, just as Sheriff Joe evinced, that Obama most probably has been vetted as a natural born citizen, THUS ELIGIBLE to be president of the U.S., due to his biological dad NOT BEING the foreigner, Obama, Sr. as listed on his FRAUDULENT BC. Your position is that, so what, if it shows he was born in Hawaii, period, then an internet lie is no BFD. That you’re comfortable lying and being lied to and being around liars is your happiness to pursue, Chet. There are others of us who are sick & tired of having REALITY altered, who live in the TRUTH, who adhere to the principles of our CONSTITUION. I STAND FIRM: I will not vote a Romney/Jind
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 5:03amThe Arizona court also stated that the same issue had been heard and decided in Indiana. A judge can give more than one reason for a ruling, and this one did.
Report Post »I never said that President Obama was lying about anything. All I said was that even if he were, it would not necessarily constitute fraud.
If you are so opposed to having reality altered, how did you manage warp it sufficiently to convince yourself to believe in the completely insane theory that the judges who ruled on this issue were lying about what the law says and secretly ruling on the basis of secret information about who the President’s secret father was?
WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 1:22pmWarped is a good word here, Chet. It is indeed warped that there exists in some man-made laws, the idea that even though the truth is ABSOLUTE (what the Knower of Everything Saw, Heard, Discerned), a story can be manufactured and sold to gullible people who are just told to believe. Think “witness protection program”.
You do realize that ‘secrets’ exist in REALITY, don’t you? And while the secret of this manufactured story of Obama’s roots has unraveled, the REALITY is that there is more and more evidence that the real insanity is to keep believing in a liar.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 4:06pmWait, you’re against the witness protection program? If that’s an example of how warped man-made laws have subverted absolute truth with a manufactured story sold to the gullible, then I guess you must be against it. Are you for crime and want to see it go unpunished, or do you just think that witnesses should be willing to allow themselves to be murdered to demonstrate that they stand by their testimony?
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 6:30pmIN REALITY, most people who are in the witness protection program are there due to a trade-off, i.e., they get a brand new “fake” identity — who will not face charges their previous ‘person’ would have (wink, wink) — in exchange for their testimony. Do I believe that people should be allowed to barter their way out of charges by becoming a ‘someone else’? No. I believe in personal responsibility, which includes that which you are incapable of: not lying to others or myself. And I certainly don’t believe in voting for anyone incapable of personal responsibility, including those who should be standing up and saying, “While I am flattered that I am being considered a vice-presidential running mate, due to the requirement that same be a natural born citizen, I know myself to be ineligible.”
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 6:39pmWhy should they be standing up and saying that they know themselves to be ineligible when they don’t believe that to be true? If you are so keen on reality, why can you not accept the reality that most well-informed people sincerely think that you are wrong about this?
And about the other thing, prosecutors were offering criminals immunity in exchange for testimony against worse criminals long before there was a witness protection program. Whether you approve or not, that is not going to change. The purpose of witness protection itself is just what it says – protection, from murder, not prosecution.
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 7:00pmO.k. Chet. Once again, if there is so much evidence that what I am saying is not accepted (oh, btw, have you noticed since you and I first started our exchanges on this topic how many more people just here at the Blaze are realizing that they learned the way I learned, i.e., that natural born citizen means born to two parents who are citizens vs. your view that any illegal immigrant anchor baby is eligible to be president), CITE YOUR AUTHORITY to any and all sources which definitively claim what your position states. Otherwise, please cease and desist in trying to alter all of our realities by insisting that we didn’t learn what we learned.
And just to be thorough in my responses, all the witness protection program is protecting anyone from . . . is from facing charges.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 7:45pmThe Illinois State Court of Appeals definitively stated that I am right and you are wrong. You may quibble that it’s just a state court, but no person in any position of authority, or any person whose academic or legal credentials would entitle him to be considered an authority has ever said that you are right and I am wrong, so the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders.
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 21, 2012 at 1:09amTsk, tsk. Chet. What about all these lies you have been spewing over this site about how sooo many authorities back you up, and the ‘everyone’ with any intelligence knows you’re right, and how this has been settled ‘fact’ for years and years — decades, I mean; NO! over a century??
For anyone still reading, Chet is trying to say that an Indiana state case decided in 2009, Ankeny vs. Daniels, a poorly stated, poorly funded challenge to Obama’s eligibility based on not being a natural born citizen, HELD that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently state a case in which relief could be granted. That the judge commented on Obama’s eligibility is, as we have gone through before (but I’ll keep reminding you, Chet, since you seem to have a memory problem), mere dictum.
Vattel’s Law of Nations, a centuries old tome which was referenced by our Founding Fathers and which has been cited by Supreme Court decisions, definitively states that natural born citizens “are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. This is seen as meeting two conditions. Since U.S. law, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, definitively states that one is a citizen (no descriptor definitively stated) — that one is A citizen — if they are born in the U.S. thus codifies ONE prong of Vattel’s definition as CITIZEN. The other prong of said definition still stands as a condition by which one is to be deemed a natural born citizen, AS THERE IS NOT ANY U.S. AUTHORITY which states oth
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on July 21, 2012 at 1:58amBased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Ankeny v Governor of Indiana
Call it mere dictum if you like, but that is a judge saying you are flat out wrong. Whatevr Supreme Court decisions Mr. Vattel’s 18th centrury Swiss book about international law may have been cited in, it didn’t decide the only one that really matters, US v Wong Kim ark 1898, and you will never find a single quote from any judge or elected official writing since then to support your belief that you are right.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:15amNO!….West or Rubio
But Jindal is a good man.
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:40amYou love you some NDAA huh??
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:14amJan Brewer………
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:12amNo offense to Governors Romney or Jindal, but wouldn’t a more timely, important news topic be that Bashar Hafez al-Assad and his regime may be in its final moments of power in Syria? Nah, who cares about that. It will have no effect on US national security either way.
Report Post »NOT A CRAZY
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:12amAllen West!!!!!
Report Post »woodyee
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:06amIMHO Jindal would be a better choice over Polente and Rice.
Report Post »Ramrod64
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:16amand JINDAL debating Biden would be like swatting a fly with a newspaper. Ive heard him on tv smarter than any dimocrat!
Report Post »JEANNIEMAC
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:05amJindal is not eligible to be president. The perfect candidate is right there in Washington.
Allen West is a patriotic American, well educated, retired colonel, and to top it off, he is black.
Obama would lose his Ace in the Hole – the race card. So, no more hesitating. Call, email Romney and tell him we will support him all the way if he has Allen West as his VP.
woodyee
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:09amThanks to you, I’ll amend my comment to agree that West would be a better choice over Jindal!
Report Post »DEFCON4
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:30am@JEAN, Why is Mr. Jindal ineligible to become President?
Report Post »Mutiny
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:43amSo everyone of you supports the NDAA?
Report Post »Apple Bite
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:46amYou’re wrong about Jindal not being eligible. The man was born in Baton Rouge. Not many Baton Rouges in India, agreed? He’s a natural born citizen by 6 months upon his parents LEGALIZED arrival.
Never tell this ineligible lie again.
Report Post »gestroud
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:49amWhy isn’t he eligible? He was born in the U.S.
Report Post »mercenary4freedom
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:42amHe better pick West, any other choice & america is toast.
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:50pmGest, you say, being born in the U.S. is the only criteria needed to be a natural born citizen.
A child born to two illegal immigrants here in the U.S. is eligible to be president here, then.
Is that what our Founding Fathers had in mind?
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 7:31pmSo his running mate would be the governor of the most corrupt state in the union? This might be a better show than the one I thought I was going to get with Santorum.
Report Post »foxrocks
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:02amRomney nees to pic a CONSERVATIVE…. not Condi, sorry……
Rubio, Huckabee, Jindal…..no RHINOS…..
Report Post »woodyee
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:12amAmen brother! (or sister!)!
Ef the RINO’S, and EF JOHN MCPAIN
Report Post »jeezpeeps
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:27amAllen West would be my pick. But Jindal is up real high in my opinion. I lived in LA during his first adminisitration. I also was there when Blanco was in charge. Bobby Jindal is a good conservative guy. I like him an awful lot. But Allen West is “THE MAN!!!”
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:02amLtCol Allen West….
Report Post »db321
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:01amNo!
Report Post »sledgehammer44
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:10amNo X 2
Report Post »AProudConservative
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:23amNO X3. All are good men, but not for VP, not this year. Rubio would be the ideal choice.
Report Post »AProudConservative
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:25amNO X3. All are good men, just not VP not this year. Rubio is the best possible choice.
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 1:03amWell if db321 says No and Mutiny says maybe i’ll go with maybe :) it does not matter though the question is who will Paul pick:)
Report Post »