Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Clutching at Straws?
I can't find a link, but Bobby Jindal has a new commercial in which St. Bernard Parish Sheriff Jack Stephens praises Jindal for getting emergency help to St. Bernard Parish after Katrina, when "nobody else could." Is it my imagination, or is that somewhat troubling, if not incriminating? A Republican congressman could get federal help for St. Bernard, while a Democratic governor couldn't get federal help for New Orleans. There's both a racial and a partisan component to that, BTW.
There's something else that's troubling about the commercial, Stephens didn't authorize it.
I do have admit that when I read Gambit's endorsement of Jindal, I was surprised to see that he supports an LSU teaching hospital in new Orleans. I was more surprised to find it on his web site. I don't know if that went up recently, or I just didn't see it before --I may have been sidetracked by the "Second chance for Louisiana" commercial and website. His refusal to take a position was my strongest argument for anybody in the GNO area to vote against him, but he still won't get my vote.
I have zero tolerance for bullshit from politicians who run as reformers; I'd like to have zero tolerance for bullshit from all politicians, but this is the real world. I shouldn't say zero tolerance, it's more along the lines of a pet peeve than a deal-breaker. I'll vote for for a bullshit artist, who claims to be an honest reformer, if his opponent is clearly more corrupt or just plain incompetent, but Jindal hasn't shown Boasso (or Campbell or Georges) to be either. He doesn't even try to convince us that Boasso is corrupt, just part of the "corruption crowd." There's an eight letter word for that, begins with a "B." Jindal will speak up against Hollywood's corruption of our values, even though he knows it might not be popular. There's an eight letter word for that, ends with a "t." The Jindal campaign criticizes Boasso for voting to increase the compulsory minimum automobile liability insurance, and Boasso did cast such a vote. But there's an eight letter word for the very thought that Jindal would have voted differently.
As much as the Republicans would like you to believe otherwise, this election is not a do-over of 2003. Jindal isn't running against Blanco, and an endless stream of Katrina disaster pictures on the TV screen doesn't change that. Yeah, I suppose that I should come with stronger reasons to vote against Jindal, but the reasons that he gives you to vote against his opponents are all bullshit.
There's something else that's troubling about the commercial, Stephens didn't authorize it.
I do have admit that when I read Gambit's endorsement of Jindal, I was surprised to see that he supports an LSU teaching hospital in new Orleans. I was more surprised to find it on his web site. I don't know if that went up recently, or I just didn't see it before --I may have been sidetracked by the "Second chance for Louisiana" commercial and website. His refusal to take a position was my strongest argument for anybody in the GNO area to vote against him, but he still won't get my vote.
I have zero tolerance for bullshit from politicians who run as reformers; I'd like to have zero tolerance for bullshit from all politicians, but this is the real world. I shouldn't say zero tolerance, it's more along the lines of a pet peeve than a deal-breaker. I'll vote for for a bullshit artist, who claims to be an honest reformer, if his opponent is clearly more corrupt or just plain incompetent, but Jindal hasn't shown Boasso (or Campbell or Georges) to be either. He doesn't even try to convince us that Boasso is corrupt, just part of the "corruption crowd." There's an eight letter word for that, begins with a "B." Jindal will speak up against Hollywood's corruption of our values, even though he knows it might not be popular. There's an eight letter word for that, ends with a "t." The Jindal campaign criticizes Boasso for voting to increase the compulsory minimum automobile liability insurance, and Boasso did cast such a vote. But there's an eight letter word for the very thought that Jindal would have voted differently.
As much as the Republicans would like you to believe otherwise, this election is not a do-over of 2003. Jindal isn't running against Blanco, and an endless stream of Katrina disaster pictures on the TV screen doesn't change that. Yeah, I suppose that I should come with stronger reasons to vote against Jindal, but the reasons that he gives you to vote against his opponents are all bullshit.
Comments:
<< Home
There might be a partisan component to Bobby helping StBernard (I don't actually think he did), but how do you see a racial one? Unless he helped Jeff parish too, and *not* Orleans, then perhaps yes.
Jindal doesn't need to prove his opponents unworthy because they do that themselves. If he sat still he'd proably win at this point. The only exception is the sharp and witty Campbell who I think is the only real potential competition to Bobby. Georges and Boasso do not have anywhere near the grasp on the issues that Jindal and Campbell do.
Jindal and Campbell both carry the least amount of BS and the most competence on the issues, and that makes them the better options to me. Boasso would be a nightmare, even worse than that indicisive bureaucrat Blanco. And if Al Gore had a Republican twin it would be Georges.
Jindal doesn't need to prove his opponents unworthy because they do that themselves. If he sat still he'd proably win at this point. The only exception is the sharp and witty Campbell who I think is the only real potential competition to Bobby. Georges and Boasso do not have anywhere near the grasp on the issues that Jindal and Campbell do.
Jindal and Campbell both carry the least amount of BS and the most competence on the issues, and that makes them the better options to me. Boasso would be a nightmare, even worse than that indicisive bureaucrat Blanco. And if Al Gore had a Republican twin it would be Georges.
The more I think about it, the more I think that commercial raises, or should raise, some very troubling questions. Not about Jindal, but about the federal response. Jindal doesn't have helicopters and rescue personnel at his personnel disposal, how did he get help when the governor couldn't? I can only think that, even during a crisis like Katrina, the Bush administration operated according to access -- which was determined by party affiliation. You can say that Jindal got help when the Democrat governor couldn't because he was more knowledgeable and competent, but it took the Bush administration five full days to say that it didn't get the proper paperwork from Baton Rouge. The state and local media didn't seem to find the five day delay very noteworthy, the national press did (It was really, really amazing, in Dec. 2005, even the Washington times thought that the "document dump" made bush look awful, the T/P used it to blast Blanco -- not that I'd defend Blanco).
So, if Jindal is going to run commercials about how he brought helicopters to St. bernard, it really does raise the question of how. There was damage from flooding in Jefferson, but were people stranded and in need of rescue? Unfortunately, you can't ask how St. Bernard got help before New Orleans without it having a racial component. That's just the way it is.
" He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.
Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant."
link
Change that to include an impression of their opponents, and you have the Jindal campaign. For example, not claim of corruption that can be proven true or false, just innuendo about being part of the corruption crowd.
I expect politicians to act like politicians, but Jindal is running as a reformer while campaigning like a politician. When somebody who runs as the honest, honorable candidate runs a dishonest campaign, I find it hard to vote for him. I could, but I'm not worried about any of jindal's opponents. I don't like Georges, but are you saying that we shouldn't for him because he's stiff and wooden?
So, if Jindal is going to run commercials about how he brought helicopters to St. bernard, it really does raise the question of how. There was damage from flooding in Jefferson, but were people stranded and in need of rescue? Unfortunately, you can't ask how St. Bernard got help before New Orleans without it having a racial component. That's just the way it is.
" He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.
Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant."
link
Change that to include an impression of their opponents, and you have the Jindal campaign. For example, not claim of corruption that can be proven true or false, just innuendo about being part of the corruption crowd.
I expect politicians to act like politicians, but Jindal is running as a reformer while campaigning like a politician. When somebody who runs as the honest, honorable candidate runs a dishonest campaign, I find it hard to vote for him. I could, but I'm not worried about any of jindal's opponents. I don't like Georges, but are you saying that we shouldn't for him because he's stiff and wooden?
One more thing about that commercial is that I question the legallity of its use. It is absolutely against the law to use funds that are regulated by the FEC (i.e. Jindal's congressional's campaign warchest) in his state campaign. If Jindal used federal funds to produce that commercial (which he did, because it was from his Congressional campaign), then would't he be guilty of using federal funds in this governors race? Just something to think about.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 1:52 PM
: 1:52 PM << Home
