Posts Tagged ‘Jindal’

Today was Sarah Palin’s last day as Governor of Alaska.  Some on both the right and the left have written her political obituary. 

The left, particularly radical feminists, hate her with a passion because she breaks all kinds of stereotypes they want to force on women.  She’s beautiful, married to a real man, has kids (more than one or two!), chose life for her Downs Syndrome child and hunts.  She’s their worst nightmare!

And that’s why she’ll be back.  She is going to have rock star status on the GOP circuit for years to come, and at the right time, she’ll emerge as a contender.  Of course, guys like Romney and Huckabee and Jindal all hope that emergence is far into the future (if at all).

However, I think it’s tough for the GOP to have long term credibility if we don’t have strong and attractive female candidates at the upper echelon of our party.

Don’t count her out yet.

Governors will have to make some tough choices that Congress and Obama have forced upon them through policy changes in the stimulus bill.   At least one Democrat Governor is seriously considering not taking the federal money, because of the strings that are attached.

For most Governors, it’s too much of an enticement as they struggle to deal with massive budget deficits.  In Arizona Governor Brewer’s case, she faces the largest shortfall as a percentage of the total budget in the nation – no state has it as bad as Arizona.

That’s the legacy of Janet Napolitano.  The inheritance she left her successor was a two-year shortfall of nearly $5 billion.  That is an absolutely staggering sum.

So, it’s not likely that Brewer will join Governors like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, or Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

But there is an important reason why Brewer will likely take the money – the obligations for Arizona are actually less severe than other states.  Jindal, Sanford and Barbour are reticent to take the federal money because they will have to make changes to unemployment laws and state health care laws to satisfy the desire Democrats in the House and Senate have for “government-creep,” that is, the requirement that states expand the scope of government services  to more and more people.

In an ironic twist, Napolitano had already broadened the scope of government so much that Arizona can take the money without fundamentally changing current law.

My point is this.  Brewer taking the money is not a sign of retreating on principle as compared to other Governors who don’t take the money.  It just demonstrates, yet one more time, the enduring legacy of a big-government liberal who tried to masquerade as a “moderate” and happened to be named Janet.

It was a great speech, from the stand point of delivery, timing and cadence.  And it was flat out terrible in substance.  More on that later.

I need to get this off my chest, as a former Congressional staffer that has seen 20-some State of the Union speeches (I know, I know, this wasn’t a SOTU, but it may as well have been – most people couldn’t tell the difference), and a few in person, it drives me absolutely nuts to see Members of the House and Senate line up along the aisle to get a chance to shake the President’s hand, and more importantly, be seen by the folks back home.  I know a little about the job of a Congressman, and I think it is a total and utter waste of time for grown men and women, with important responsibility, to go to the floor of the House hours and hours beforehand and sit on the aisle for their chance to get their mug on TV.  Blah! 

By the way, what was up with Pelosi’s horrendous puke green outfit?  Good grief, you are going to be seen by tens of millions of people for more than an hour and you wear that?!?

Do you think there is any specific reason that White House Chief of Staff sat next to Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano?

Ok, back to text.  Great delivery.  The Democrats in Congress were a little over-anxious with the applause. A standing ovation for Obama saying “nobody messes with Joe”? Really?  I suppose they were really, really excited to have a Democrat talking to them, so I won’t hold it against them.

I am really starting to tire of the phrase, “while the cost of action will be great, the cost of inaction will be far greater.”  I just don’t see how inaction could actually cost more than the $3 trillion+ that action will cost.

Obama seemed a little defensive about “helping banks”.  He must be hearing from some of his left-wing base about that and the polling must not look good (yes they poll EVERYTHING)  “It’s not about helping banks about helping people.”

Obama was also very, very good at blaming Bush without sounding whiney.  Phrases like, “it reflects the stark reality of what we have inherited… a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis and a costly recession.”

The discussion of energy, health care and education were a little sparse on specifics, but lots of lofty rhetoric.  One line that gave me a chill up and down my spine (and not in a good way) was:

So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.

That scares me.  Because when Obama says health care reform, he means government-run, government-managed health care.  Fewer choices, rationed care, less quality of life.  Please, Mr. President, we really CAN wait for that, we prefer to wait – at least for my lifetime.

I was stunned by this line:

I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.

Do you really think you can get away with such a demonstrably false claim, Mr. President?

The speech ended very well with a nicely written last paragraph:

And if we do - if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, “something worthy to be remembered.”

That is as close to Reagan as Obama got.  Not bad.

A highlight was Sen. Jon Kyl on the Fox News affiliates calling into question Obama’s claim about the “inherited deficit.”  He had a chart and everything – I had a flashback to Ross Perot - and it made me proud he was on message, willing to tell the truth.

If you missed Jindal’s response, read it, it is superbly written.  But he doesn’t have quite the speaking ability of the President.