I don't have a transcript of his response to Obama's speech...but here's what I remember, paraphrasing:

Jindal: We don't need tax increases...we need tax cuts for working Americans.

Fact: Obama promised in his speech to fulfill his campaign promise and cut taxes for 95% of Americans and let Bush's tax cuts for American families making more than $250K expire.

Jindal: We just passed a $1 Trillion dollar spending bill (with interest)

Fact: About half of that $800 Billion was tax cuts, the kind you said you wanted.

Jindal: We can't keep borrowing money we don't have from our children.

Jindal: America's military personnel can do the job if they have the resources they need.

Hey, Bobby...why do you want to borrow money from our kids to give our military the resources they need? Could it be lots of other things in our budget are considered important, too?

An embarrassing, speech, really - full of contradictions.

Juan Williams on Fox just ripped him a new hole.

Bobby Jindal looked like a deer in headlights. Who the hell wrote that speech? It was plain awful. It was worse than rubber chicken circuit boiler plate Republican. His unwillingness to address GOP complicity in the economic current situation speaks volumes about a party without credibility.

Jindal is what Nancy Pelosi is to the Dem party. A liability!

Jindal for President in 2012!!! Let him fight it out with Sarah Palin.

Even a McCain-supporting right-wing Republican friend of mine from high school was ripping Jindal a new one on Facebook...

Is Jindal being overtly groomed for something? Is this some new face for The GOP?

And most importantly, does he have a bunch of support from fellow Republicans on his policies or ideas? Or is this just a test-run to show that The GOP has someone brown on their side too?

Jindal is from Louisiana.

The only state to have more crooked politicians than Illinois!

Jindal's Katrina reference was priceless. You couldn't ask for a more inane reference to a GOP blunder.

Well he's obviously the Anti-Christ...of the day.

...to a GOP blunder...

I still get a laugh out of how the libs try and blame Bush for Katrina.

Like Bush controls the weather!

The hurricane can't be blamed on anyone. Hurricane's happen.

The results and cluster F^$% can be squarley laid at the feet of Ray Nagin and the other politicians in New Orleans that had plenty of warning but took no action.

FEMA isn't to blame either. FEMA is NOT a first responder. They are an agency to manage things AFTER a disaster occurs.

Blame the idiots that had several days warning but refused to leave. Then, after the heuuicane was over, they shot at the people that were there to HELP them.

The GOP isn't to blame. The idiots in New Orleans are.

And that's not to mention the dipsticks that built a city BELOW sea level!!!

Edit add: All that doesn't change the fact that Jindal is a moron!

Skybill: I still get a laugh out of how the libs try and blame Bush for Katrina.

Like Bush controls the weather!

And...I don't think anyone (but you) thinks "libs" are saying that. Naturally, the "libs" (and many independents and some Republicans) were horrified over the Bush administration's response to the Katrina hurricane, not to the hurricane itself. You may believe the Bush Administration was blameless ("Yer doin' a heck of a job, Brownie!"), but lots of Americans (including many non-Democrats) beg to differ. The Katrina fiasco (that is, FEMA's inept response to it) is widely considered to be the straw that broke the Republican Party's back in the 2006 elections and probably led directly to the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities we have today.

You might as well blame those "idiots" in New York City for being up in those two huge skyscrapers on 9/11/2001, too. No fault of anyone's but theirs, right?

Even Dan Bartlett, a senior White House Advisor to President Bush, said that because of the ineptitude surrounding the Bush response to Katrina, the American people lost trust with George W. Bush.

As for FEMA, James Lee Witt, the FEMA Director under President Clinton, turned it into a world class operation. I think nearly every disaster response expert would agree with that statement. Yet George W. Bush’s first FEMA Director, Joe Allbaugh, gutted it as soon as he arrived, outsourcing as much of it as possible to old political cronies. Then Michael Browne came along and the Bush record on FEMA speaks for itself.

After Katrina hit, former FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh was there hat in hand getting do nothing no bid contracts for his buddies like Halliburton. A national disgrace.

Where was President Bush during Katrina?

He was HERE and HERE

'Jindal was full of contradictions'

The same goes for the resident conservative troll.

Where was President Bush during Katrina?

He was HERE and HERE


That about says it all....

" I still get a laugh out of how the libs try and blame Bush for Katrina."

Well then you should tell Bush to quit saying anything that smacks of " I could have done a better job." Because he's said a lot of that.

I'm still on the Republican mailing list. I was amused that I got an email this morning from RNC Chairman Steele talking up Jindal's response and linking to a video of it. Sheesh, I would have made that video server temporarily unavailable if I was in charge...

Steele weighed in with some more dishonesty:

Governor Jindal makes some excellent points:

* To solve our current economic problems, Washington must lead -- but the way to lead is not raising taxes and putting more money in the hands of Washington, D.C. politicians. The way to lead is to empower the American people -- the strength of America is not found in Washington, but in the enterprising spirit of our citizens.
* Democrat leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it really does is grow the government, increase your taxes down the line and saddle your children and grandchildren with debt.
* To strengthen our economy, Republicans believe we must keep energy prices down, improve education, and promote confidence in America by ensuring we have the most ethical and transparent system in the world.

Let me make this clear upfront: The Republican Party stands ready to work together in a bipartisan manner with the Democrat leaders in Congress and the President to open new markets to American exporters, create more jobs at home and grow the economy.

But we will not march lock-step with the President and Democrats when they are wrong. The recently passed "stimulus" bill was one such example. Republicans were unified in our disagreement with Congressional Democrat leaders and President Obama on this bill. It comes down to this: The Democrat plan focused on putting Americans on the public dole, while the Republican plan focused on putting America back to work.

"Putting Americans on the public dole????" WTF is he talking about? The Stimulus Bill first of all was 1/2 tax cuts. The rest is investment in education, infrastructure, etc. Some extension of unemployment benefits doesn't sound like putting Americans on the "dole!!!"

Of course, this was a "red meat" email to hard-core Republicans (supposedly) - the 23-percenters - who may or may not believe this crap. I know not all of them will. It seems that more and more Republicans are seeing through this nonsense and at some point will have to insist on new Republican leadership with new ideas, not the same tired old lies and bashing of the Democrats.

Might be the 17 percenters now. CNN reported over 80 percent approval on that speech.

"Our party got away from its principles.
You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility.
Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington,"

Went along!?!?

They owned Government for 6 years!

"Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington".

Another moronic statement from the party in peril. During the six years the GOP controlled Congress and Bush was president, Bush NEVER met an appropriations bill he didn't like. He signed them all. Zero credibility.

Thanks to all of you for making it possible for me to not have to comment any further about the Republicans firing yet another missile into their own foot. Clearly, the GOP is hell bent on self destruction, and I am not in the least bit saddened.
********

I would like to make a complex variable theory prediction:

As the economy comes creeping back and the financial world begins to stabilize, the Republicans will continue to deny they had anything to do with bringing the house down to its knees and find some way to try and take credit for that which they deserve none (sans 3 of them).

I will give Gov. Jindall credit for at least acknowledging how the Republicans supported Bush spending contrary to the very values they claim they will now "refind." Yeah, right. Being obstructionists and saying "No" to everything is kind of void of any moral compass.

Skybill: Exactly what do you mean by "libs" when clearly 8 out of ten support what the new administration is doing and as Andrew pointed out, that 80% is composed of Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans (the ones that care about getting re-elected)?

I know it's early, but for my fellow libs, but who would you rather see as the next Republican Presidential Nominee?

Sarah Palin

or

Bobby Jindal

Palin hands down.

Yeah, I'd have to go with Palin, too. Maybe we should start a little PDXRadio PAC for her?

Yep. Palin.

As I said before, Louisiana has more crooked politicians than Illinois!

Ah, yes, Crook County, Illinois.

It is quite evident to me that Jindal has a ways to go in the oratary department. And that smile he had on his face as he walked out last night was kind of creepy. Just my read...

I think the GOP will go with a southern governor. But I'm can't imagine who at this point. The only one I think could appeal beyond the south is Charlie Crist. I doubt though he’d run against President Obama.

I cannot imagine nominating Palin for anything; that would be courting disaster. She'd probably score slightly higher in electoral votes than Walter Mondale did in 1984 or George McGovern in 1972.

I'd go with Crist of Florida for President and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota for VP.

Talpdx: I cannot imagine nominating Palin for anything; that would be courting disaster. She'd probably score slightly higher in electoral votes than Walter Mondale did in 1984 or George McGovern in 1972.

Higher than Mondale? Records are made to be broken, my friend!

Can we put you in for $50 in our PAC?

For some reason, Steele felt compelled to send a 2nd message today (this is not a busy mailing list) about his and Jindal's morning show appearances today:

In case you missed it, I hope you take a moment to watch Governor Jindal's appearance on NBC's Today Show this morning. As he did in the Republican address last night, Governor Jindal laid out the differences between Republicans and Democrats. In his own words: "We think it's more important to get the private sector moving rather than just spending government money."

Hey, Dr. Einstein, what about the hundreds of billions of tax cuts for small businesses and working Americans did you NOT understand about the Stimulus Bill you all failed to support? The whole purpose of that plus spending on a few public works projects was to get the public sector rolling again. Who do you think builds roads and schools? Private sector companies, not government bureaucrats.

The Stimulus Bill doesn't create a new Public Works Administration or some huge new government agency - it's goal is to get the private sector going - doh! You'll find that's much more effective than more tax cuts for billionaires.

These guys really need to work on their messaging if they have any hope of eroding the Democrats' majorities in the next election.

From the Seattle P-I:

Republicans, Democrats criticize Jindal's speech

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_panning_jindal.html?source=mypi

Early prediction for the GOP 2012 primary race.

Bobby Jindal
Sarah Palin
Mike Huckabee
Mark Sanford
and a yet to be named celeb.

Maybe it's my short term memory - and yeah, I suppose I could look it up - but I like to treat this like a conversation sometimes;

How often, in say the last century or so, has there been an opponent for the incumbent President from their own party during the primary?

"1932 Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover, his popularity unraveled by the onset of the Great Depression, trailed former Maryland Sen. Joseph I. France by 15 percentage points in the overall GOP primary vote; though he prevailed at the convention, his primary problems signaled the end of his presidential tenure. Roosevelt won that November in a landslide 57 percent to 40 percent."

"1952 (March 11): Though New Hampshire had been going first for more than 30 years, it had almost always elected slates of unpledged delegates. The 1952 campaign was the first in which the state played a major role in shaping the parties’ nominating campaigns. On the Democratic side, Tennessee Sen. Estes Kefauver outran incumbent President Truman by 55 percent to 44 percent; Truman, hobbled by public disapproval of the stalemated Korean War, had hinted he would not run again and announced his retirement shortly after New Hampshire, though he insisted the primary result had not driven his decision. On the Republican side, retired Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the commander of Allied troops in Europe during World War II, established himself as a force by defeating Ohio Sen. Robert A. Taft by 50 percent to 39 percent in New Hampshire. Though Taft ended up with more combined primary votes, convention delegates selected Eisenhower. Democratic delegates opted for Illinois Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson over Kefauver, who had dominated the total primary vote. Eisenhower easily defeated Stevenson in November, as he did in their 1956 rematch."

"1968: The presidential primaries played a major role in one of the most tumultuous and violent years in the nation’s history.

Growing dissent against President Lyndon B. Johnson’s massive deployment of U.S. troops to the war in Vietnam and the rising death toll in that conflict spurred a mostly youthful movement behind the primary challenge by anti-war Democratic Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, who held the incumbent to an 8 percentage-point victory margin in the March 12 primary in New Hampshire. Four days later, New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy — brother of the slain president and former U.S. attorney general — made a late entry into the race, also stating his strong opposition to the Vietnam War. Johnson on March 31 scheduled a televised address, expected to focus on the war, and made a surprise announcement that he would not run for re-election."

"1976 On the Republican side, President Gerald R. Ford — who moved up from vice president with Nixon’s resignation — became the first incumbent to have to fight for his nomination over the course of his own party’s primaries. Ronald Reagan, who had become a leader of the conservative movement during his two terms as California governor, ran a fierce challenge that fell just short."

"1980: This year’s nominating campaign was the one that firmly established the dominance of primaries as the major means of allocating delegates among the candidates. A total of 35 states held primaries in 1980, up from 26 in 1976 and 20 in 1972. The campaign also presented an early signal of the “front-loading” of the primary calendar, as several states — seeking to grab some of the attention absorbed by Iowa and New Hampshire — moved their contests to the early part of the process. From five contests held in March 1976, there were nine in March 1980, as well as two more on April 1.

Once again, the incumbent president found himself under pressure in the primaries. Democrat Carter faced a series of difficulties in his term in the White House, which included energy shortages, runaway inflation and interest rates that hindered economic growth, the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan and, most damaging of all, a November 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by young radicals supported by Iran’s nascent Islamic regime, in which 52 Americans were held hostage for more than a year. Carter's hold on the Democratic nomination appeared threatened by the challenge waged by Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy , the brother of the late president and New York senator.

But Kennedy got off to a stumbling start — starting with an interview conducted by CBS newsman Roger Mudd in which Kennedy was unable to articulate why he was running for president — and was burdened by a revived discussion of his 1969 auto accident in the Massachusetts town of Chappaquiddick in which a young woman passenger died. Carter, also aided by his control as president of the Democratic Party machinery, gained the advantage from the very start, trouncing Kennedy 59 percent to 31 percent in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 21 and 47 percent to 37 percent on Feb. 26 in New Hampshire — which was a must-win state for New Englander Kennedy.

On the Republican side, Ronald Reagan entered the contest as the front-runner and ended up easily clinching the nomination, though he had to overcome a stumbling start exacerbated by concerns about his age — at 69, he was seeking to become the oldest president at the time of his election — and his tough Cold War rhetoric, which some feared would escalate tensions with the Soviet Union.

The campaign began with an upset in the Iowa caucuses. George Bush — a former congressman, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., chief U.S. envoy to China and Republican National Committee chairman — ran as a more centrist and establishment alternative to conservative movement leader Reagan and scored a narrow 32 percent to 30 percent victory. Yet Bush’s claim of momentum, or the “Big Mo,” would be short-lived."

Shyguy, no Romney?

Romney? He couldn't win an important primary in a weak 2008 field of Republican candidates. Romney consistently lost every big primary the pundits said he would win. He spent a bundle in Iowa and was beat by Mike Huckabee (McCain did not even campaign in Iowa).

Why on earth would any Republicans support Romney in 2012? Even Republicans know a loser when they see one.

Well, this is more about who may run at this point, than who can win. I throw his name out as someone who likely will run again. That's all.

Mitt Romney = flip flopper. Abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, gun rights, minimum wage...

"Even Republicans know a loser when they see one."

Not sure I agree with that.
Some of them do, but a lot of them still think Palin is the Bee's Knees.

But Palin hasn't lost a primary. Romney has lost a bunch of them.

I don't look at Romney as loser because I think IF he had been elected president he may have some answers to what we are in for financially right now.

I think its that he has exhausted himself and thats why I don't think we will see him in 2012's GOP primary.

Run PAINlin run!

I had heard of Jindal before last night, but had not really seen him until last nights speech.

But something about him was familiar.

That was answered today:

LINK

I so love that character!

Wis it I never heard of this guy till after the election.

its like the Dems need a face or a name on the republican side to focus their attention on.

Mc74: its like the Dems need a face or a name on the republican side to focus their attention on.

Right, and the Republicans don't? Not that they don't focus their attention on Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton, right?

Yea, your right. The republicans do need that. he is called Obama. Pretty big name. Like Clinton. or Pelosi.

Does it make you feel better to know your party does the same thing as Republicans?

Just saying that the Dems seemed to have focus their attention on a no name scrub.

Mc74, out of partisanship (or hatred of the Democrats, or both), you are pretending the Democrats have a human nature about political opponents somehow different from the Republicans. They don't. Both sides focus criticism on popular figures of the moment. While you may have missed this in the news, there was a Republican president in office recently - not exactly a "no name scrub - and he did attract a bit of criticism from the Democrats now and again.

Jindal has been a known GOP commodity for a number of years. He served in Congress and was an appointed Bush cabinet undersecretary. It's not as if he didn't understand the rough and tumble of elective politics. He should have been better prepared. His speech was plain awful and the "stagecraft" sucked. Too, his speech was panned not only by Democrats, but Republicans as well. Where is Michael Deaver when you need him?

Each side has the poster child on the other side, the whipping boy/girl, to take aim on.

The GOP is FULL of them right now, fodder for the Democrats. Sarah Palin, now Bobby Jindal, are two examples.

Al Franken will become one for the GOP to target when he finally gets his Senate seat.

I just can't believe that some of the GOP governors are so willing to decline federal stimulus money. It won't mean less money in the bill, nor will it mean that the tax burden, or budget deficit, will go down. It's simply a politics-before-peoples-needs move that will ensure that things like health care and infrastructure won't be addressed. Jindal happens to be the governor of one of the poorest states in the United States, and one that is in the most need of infrastructure upgrades!

Other GOP Governors, including Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida, are saying that if these states don't want their share of the stimulus funds, then they'll gladly take them! Both realize the needs of the citizens of their states, and that this is a means to meet those needs, are more important than partisan horseshit.

I'm not a fan of this big of a bill, I don't know of anyone who IS. But let's get people back to work and stimulating the economy, not putting your personal principles and old, tired ideaologies ahead of those needs of the people.

The excuse given by Republican governors for declining federal stimulus money is that they will be required to change their state laws for unemployment compensation, and after federal money runs out form this stimulus bill, the state will be required to find money to fund it (i.e. raise taxes). So my question is, why can't they just change the laws back to the way they are now after the stimulus money runs out? Is there some restriction in the stimulus bill law saying that once you take the money your state must continue to fund the program? Or is this really just blatantly an excuse by Republicans purely playing politics?

Excuse.

I think it's typical of federal programs.

They mandate the states do something and then they don't provide the funding for it.

I think the stimulus money to the states should be a "no strings attached" package unless the feds want to continue funding it.

This isn't just an Obama or a Democrat or a Republican issue. The feds are good at pulling crap like this and have done it for years.

No Child Left Behind is a good example of it. (Not to mention that it was a bad program overall).

That's a bunch of horseshit Andrew though! It's a golden parachute being offered by the Obama administration, and they're going to deny it? How will they raise the money for the unemployment compensation NOW? THEY ARE BEING HANDED THE MONEY! Save the taxpayers money NOW and spur the economy and spending with the federal money hitting the state coffers.

It just doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

The feds do provide the funding for extended unemployment compensation. But under the terms of the stimulus, the feds have included certain groups of workers, including some who work part-time but were laid off, as those who are eligible for the federal unemployment money. Some states don't want to recognize that requirement.

...and if they do, they will have one hell of a time taking it away.

Kind of brutal politics.

I like it! :p

If there are strings attached as Skybill claims...what are they? If strings are attached here (states can't take the money now unless they fund future changes), the governors would have a point. If there really are no strings, it's just BS. I don't know whether there are strings or not.

The federal government certainly has attached strings to federal money many times in the past. I think strings are the only way the Feds can mandate a 55mph/65mph speed limit nationally: unless your state adheres to those speed limits, you can't get federal highway money.

LOL doesn't mean they ENFORCED that 55 mph/65 mph law though Andrew! Just ask Montana. I remember my father getting pulled over doing about 110 leaving Billings, back when it was 55. He was issued a citatin for "wasting natural resources", a $5 fine, payable on the spot, and it didn't go on his record. I didn't believe it happened until I witnessed it with my own eyes.

Andrew, I don't know what the strings are either. I just caught a snippet on one of the news programs and at that point wasn't paying much attention.

I just remember hearing whichever governor it was say they didn't like the conditions it came with.

They didn't say they weren't going to take any stimulus money just that part of it.

But under the terms of the stimulus, the feds have included certain groups of workers, including some who work part-time but were laid off, as those who are eligible for the federal unemployment money. Some states don't want to recognize that requirement.

Aren't unemployment benefits funded by the unemployment insurance tax that all employers pay on full time employees? If that's the case then I don't think part time employees are entitled to it (if the premium was paid on them, then certainly should collect it though).

If the federal money is to go to part time workers that don't get covered other ways, then by all means take it and give it to them but set the expectation that when the federal money runs out, that's it.

I would think that there is some other program other than unemployment benefits that would be used to help those folks.

Aren't unemployment benefits funded by the unemployment insurance tax that all employers pay on full time employees?

The money in the stimulus set aside for unemployment compensation is an extended benefit financed exclusively by the feds but administered through the states. It's for people whose state unemployment compensation benefits have run out.

KATRINA was not only a GOP BLUNDER. The state blew it as did THE MAYOR..... Yet they re-elected Nagin...Spread the blame.

....limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility.....Sounds great, but when it comes time to deliver...politics get in the way. Bush blew that "political capital" he was going to spend, like a sailor in a foreign port who just got paid. NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.

How can ANY administration say certain income levels will see NO TAX INCREASE. They need to specifically say no INCOME TAX INCREASE! You know damn well there will be a tax to fund alternative energy, whether it's a gas tax increase, tax on electric or nat gas or a carbon credit, THERE WILL BE an increase to those who think they are off the hook. by next election EVERBODY will be paying more... Tax Credits are misleading as well. They lead people to think the get to deduct the cost of a new storm door insulation, or furnace off their income. The reality is it's usually around 10% of the cost of the item is subtracted from your gross before you look at the tax chart.

.....Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida, are saying that if these states don't want their share of the stimulus funds, then they'll gladly take them....

And in the case of California... High taxes, Large GDP, Bigger GDP than most countries, and they can't make ends meet with their tax base...
Poor management of revenue/spending.Tons of regulation and the people kept coming...Unfortunate that they outspent their income....Surrounding states prepare for another exodus of Californians!


....No Child Left Behind.... Sorry, some of them need to be. Can't teach those who refuse to learn, and there is NO answer for that. No amount of cash will solve that problem.

...."wasting natural resources"....so we hear how we must conserve, use less, and develop other sources, yet when we do, we hear how less driving means fewer gasoline tax dollars and the tax needs to be raised. CLINTON raised the Fed Gas tax. Taxes have been raised in recent years at the state level. Maybe those monies ought to go for the purpose intended rather than the general fund.As a percentage of cost, Fuel taxes are quite high. Spend it on what you raised it for.

In many states, lotteries were supposed to raise money for schools. They didn't. They only offset existing monies which were put elsewhere. If part of the Stim monies are going for school construction, will that mean the school portion of my property tax will decrease? Will districts still put construction levies on the ballot?

One thing should have been added especially for some states. Unemployment benefits SHOULD NOT be counted as taxable income... (yes, some states pt employees pay into state UE funds and can collect
benefits) This used to be funded entirely by the employer. not so anymore.

I am sorry to see that corporate america whored themselves out for fed money. They happily traded gov intervention for dollars. I guess everyone really does have a price. Truthfully some of those institutions should have cleaned house rather than paid bonus money for screwing up. Bad behavior was rewarded with no consequences. Some of these places really should have gone under. The better run ones would have picked up the slack. Bet not many investment bankers have moved into their cars and getting groceries at the local food bank.

KATRINA was not only a GOP BLUNDER. The state blew it as did THE MAYOR.....

But ONLY the President blessed the event with contrails. The other two got down in the muck.

I was reading some of what Rush Limbaugh said to the conservative bund at the CPAC Conference in DC and I'm more convinced than even that these people are crazy. The offer no relevant alternative to the Obama Plan except to say we're going to fight him every step of the way. Even Ronald Reagan understood that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. I'm just befuddled by a political movement that seems more interesting in its own ideology than the country itself.

These people should be embarrassed for the way their conservative leadership behaved the past eight years. They made a mockery of their own movement. I think if they were to apologize in a sincere way, perhaps they would have more credibility. But they seem completely ignorant to the damage the day the past eight. It’s mindboggling.

Yeah, I'm baffled that these same people who supported the Republican president and Congress over the last 8 years that doubled our national debt and increased the size of government can with a straight face pretend they now oppose those things. Their cut-taxes-and-spend/borrow philosophy has been shown to be a bankrupt, failed ideology that only benefits the wealthy, not the nation.

The current group of conservatives really has no credibility on any of these issues. Until some fresh faces in the conservative movement come along who can champion fiscal discipline without hypocrisy, their movement is going to struggle. Damn shame, that.

He did not have anything NOT ONE THING that was constructive not one suggestion or solution, and he goes on and on about how he doesn't hate, isn't a racist, or a woman hater. BUT then turns right around and does it. All he did was BITCH BITCH BITCH. What a piece of work and people buy into his shit like its water for the drinking. He will be the person that unravels the GOP, he is the driving force of the division that is going to unevitably going to split the party and finally bring this country to a three party system.

Just my thoughts

I didn't see Bobby Jindal on TV until a few days after the speech, which I heard on the radio. My first reaction was, "Hey, is that Mike Jingozian on TV?" (Mike Jingozian is a Libertarian who runs Angel Vision, an Internet marketing company. He is the current party vice-chair).

I didn't listen to the entire Jindal speech, but I did hear enough to get to the point where it started contradicting itself. I got the impression that Jindal delivered two speeches that were carelessly concatenated. The first section sounded like a reaction to the speech that Obama had delivered minutes before; here, Jindall said that Congressional Republicans wanted to work with the President to end partisanship and deal with the current economic situation. Then, the tone of the speech changed, and the contradictions started to occur; that part sounded not like a reaction, but just a generic set of partisan talking points.

Shortly after that, I turned off the radio, as I didn't think that I would hear anything more of value there. Although I think that Obama has much better speech writers working for him than Jindal did, I want to see what these guys do before I get too excited about anything that they might say.

Tonight, 60 Minutes was praising Jindal as an amazing young politician (he is 37 years old) who is working to end the corruption that has run rampant in the Louisiana governor's office throughout most of that state's history. I hope that the 60 Minutes people are right, but having him give that speech seemed more like a hazing ritual on the part of the Republican Party than a competent attempt to promote the up-and-coming generation of Republican politicians.

BTW I was refering to Rush's CPAC speech.

>>60 Minutes was praising Jindal

It was a pretty good piece on Jindal..see him as a conservative leader in our nations future.

I could easily see Jindal serving in a GOP administration as a senior cabinet officer. As much as I liked the late US Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts when he ran in the 1992 Democratic Presidential Primary, he reminds of Tsongas (in terms of deportment and intellect). But not as president or vice president. Maybe he’ll run against US Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana at some point in the future.

There were two things that the 60 Minutes piece said about Jindal that made me queasy: he supports the teaching of creationism in public schools, and he is against stem cell research.

LOL!!!

Just caught up with this one. Count me in the PAC.

Yeah, Alfredo I'm not happy about teaching creationism in the public schools either. The stem cell bit is slightly better with me, but still worry some.

Betcha he's a huge home-school and voucher proponent as well.

It was a pretty good piece on Jindal..see him as a conservative leader in our nations future.

Jindal and PAINlin in 2012! RUN RUN RUN!!!! Landslide for Obama....

They should teach BOTH creationism and evolution. Both are just theories and neither has 100% proof.

If you are going to teach one, then teach both.

There is nothing wrong with home schooling. We home schooled our kids until our son was in 5th grade and our daughter in 2nd grade.

Both were fine going to public schools when we put them in.

We heard tons of times "Oh, they will be socially retarded" etc, etc, etc. BS. If they are, it's the parents fault. Our kids had bunches of friends when they were home schooled. And we didn't keep them from outside activities.

Now, some parents do isolate their kids and that's wrong. I'm also sure that some kids in public schools have parents that isolate them too.

Done properly, I think home schooling can provide a better education than the public schools.

They should teach BOTH creationism and evolution. Both are just theories and neither has 100% proof.

Don't think for a minute you're gonna get away with a deceptive comment like that -- intelligent beings exist in this forum.

Creation is 100% bogus, meaning NONE of it can be proven. While on the other hand, evolution's massive body of evidence grows each day and there exists NOT ONE single shred of evidence that conclusively shows evolution is bogus.

If you want to Madoff someone, go to another forum.



Remember the what goes around, comes around rule -- if laws are enacted to teach church BS in public schools, a legal door is open for evolution to be taught in Churches.

I've done some home schooling too. It was to close some gaps that were difficult. Reading, for example. One of my kids had that gap, and it just needed to happen. So we set everything else aside, and got that done.

All good.

The only context where theological education makes sense in public school is in the context of a comparative religion class.

For that class to make sense, critical thinking skills also need to be presented as well.

The student having that education will understand the difference between science (study and theory about the natural world) and theology (study and theory about matters of faith)

With that foundation then, they are well equipped to make their own choices about faith, and having made them, reason with them and understand others reasoning critically.

If that is done, I'm ok with it. That's a good public service, and a huge percentage of the problems we have with politics and religion boil down to people not having those skills in place.

So, fix that.

Introducing evolution and creation as mere "theories" on par with one another is a dis-service to the student. Their foundations are very different! We don't put creationism in a science class. It's theology, not science. It's that simple.

(thus, the theology -vs- science + critical thinking bit mentioned above)

The bottom line on this stuff is that it is a choice. Each of us decides what we want to believe and why.

This is NOT a choice for parents to make. That is mental abuse. Despite this, many try any way. It was done to me and i'm still pissed about it. Depending on the child, a lot of harm can be done.

If that's how some people want to play it, we've got Sunday School for that, and the law is simply that people have a right to try to do that. I don't like that, but I also understand that.

So then, the check on that shit is simple. Public school is an entirely rational affair. If we present things rationally, and honestly, as those kids mature, they then can do what they will.

Might take them a nice chunk of their 20 to sort it all out, but at least they can. (just like I did)

This is very important. It's not about me, or anyone wanting to make sure our point of view gets the majority mind share. Many think it is, and that's why we squabble.

The reality is that we need to present these matters in a rational way, so that we educate healthy people, empowered to make those choices they deem necessary for their own life.

That's what this is about.

And really, any of us that have a problem with that needs to grow up and accept the fact that others can and absolutely will choose as they see fit.

Denying young people that is abuse.

I don't agree with forcing evolution in churches. That's one of those life choices deals. Again, we've Sunday School for that stuff.

If, however a church wants to run a public school, they better damn well be rational, or lose any tax status they may have.

I don't want the abuse to happen. Only the education.

And one other thing: If the choices we would like to see our kids make have so much merit, then why be threatened by them seeing others and their choices?

As parents we have lots of family time, church time, and other time to make sure they see how we've chosen. That's enough time. Either they buy it, or they don't, and a big part of whether or not they do happens to be how well the parents model their theological choices.

(and choosing to not be religious IS a theological choice, just to make that clear)

I'm against home schooling and would prefer that it's outlawed unless the parent has gone through some serious training and is supervised. Just think if everyone home schooled their kid? Our country would go down the toilet as ignorance would become rampant.

The way I see it, the real world awaits children once they graduate, and if your kid can't make it through public school and deal, how are they going to make it in real life? There's much more to public school other than books and tests, and this can't be replicated at home no matter how hard anyone tries.

As for creationism, it should NOT be part of any curriculum in school unless it's a religious studies class. Creationism is NOT science and has no business being taught side by side with evolution.

I'm against home schooling and would prefer that it's outlawed unless the parent has gone through some serious training and is supervised.

Of course you are, and I'd bet the majority of the liberals are too.

It takes away government control of the children and puts it into the parents hands, where it belongs. And that just drives the liberals nuts.

In order to home school you still have to register with your local school district and provide them proof that your child is progressing. When we did it, we bought a curriculum (a very expensive curriculum, by the way) from a company out east and the tests and assignments were sent to them for grading and assessment by certified teachers. We had to provide that info to the school district on a regular basis.

The main beef that public schools have with home schooling is that they then don't get the federal funds if the kid isn't in their school.

Our country would go down the toilet as ignorance would become rampant.

Obviously you have no experience with home schooling. Kids that come out of home schools are every bit as intelligent as the kids that come out of the "government" schools.

The National Spelling Bee has been won the last couple of years by home schooled kids. I know that's only a minute fraction of knowledge, but these kids are not any less intelligent.

I suppose you'd like them to outlaw private schools too?

That way the government schools can indoctrinate our children with their ways and the parents won't have any say in it.

Remember the what goes around, comes around rule -- if laws are enacted to teach church BS in public schools, a legal door is open for evolution to be taught in Churches.

Nope. A church that runs a school, as does the church I attend, (it has a K-12 school) is a private organization and does not receive tax dollars. Other than making sure the school meets all accreditation standards, the government has no real say in what they teach.

Evolution has no more solid proof than creationism.

Sure species have evolved over time, but there is no proof that life crawled out of the slime in the swamps and now here we are.

Although, there are some bankers and Wall Street people that it could be said crawled out of the slime!

I'm not saying that creationism should be taught as fact. And neither should evolutionism. BOTH are theories and have no 100% solid proof.

Oh, and to add fuel to the fire, I'm 100% for school vouchers too.

Parents pay taxes and they should have a say in where their child attends school. The tax dollars should follow the child.

Now, on the other hand, if the public schools would buck up and actually teach kids and hire and fire teachers based on performance, like in EVERY other kind of job, then maybe, just maybe parents wouldn't be so reluctant to put their kids in those schools.

It takes away government control of the children and puts it into the parents hands, where it belongs. And that just drives the liberals nuts.


Putting into so some parents hands would be a losing proposition period! MILLIONS times worse than the Government.

"The main beef that public schools have with home schooling is that they then don't get the federal funds if the kid isn't in their school."

No, the main beef is that most parents can't do as good a job as the school does. Home schooling typically results in a narrow curriculum and is often ideologically based. I believe kids learn best by having a more broad curriculum surrounded by kids of all kinds. I have two female cousins who were home schooled and are seventh day adventists. Both have past drug use, tattoos, and one of them still lives at home at age 30. Not that they are bad people, but I've always wondered how they would have turned out if they had a normal childhood rather than the brain washing of home schooling.

As for school vouchers, what if everyone wants to go to the same "best" school? All vouchers would guarantee is that the better off students would attend the best schools with the rest of the rif raf attending the subpar schools. I would like to reduce the population of white trash, not increase it.

As for private schools, it's a free country so if you want to waste your money, that's fine. My experience with private schools is that my buddies who got shipped off to them are far behind in life compared to the rest of us public school graduates. I think a lot of parents fall for the trap that if their kid goes to private school, they will be better off.

> My experience with private schools is that my buddies who got shipped off to them are far behind
> in life compared to the rest of us public school graduates.

In what ways are they behind? Note: I am not a private school alumnus.

Vouchers are a no go for me. I'll go to the mat on that. Public education is an excellent service that delivers seriously good national returns when done well.

No way ever, will I support any attempt to dismantle it, which is what vouchers are about.

We can fix it, and we will fix it. Anything else is off the table.

Skybill, so long as evolution is taught as the product of the sciences, which have mathematics as their root, and creationism is taught as the product of theology with faith as it's root, I'm perfectly ok with that.

Anyone able to grok that distinction is gonna make out in life just fine.

Private school is a matter of choice. It's not a right, in that we don't set the expectation that everybody goes to a special school, or the school they want to go to.

We get those things done by people moving or making life choices, say that new boat or tuition for the kids, if it's that important; otherwise, standard, quality education satisfies our social burden to educate the people that will take care of us when we are old.

That's just how it is.

Your average, rational, critical thinker sees these things, makes their life faith choices and goes on about their business with no worries.

In fact, the only people concerned about this are those people obsessed with making choices for others, or who fear that others might make choices they wouldn't.

That's just a control issue. If it's that big of an issue, I'm perfectly ok with alternative school where people can get pampered and sheltered. Just pay for it on your own dime.

Vitalogy and I very seriously disagree on home schooling. I support it.

I have no problem with supervision on it either.

The beef is with "serious training".

I'm just gonna out something on this board. I'm nearly entirely self taught. My public education was solid actually. So was some of the college I attended.

A great deal of my secondary education was in the public library, getting it done on the cheap. Sucked, but I don't have loans to sort out either. Let's just say I didn't get that nice start from Mom 'n Dad. It was "hello world!", get after it, or work in the Subway.

(no brainer there)

I, however, was in charge of what mattered and what did not. That's a right I believe we all are entitled to, and I went to the mat for it MANY times in my life. As soon as I grokked this, I took it over and have made those investments in MY education that would pay off FOR ME. I can point to every single one of them over time too.

Support your shit. How many times have I said that here? Too many. Why do I say it? Because it works absolutely and completely. Never, ever fails. That's reality, full on, in your face, either deal, or kneel.

I was saying that in 7th grade people! (and I'm quite serious) I pushed back on them THEN for stupid shit. Won quite often too --truth is, when I lost that was a win, as I knew absolutely I had it hosed up. That's what school is freaking for!

You've all seen that modeled here many times. It works.

It's reality. Funny too to watch administrators, quite unable to support their shit, going off on a power struggle with a little kid who was fortunate enough to be mentored by some fine critical thinkers!

(thanks guys, BTW)

Here's the reality on these things. Not everybody has the drive, life influences, or ability to learn on their own. I grok that. There are some things that are best not learned in this fashion as well. Grok that too.

And that's the core of Vitalogy being opposed to unsupervised home schooling. Stupid people are gonna raise stupid kids, barring some outside influence that helps those kids get perspective.

This is why we have public school! Think of it as ignorance insurance. If we have at least that baseline, every young person has a chance. (just like I did)

What they make of it, is up to them, clearly.

The training requirement for home school parents is is not ok with me. Many people learn differently, many people have learning priorities, and how things are taught can vary as well.

I would much rather see a very simple requirement for home school parents to support their education plan. Period.

If you can't support what you plan to do and demonstrate how it's gonna work, then no home school for you. It's really that simple.

Now, for a lot of people that's gonna be tough. They might want to purchase some training and or assistance. That works much better for me, than some mandated thing that's going to get abused and be the focus of an ongoing struggle to position what is mandated training and such.

Frankly, our education system as it stands right now, isn't always the authority on how best to get education done! I know because of my own life experience, and because I did the work on 4 special needs kids and have been following their experiences in our school system.

I can honestly say both the schools and we as parents have learned a lot, made mistakes, and had to both work hard to get stuff done. That is how it should be as there are no sure things when debugging little people.

A whole lot of educators don't know shit, when there are specialized problems. And this is not a slam on them. It's just simple experience and exposure. Nothing more.

My wife and I didn't know shit either!

How to fix that?

Go hit the books, talk to pros, get good education on the psychology of the kids and sort out those education goals that matter, from those nice to haves, supporting that along the way, building metrics and testing for them.

Essentially, I got that training and supervision Vitalogy considers important. I got it through the simple need to SUPPORT MY SHIT.

Sorry for the rant, but if we are to go down this road and regulate home schooling (which I do support), and hammer on schools for doing this and that, we need to be up front and real about all elements of the problem, not just those we cherry picked.

There are no easy answers on this. There are only properly structured dynamics. It is my opinion at this time, much of this structure we have today could use considerable review.

I see an awful lot of emphasis on somehow insuring that public education does the right thing all the time (not possible), or a flat out denial of the value of it, (home / private school and vouchers), and a very real tendency of parents to not do their part in the process.

A ban on home schooling, vouchers to break down public school and other easy cheezy answers is nothing more than a big ass dodge.

(and there is a list of those here too)

The dodge being mainly for all parties to understand what they are doing, why and support that.

Sure, it's hard work. Welcome to the real world of parenting, educating and mentoring.

"In what ways are they behind?"

They never finished college, they do not have stable well paying professional jobs, and they are not married and raising a family.

That's often my experience too Alfredo.

Supervision would address that, along with good availability of education plan assistance.

I'm strongly for both regarding home-schooling, as I think the ideologically based education is simple abuse of the child. And you will hear no end of squabbling over that as the ideologues CAN'T support their overall education plan.

Nobody can. It's abuse.

I try to take as neutral as possible a position on the issues of home schooling and private schools primarily because I believe that strong proponents and opponents of each may be motivated by ideology, and because I have no way of evaluating all the factors that might make a public school, a private school, or home schooling the best fit for a given child.

I do appreciate that some parents homeschool for ideological reasons, and I think that is absolutely the wrong reason to do it. Contrary to the stereotypes, I have heard of various examples of ideologically-based homeschoolers, ranging from born-again Christians who believe that public schools would expose their children to sinful and non-Biblical influences to old hippies who believe that public schools indoctrinate children to become corporate workers. However, I have heard of others who homeschool because they believe that their children may have special learning needs that cannot be met in a large classroom environment. Maybe some of the parents who fall into this last category are onto something.

Vouchers are a carrot on a stick, dangled in front of voters, in my opinion. If a voucher could completely cover the tuition at a private school, then the government might as well just buy out the private schools. I don't think that we will ever see any kind of a voucher program implemented.

My own experience is that I attended public schools, I attended a private college and completed a Bachelor's degree, and I have been working in the electronics industry for slightly over ten years. All of the few relationships that I have had have ended in disaster, so I am not married or raising a family. Of course, this is all purely anecdotal.

" However, I have heard of others who homeschool because they believe that their children may have special learning needs that cannot be met in a large classroom environment. Maybe some of the parents who fall into this last category are onto something. "

Exactly why we had to go down that road. Got it done, but it was a PITA. Not easy at all.

Probably have some work this summer too, BTW. One is still struggling, and it's just tough to crack that nut, even with the quality educators and us parents all thinking on it.

They never finished college, they do not have stable well paying professional jobs, and they are not married and raising a family.

Serious questions; Are they happy? And are they leading a productive lives?

"Professional" jobs aren't for everybody. Maybe that person is very happy being a mechanic or a pipe fitter or a construction worker, etc. Driving a desk doesn't make you a success.

Maybe they don't want to be married and have kids? Raising a family isn't for everyone, nor does it make you a success either.

Personally, I'm glad to be raising a family. I'm glad for my grandson too!

I never finished college, I took the same quarter twice, flunked it both times and decided that enough was enough, and like Missing, most of what I've learned after high school has been self taught.

I don't consider my job as a "professional" job, but it's not truly a blue collar job either. It's somewhere in the middle.

Am I a success? I don't know. I guess it depends on your definition of "a success" I'm happy, my wife and kids and grandson love me, I'm well fed (very), have a house, 4 vehicles and more junk than I know what to do with.

If that makes me a success, then OK.

LOL!!

Well, I am a working professional. Damn good at it too. Why? Simple, I love it and make regular investments in it. That's all one has to do, given the foundation tools are in place. Public school does that. College adds to that. So can an interested person add to that.

The rest is just networking, which is half the value of that college tuition! Some beers, the right people and parties does the same damn thing.

Trust me, I know this. Did it.

I think this part of the discussion is too much generalization. There are lots of reasons why people don't marry. Our current policy has made many jobs unstable, professional or not. Go ask around. There are no sure things.

Home schooling has it's place. It's a good alternative to have on the table. Rather than reinforce that, isn't it better to just make the public schools run better?

I sure think so, and the educators who work their asses off think so too, even if a fair set of us don't realize they actually do that.

Professional does not equal white collar. Professional means you have a trade, a business, a talent, something of value that you use to obtain income. Not a watch the clock type job.

OK. I can go along with that.

Can you answer the questions though. I am curious.

Also, again seriously, not trying to be a smart ass, how or what do you define as a success?

(rant deleted)

We are getting off track though.

My point in this discussion is that legislating some mandated education training barriers for home schooling will probably pull up the morons, leave the mediocre just that, and has the potential to diminish those trying to get specific stuff done.

Better to setup a dynamic where people have to work for it. Support their education plan, and the need to do that will see the other elements fall into place, without having to insist that people use the same teaching methods for different problems.

When I see that kind of law, I always push back. We should legislate results and structure things to compel people to work for those results, not legislate the means and methods by which those results are realized.

If I am held responsible for something, I have control of it period, end of story. There are no choices in that, or it's just an ugly scene waiting to happen. This is what would occur, if we mandated training and such. Why even go there? It's a poor structure.

Supervision for home school is the right thing to do. Make them develop an education plan, support why it's a good plan, and run the metrics to verify that it in fact is a working plan.

Done, next.

Success is what you say it is, period.

Let nobody define that for you.

Understood. I just would like to know what Vit's definition of success is.

Not to be judgmental, just curious.

Of course, that's always a good question.

I'm curious about that with other people as well.

"Serious questions; Are they happy? And are they leading a productive lives?"

I'm not sure how happy they are, but in my opinion, they are not leading as productive a life as they could.

As for my definition of success, each person is going to have their own version, but generally speaking I'd say success is being a productive citizen in your community living a lifestyle you can support financially and achieving the goals that make you happy, such as raising family, owning business or home, travelling, etc.

As for my definition of success, each person is going to have their own version, but generally speaking I'd say success is being a productive citizen in your community living a lifestyle you can support financially and achieving the goals that make you happy, such as raising family, owning business or home, travelling, etc.

That works for me too. Good description. Thanks.