The Atlantic - Latest Comments in More on Jindal

Re: More on Jindal

Terri — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:33:54 -0000

"talks like a good old boy with a plantation somewhere back in the Bayou"

Obviously this person has no idea what a good old boy from the bayou sounds like.

Re: More on Jindal

someone — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:38:33 -0000

Hi Ta-Nehisi,

Great blog.

I don't disagree with you that Jindal and Obama, Lincoln and Obama, Van Buren and Obama, etc. etc. are not comparable duos. But I think you're also making too much of it. When people make analogies, they're rarely saying that the person A is exactly like person B. They're usually just trying to show that a certain aspect of person A is similar to person B. You're right that there's a problem with these types of analogies, in that we are very likely to find at least one rare characteristic that is shared by a random person in a room, with every other person in the room. In other words, you and I probably have at least one similar, but rare personality quirk or offbeat interest or personal story, that few people share, and yet we'll differ in most other aspects. So you're correct that analogies can be meaningless, because we can compare almost any two people. But it also means that it isn't such an insidious thing to compare two people. Analogies, for a number of reasons, are psychologically satisfying to people, because they introduce a something new in terms of something familiar. Analogies make things clearer in that instead relearning lots of new information, people always try to link new information to what they already know, and then "unlearn" the parts that don't fit. To me, maybe it's a bit lazy, but it's the way most of us process any new information. It's what makes everything like riding a bike.

Re: More on Jindal

Thomas R — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:51:29 -0000

"Exorcisms are an archaic Catholic practice that the Vatican doesn't even believe in anymore."

TR: Umm no. It's in the Bible and there are still official exorcists. It's a rare practice though and as he has no clergy-training I'm perplexed why Jindal did it. Unless it just amounted to "my friend had like a panic attack and prayer plus holy water calmed him down." (That might sound goofball to most here, but even from a purely secular basis a repetitive/relaxing activity can sometimes calm anxiety. Medication is better, in many to most cases, but some aren't willing to take meds)

Anyway Jindal was in the House of Representatives so he does have more on a national level than Palin does. However I've been disappointed before so I'd wanted to learn more before forming an opinion. Although I find Coates likeable, and this place interesting, it's still not an unbiased place for information on a Republican. So if I learn more about him I'd be doing that learning elsewhere.

Re: More on Jindal

Reality Man — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:33:41 -0000

"After reading most of the post, I'm wodering if there is something more sinister behind this negativity, possibly racism?"

Speaking as an Indian-American, you're an idiot and Jindal is a weirdo.

Also, people here who think exorcisms are popular among religious maintream Christians needs to take Theology 101. Exorcisms are an archaic Catholic practice that the Vatican doesn't even believe in anymore. Fundie Protestants aren't the biggest fans of weird archaic Catholic practices. This is up there with Jamie Kirchick thinking Irish Catholics were going to vote for McCain because he was a Scotch-Irish, not knowing what that ethnic term meant and the histories of the two people.

Re: More on Jindal

Hob — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:37:20 -0000

Put me down in the "Please don't waste another breath on Megan McArdle" column. If you want to talk about Bobby Jindal, there are other people you could go to for an opposing view. McArdle's writing is just shallow, careless, and insulting.

I'll nit-pick some of the earlier comments a little, about McArdle's mischaracterization of the Democratic platform on abortion rights. The problem isn't just that she claims Democrats have a "no restrictions ever" orthodoxy (which is at least debatable) or that she says it's badly out of step with public opinion (which is demonstrably false, but pretty standard right-wing rhetoric). But the "I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LALALA" bit is something else. It means she just can't imagine that someone would hold the line on abortion rights based on any kind of principles or logic, even invalid ones - that it must just be some kind of insane denial, which for some reason she thinks is also by definition immature. It just doesn't bear any resemblance to how liberals or leftists actually talk about abortion rights; it would be equally stupid as a characterization of the NRA's attitude to gun control -- there is no "LALALA" there. It only serves as a vague insult. But then she wants you to engage her opinion seriously, and you oblige.

Re: More on Jindal

TKOEd — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:32:42 -0000

Intellectually, you would assume that Jindal is leaps & bounds ahead of Palin based on his resume but professionally they have equal accomplishments. They were both elected governors at pretty young ages. Jindal though, even with his intellectual pedigree, agrees with Palin on a lot of social issues. He might even be to the right of her. It seems to me that Jindal is a Ture Believer™. If that's the case it will be easy for opponents to demonize him as being too extreme, especially a Democrat.

Re: More on Jindal

ed — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:01:36 -0000

P.S. Consider the source positing that Jindal is the Republican Obama. This is the same person that argued the UAW forced the Big 3 in Detroit to manufacture obsolete cars.

And has been wrong--loud wrong--about so much (George Bush, Jr., Iraq Invasion, Plame, FISA, "the devil you know", Krugman, etc., etc.). Hell, Jindal prob'ly had a promising future until McWrongalot piped up.

Re: More on Jindal

Thomas R — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:09:45 -0000

"So what? So was Senator Russ Feingold."

TR: Feingold is one of the few Democrats I have a great deal of respect for and I thought he was fairly well-liked. So I'm not sure what this is meant to say.

I'll agree though it's lazy thinking to make Jindal into the "Republican Obama." I think it's really too early to tell how he, or any Republican, will do in 2012. The social conservatism that horrifies many of you might be irrelevant to the voters if Obama's Presidency is a failure. I like Jindal so far, but I do have some questions.

Re: More on Jindal

sy — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:52:40 -0000

And I'm sure that complacent Democrats dismissing him as a goober with a God complex suits his current plans just fine.

Complacent Democrats?!?!

I guess that just Megan projecting again. I assume its hard for her to watch her friends over at NRO engage in culture warfare. Throwing in an exorcism here and there is sure to rally social conservatives.

P.S. Consider the source positing that Jindal is the Republican Obama. This is the same person that argued the UAW forced the Big 3 in Detroit to manufacture obsolete cars.

Re: More on Jindal

MusingPlatypus — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:44:54 -0000

As someone who used to be friends with the president of the Paramus High School chess club, I find this comparison factually inaccurate, and hope McArdle changes her contact prescriptions before attempting to compare an Indian man with an adolescent flame-haired Irishman.

Re: More on Jindal

Joey 33 — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:03:09 -0000

The difference in depth of thinking between MM and Mr. Coates is enormous. As he says, point is not that Jindal does not have skills or prospects - which is only point she makes - but he is not 'the next Obama.'

Typically, she turned that into a straw-man and rose up to defend BJ from the attack. I don't know if she is infatuated with the guy or just ignorant, but her factually inaccurate breathlessness was unbecoming.

On the factual inaccuracies, McArdle tries to argue that Jindal has already revolutionized things by winning Louisiana as a Republican. Hilarious as she does not notice that she describes him getting appointed to a bunch of offices as a tot ... by a two-term Republican governor. Sad, sad stuff.

Re: More on Jindal

CitizenE — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:59:05 -0000

Obama's base if you will was all the elements of society that have felt excluded by the Conservatizing of America over the past 3 decades. When he said we were all Americans, what we heard, whether our exclusion from the decision making in America that was overtly wrecking the nation (and continues to do so) was based on race, economic class, age, religious or secular outlook, political perspective, was "yes we can."

At this point in time there can be no Republican Obama, though they do seem to be acting as if they have been out of power for 30 years, even though they're still at this very moment continuing to bollox the works. Obama spoke to a thirst for inclusion. Bobby Jindal may be as bright as they come (though his views on science belie a fundamentally necessary view for governance in the 21st century), but what he cannot provide is what was so eloquently expressed on the night of November 4--dancing in the streets all over America and the world.

And Republicans and McCardle who only see politics as politics--tactics for winning--will never get it until they realize that what a politician needs to do in this day and age is provide substance that gives people real hope.

Re: More on Jindal

Sarah — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:47:37 -0000

"I think Jindal and Obama have a lot in common. On paper Jindal has terrific experience/qualifications for the job. One thing that Megan touched on that I think is significant is that both Obama and Jindal seem to be incredibly intelligent."

I would bet on seeing a thousand different variations of this specific points being made in various articles, blogs, columns etc in the next few years. Repeat something often enough, and people might actually believe it, I guess. Might as well write the headlines now: Bobby Jindal - The Next Barack Obama.

Re: More on Jindal

Direwolfc — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:39:10 -0000

I think Jindal and Obama have a lot in common. On paper Jindal has terrific experience/qualifications for the job. One thing that Megan touched on that I think is significant is that both Obama and Jindal seem to be incredibly intelligent

Re: More on Jindal

sgwhiteinfla — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:33:56 -0000

Peter

It won't be coming from the Democratic side, it will be coming from the Republican side. Please believe it. Or have you forgotten the way Bush 41 distorted Bob Dole's record and Atwater kept leaking false stories about him. And don't forget that Dole was a bonafied war hero. Just wait till somebody like Pawlenty or Crist who think THEY should be the standard bearers get a hold of him.

From the department of irony, a group of gay protesters say they are going to crash Charlie Crist's wedding next year as a statement against Florida's ban on gay marraige. Of course the rumor was the only reason Crist got engaged in the first place was because there were rumblings that he might be gay and he wanted to be McCain's VP pick.

Re: More on Jindal

sgwhiteinfla — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:28:37 -0000

Jay

I hate it when somebody comes on a thread making broad accusations like you just did. I went back and looked over the posts again and you would have been better off claiming sexism against Sarah Palin because I didn't see any statements that came off even remotely as racist. So I would like you to name names or at least cut and paste the statements you are referring to. Otherwise you just come off as a concern troll making much ado about nothing.

Re: More on Jindal

PeterGuillam — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:25:42 -0000

Oh come on, Jay, I can't recall anyone here criticizing Jindal for being an Indian-American? Please point out to specific posts, will you?

But this post is a wonderful precursor of what we can expect from the Republican side if Jindal really decides to run. Criticize Jindal for his believe in creationism? Why, you are a racist. Criticize Jindal for his belief in exorcism? Why, you are just a hateful racist who can't accept other people. And on and on and on.

Re: More on Jindal

Jay — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:16:29 -0000

I'm curious to know if Jindal was a Democrat, would the haters be saying the say things about him?. After reading most of the post, I'm wodering if there is something more sinister behind this negativity, possibly racism??? And don't tell me that because you voted for Obama you cannot be racist or because you're Black you cannot be a racist. It seems to me that in America we see everyone as either White or Black but I have news for you, there are alot of Brown and Yellow and all of the lovely colors in-between.

What do we call someone who makes a decision/judgement base on race????

Re: More on Jindal

sgwhiteinfla — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:09:08 -0000

Sporcupine

I will again say that I believe there will be more people on the right using the exorcisms against Jindal than anybody on the left. But let me say this loud and clear. Doing exorcisms is NOT mainstream Christian orthodoxy. Even when you talk about the Christians who do believe in exorcisms it is normally left up to priests. If the exorcisms are made an issue it won't be a winning one for him even from evangelicals because while evangelicals believe in talking in tongues and at times faith healing, exorcisms are a whole other animal. For instance, I don't think you will see Rick Warren doing any exorcisms any time soon. So to reiterate, I think it will be the folks on the right who bash Jindal about his exorcisms but there will be Christians on the right and the left who will reject him because of it as well.

Re: More on Jindal

BrotherinMD — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:50:30 -0000

Ta-Nahesi, I agree with you wholeheartedly and I am glad that you have the platform to stop the madness. Obama was not a direct response to any particular candidate on the right. However, Jindal smacks of a direct response to Obama. They(we), noone saw the revolution (online) that Obama put together, and Jindal does not have that type of coalition. Furthermore, Obama's 18 months in the Senate served him well. Louisiana is not doing well in education, finance, and crime. 3 years from now, Jindal's record will not be what it is today.

NO COMPARISON!!!!!

Re: More on Jindal

Stacy — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:45:23 -0000

"Its not fair to any child who is being raised as anything other than a Christian."

And really, its not fair to a child being raised as a Christian, either.

Re: More on Jindal

sgwhiteinfla — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:25:06 -0000

My father was/is a Christian and he taught science for over 30 years. Being a Christian isn't what would disqualify someone from office in my view, even if they believed in Creationism. What would disqualify them is if they wanted to make Creationism a subject to be taught in schools. The reason being is that it violates the separation of church and state. Its not fair to any child who is being raised as anything other than a Christian. Creationism should be confined to being taught at churches not schools. So if Jindal advocates having creationism taught in school I agree that he should be disqualified from seeking the Presidency.

Re: More on Jindal

Sporcupine — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:18:05 -0000

Folks can mock Governor Jindal for believing that faith can cast out demons. Every round of doing that makes him stronger, not weaker. Every round makes some people who thought he was mysteriously different think he is one of their own and that they should rise to his defense.

If a Republican can frame the race as those who believe the Bible versus those who mock it, the Republican wins.

Mind, I vote the straight Democratic ticket and expect to do so for the rest of my life. I do not wish him political success.

I do, however, understand how he's setting up to win, and how ugly jabs at his faith are exactly what he hopes will continue.

Re: More on Jindal

Brian Gilmore — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:17:50 -0000

and Jindal don't get elected if a gal named katrina didn't show up, and if Bush & FEMA didn't show up. I got ties to Louisiana. Jindal isn't all that. He can be beaten in Louisiana, if he strays too far from the tree.

Re: More on Jindal

Joel — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:09:10 -0000

Creationists shouldn't be disqualified from public office, but they should be disqualified from reasoned discussion on the subject of evolution, much as flat-earthers should be disqualified from reasoned discussion on physics and AIDS deniers disqualified from reasoned discussion on health policy.