As I mentioned last week, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal will be on Leno tonight in a show he taped earlier. If Leno is on past your bedtime then you can read the full transcript here:
Leno: So, tell us Bobby. If John McCain came asking or begging you to be vice president, you’re telling us you will say “no”.
Jindal: Jay, again, I would be honored but I have a job to do and that is to be the governor of all of the people in Louisiana, republicans and democrats, rich and poor, young and old.
Leno: Spoken like a politician Bobby. You are learning fast. But, getting back to the question. Would you say absolutely say I would not serve as Vice President if asked. Remember you would be a heart beat away from the Oval Office and McCain is no “spring chicken”. Are you telling the nation tonight you would not serve no matter what?
Jindal: Jay, I have a job to do. I was voted into office by a large majority. I want to be the best Governor Louisiana has ever had and we have really had some real colorful clowns in the past.
Leno: So, that is the best we will get from you tonight, right.
Jindal: I have spoken repeatedly about this issue explaining my feelings, so let’s talk about how Louisiana is becoming a major force to be reckoned now and in the future.
Leno: Governor, first, I’ve been wondering. Tell me. How did an Indian American become Governor of the same state that almost put David Duke in the mansion a decade or so ago? Did you buy his list or something?
Jindal: (laughs) Well, Louisiana has changed so much in the past decade and will do so even more during my administration. I am pleased that the son of an Indian immigrant could become Governor in the Deep South. I was born in Baton Rouge, am an American and am dedicated to turning Louisiana around after years of neglect and poor leadership. [Link]
I have to say, he is saying all the words a person who’d accept and invitation to be VP should be saying. I don’t think you’d HAVE to resign your Governor’s job to be a Vice Presidential running mate. I guess it is in his advantage to keep his name in the spotlight by not dismissing the idea. I’ll link the video once its up.
It’s awesome that Jindal’s so young–no matter what happens this year, or in 2012, he will be a force in national politics for decades to come!! I am loving it!!
but HE’S A REPUBLICAN!!!
He’s going to be a stud in the years to come.
He’s going to be caught with a Hooker.
Oh, that’s just fine and dandy for an R-La., it’s only unethical if your stance ain’t narrow.
Hey–it’s Louisiana–as long as it’s not a live boy or a dead girl, it’ll be fine!!
i think he’s too conservative to be a plausible VP.
My dream 2012 Presidential race is Obama v. Jindal. Can America handle that much melanin?
Spitzer’s Hookergate files may become required reading for all politicians to know what to avoid in that regard.
Razib, I agree to the extent that he will have to moderate some of the social conservatism (e.g., “Intelligent Design,” all abortion is illegal) for national office. But I think he can and will. Most “local” politicians face similar challenges (e.g., Romney w/ some of the stances he took running for Gov. in Mass.), yet Governors have a great track-record at getting elected President compared to, e.g., Senators (not this year, admittedly).
There is a fundamental difference between Romney and Jindal. I think Romney holds very few beliefs as articles of faith. He is a good businessman, and just figures out how best to position and push his product. In an election, the product is himself, and he just adds the right features to make the product appealing to the consumers. Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to fake sincerity as well as some of the more successful ones.
Jindal’s extensive writings make me believe that a large number of his positions actually come from a more sincere place. Since I disagree very fundamentally with his world view, I wouldn’t want him to be able to reach any office where he can influence my life, even if he fakes (relative) moderation so he can get there.
leno? that’s a sign. if oprah’s next the futures contracts on him becoming vp will go in the money.
Why be so credulous about the written word? He’s a politician, no?
13 · rob said
This stuff was waaay before his political career. And exorcism, hellfire and brimstone is a little off the deep end to be merely political.
he’s lean too. that’s key. i think he’s in.
Leno is definitely a step toward step to gauging his national appeal. Sure the GOP pollsters will be working overtime the next few days to break down his numbers across the demographics. Frankly, It’s a natural fit with McCain’s adopted daughter. Additionally, it will further appeal to the Latino vote as a reminder that upper mobility is possible within in the GOP. The numbers don’t support Condi Rice running as VP. Clearly, GOP strategists are looking to neutralize Obama’s effect as the first African American candidate and this would be a major on the other side of the minority vote.
Still, Jindal’s a tool. He should have stayed an accountant. He’s this generation’s Dan Quayle.
I’m more curious about the Democratic ticket.
Obama/Warner 2008?
Jindal may be a creationist, but am pretty sure he can spell “potato”
Jindal was dodging the question Leno asked about his daddie having an accent. “Oh India has the British system….etc.” Plus, Jindal didn’t want to say his first name. Ashamed of his first name. Won’t wear it proud unlike Barry Obama.
I see what you mean, but, as a personal note (it’s not data!), when I was in college a lot of “desis” (the term was not in use, really, at the time) flirted with Catholicism (not really other forms of Christianity–again, it’s my experience)–I even hung out with some Opus Dei people for a couple of weeks. . . . I didn’t convert (nor, really view it as anything but an interesting discussion), but it didn’t seem overly “weird” from the “internal” perspective of the time, even if now it does (a lot of East Asians were converting too). It’s difficult for me to even reconstruct the milieu that led to those conversations–though one factor was definitely being impressed by the Pope in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
So I guess this is why (though it may undermine my own credibility) I cut a lot of slack to Bobby Jindal on this front (I certainly didn’t have political goals for myself, but was trying to make sense of things in “my” world, as opposed to the world my parents had grown up in) having been half-way there myself. . . .
All indications are that Jindal didn’t just flirt with Catholicism, he stalked it like Alex Forrest, married it, and fathered six children with it. And given his views then, and his views now, it takes a leap of, er, faith, that this atheist is not capable of, to think that he doesn’t believe most of what he says (ID is the only issue on which there might possibly be some belief that he is merely pandering, but given that he is a doctrinaire Catholic, I don’t think it is far-fetched to assume that even that might come from some sort of pre-Vatican II or far-right, if that is the correct term, Catholicism).
(As an aside, this discussion is funny: Oh, I like Jindal, but only because I think he’s a really good liar about a big part of his platform 🙂
So, who was it? Reagan or the Pope? We need to pick one winner. The only thing I think we can all agree on is that Gorbachev had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why are you reductionist?! It’s both!! Don’t try to steal my childhood from me! 😉
Don’t be so idealistic–see Obama v. Goolsbee on NAFTA!
I am hardly idealistic (except about the injection of fake idealism/hope/change, but Jindal isn’t doing that), which is why I find the discussion funny, not sad. But hanging the case for a politician on the hook of his being a good liar about a large part of his positions is quite hilarious.
Rahul, Given that we have two parties, don’t most politicians do that about much of their platform most of the time??
Let’s not forget David Hasselhoff!
Yeah, they all lie, or pander, or whatever. The only question is about how integral or incidental what they are lying about is to the public’s perception of them.
OK, then, putting aside your psychological analysis (or mine), we are entitled to disagree over what the “true” Jindal views are, and I’m putting my money on (frankly) anti teachers-union school reform and free trade, and you are entitled to disagree, but don’t pretend you have the proof in your direction! 😉
Oh, come on! Don’t make the aside the focus of the discussion.
I think it is a real stretch, from any reasonable examination of Jindal’s personal writings and record over the last 20 years, to claim that he is not a sincere religious nut. You might choose to discount that over your liking his economic agenda, but I think it is a mistake to think that his religious views will be immaterial from the standpoint of the policies he enacts.
Rahul, Be serious, my friend. How many “sincere religious nuts” have in fact risen to high power in the US? Don’t be so naive. It’s not a rich country b/c it gives free reign at the top to “religious nuts.” Thank God (!) our country does not. You really need to recalibrate your view of who really runs the country. Jindal is breaking in, and it is not b/c of his religious views.
.
it was de Klerk! oh wait…wrong evil.
Well, he is good about not pulling an Elmer Gantry in his public appearances if that’s what you mean.
I do not dispute that he is talented, but he didn’t get elected in David Duke country because he balances the books.
That’s an extreme contortion of the point I am making. Good night.
i think carter admitted to believing in the literal interpretation of genesis. maybe one of youse who have a google subscription can doublecheck this 4 me.
Sure, Carter has never hidden his Christian-ness. But he has always insisted that it is a personal belief. (And I guess that is the subtext of this discussion but I should articulate it: I don’t care that Bobby Jindal is Catholic or Christian or whatever, but I care that his religion affects his opinion on good public policy.)
Carter presents his views as a “born again” Christian and a former political leader. He says: “I think it’s very important for the American people to know that not only has this happened, but it has resulted in a breakdown of the separation of church and state that’s been part of our nation’s principles ever since Thomas Jefferson espoused this principle as one of our founding fathers.”
(and I do find the way Carter frames some of his other views, say on the abolition of the death penalty, in terms of Christian mercy very problematic.)
Look, every politician protests that he is religious, but to believe the Machiavellian theory of religion in politics fully explains the Huckabees and Jindals is a big stretch.
OK, that’s where we differ–glad we’ve identified it, and no hard feelings! 😉
sorry, he or she. init2winit!
rahul:
what positions of jinda violate the establishment clause, in your opinion? genuine question i know relatively little about jindal himself, so that why i’ve kept my opinions on him restricted to theoretical discussions of what it means to be an uncle tom and his oprah-endearing leaness.
i have the same gripe with MLK.
I’m baaaack! I feel like discussions on how Jindal’s specific policies might violate the establishment clause maybe a little bit more useful and constructive than accusing him of being an Uncle Tom. But since you’ve broached the subject – is he an Uncle Tom because he’s a Republican or because he’s a Catholic-convert? OR is a little bit of both?
39 · nickdev said
i see the uncle tom phenomina as more psychological than political, like the Stockholm syndrome. it exist, fannon and malcolm admitted to it more or less, but outside a narrow scope of fundamental political issues, like apartheid, it’s very hard to attach to politics…though an increasingly desperate progressive movement has tried via identity politcs.
jindals marriage to an indian women makes it hard for me to believe that this psychological phenomena is driving his politics. nehru, on the other hand…
To be clear, I don’t think that that means that politicians’ views are not at all determinable, just that a good prediction needs to take account of a lot more than their public platform and public poses.
Maybe it me but it seemed like Mr.Jindal had a little bit of a southern accent.
George W. Bush is a religious nut…a macadamia nut at that. America has had quite a few jokers, especially recently who are religious gun nuts as leaders here. W more than compensates for all the religious nuts that we didn’t have. India is MUCH better when it comes to seperation of Temple and State. We elected a Catholic, Sonia Gandhi, as the supreme leader in ’04. Instead, we settled with a Sikh (2% of the population are Sikhs). Indians don’t care, unless they’re the Piyush Jindal types.
30 · rob said
it’s very hard to attach to politics…though an increasingly desperate progressive movement has tried via identity politcs.
good thing that the conservatives never practiced identity politics. of course, it was all over in 2005, so we can rest easy now.
I saw it last night. He seemed pretty mellow, which surprised me. But why didn’t he just say his birth name? Also, does any one else see his slight resemblance to Bobby Kennedy?
Also, does any one else see his slight resemblance to Bobby Kennedy?
Hell no!
This neanderthal is nothing like Bobby. I guess physically speaking, they are both pretty lean. Thats about it.
I discourage the use of the word Uncle Tom and don’t believe self hate is driving his politics. But I do 100% believe that Jindal had his eye on the presidency at age 12 and that every move of his has been calculated to further his electoral attractiveness. Marrying an Indian woman and having her convert to Catholicism: a) Avoids career killing miscegenation in Louisiana b) Gets you points for saving a soul
If Jindal were genuine in his faith and an accidental politician the stats favor him having married a Hibernian Midwestern Campus Crusade cutie at age 25.
Bobby Jindal is the greatest! I couldn’t be more proud of him as a Desi in America. I would love it if McCain picked Bobby as his VP. What would all the liberal Democrats do then??? Why, they’d go crazy. They could no longer accuse the Republicans of “racism” anymore and thereby lose one of their core attack points on the GOP. I hope more Indians move to the Republicans because their values are far more closely aligned with ours than the Democrats could ever be.
there is so much wrong with this statement, that I do not know where to start.
Anyway since I do not want to derail this thread, it is sufficient to say that in India, the govt usually runs temples
47 · louiecypher said
I agree — he seems to have been ambitious from the get-go (and I think his realization of being somewhat different from mainstream in crucial ways may have further goaded him). Like Rob, I admire his calculative capabilities and determination. In fact, his thoroughness about Catholic assimilation shows me that if he want to accomplish something, he’ll leave no stone unturned. Like Rahul, I think whether or not his Catholicism is purely cosmetic or entirely internalized, the consequences for public policy are disheartening. And there is really little reason for him to want to be McCain’s running mate (especially since he faces strong strong competition) — why would Jindal want any odor of defeat on his person should McCain lose? Like louiecypher pointed out previously, he has plenty of time to acquire a gilded resume and a dead duck or two. And Manju has been incessantly pointing out to Bobby’s stunning figure, which will stand out even more ten years from now. America ain’t getting younger or slimmer or wealthier.