There appears to be some enthusiasm for the idea of John McCain choosing Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate, to reach out to the GOP conservative base:
Even as the Democratic presidential contest seems to be morphing into Dr. Doolittle's mythical beast with a head at each end, the pushmi-pullyu, John McCain has the chance to make a leisurely choice of potential running mates. But he had better not wait too long.
The spectacle of a third of voters in the Republican primaries in Texas and Ohio voting for the doomed candidacy of Mike Huckabee suggests strongly that McCain still hasn't won over the base of the Republican Party. It's a question of trust, but verify. As Hillary Clinton says of Barack Obama, one speech does not make up for her experience as a housewife at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Nor can one speech by McCain at CPAC win over a disgruntled base of folks who may very well stay home, as they did for G.H.W. Bush the second time and for Bob Dole. The base is looking for action, not words.That's why McCain's choice of vice presidential running mate can make or break his candidacy. The party's professional trunk-waving pachyderms and the beltway bozos who think that pragmatism will win the new day are already offering up a list of business-as-usual candidates. But pragmatism is not practical in the long run. There's Governor Whatshisname from one of those Ice Belt states that always seem to be ready to fall over the border into Canada. Then there's that other governor in Florida who, seizing the opportunity, endorsed McCain four days before the primary. Some are getting excited about Condoleezza Rice, who puts forward a pretty face even as she has done nothing but act as a front for the Foreign Service Corps establishment ever since she got the job.
No, this is the time for change, real change. This is a time for someone whom everybody knows to be the rising star of the GOP, the new governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.
I disagree, at least in part because my priority isn't electing McCain, but preserving and promoting conservatism. Tapping Jindal as a running mate might well be a smart move for McCain, but it would probably be a bad move for Jindal, and for conservatism in general. Here's why. Given Jindal's remarkable early successes in pushing through significant ethics reforms in a two-week special session of the Louisiana legislature, there's good reason to believe that he may be able to demonstrate, through one of our "laboratories of democracy," the ability of conservative ideas to win, and to work. If Jindal jumps to run as VP to McCain, that potential is thrown away, and jumping ship so early in his term could undermine Jindal's ability to achieve similar successes later on, should the McCain/Jindal ticket fail in the general election.
Instead, Jindal should remain in Louisiana, and rack up as many conservative success stories as possible. Should McCain win in the general, it's possible that he might choose to step down after one term, in which case Jindal would be well-positioned for a GOP run in 2012. Similarly, if Clinton wins in the general, Jindal would be positioned to challenge in 2012. In either case, the experience of a nearly full term as governor of a southern state, and one in desperate need of reform, would serve Jindal far better in my opinion than four years as veep.
And even if McCain won and chose to run again in 2012 Jindal is young enough, at 36, to bide his time and build more experience and success as a governor.
Lucier is correct to call Jindal a "rising star of the GOP." It would be a shame to slow that rise by chaining him to McCain.
Who else [other than Bobby Jindal] in the GOP would you consider to be a rising star? Or more to the point, some one that firmly believes in "preserving and promoting conservatism"? Someone who believes in "small government" in the ways I seem to remember the original intent:
small gov't
=== fewer people employed by the gov't
=== fewer laws for people/business
=== less taxes
Far too many times is there a cut in taxes but no cut in spending. I can't do that with my personal finances [in a most simplified view of this] and I don't expect our government to do the same. I have seen nothing from the ranking Republicans that indicates to me there is any hope of achieving this particular goal.
I think we're in rabid agreement on most of your points, David. Quite frankly, part of the reason I self-identify as a conservative, rather than as a Republican is the fact that the GOP leadership so brazenly repudiated any pretense at being a conservative party.
That said, there are a few in Congress who are attempting to swim against the tide. Coburn (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/) comes to mind in the Senate, as does Jeb Hensarling in the House (http://www.house.gov/hensarling/). The problem is that the leadership of both parties have united in favor of earmarks and other abuses, so even though some of the newcomers are trying to sort things out, they're mostly fighting a losing battle.
One of the reasons I'd love to see Jindal continue where he is is that if he can be effective in Louisiana, it might make an impression on those who think that the key to success is buying votes through earmarks. I'm not necessarily holding my breath, mind you, but it's possible.