Why it Matters that Bobby Jindal Delivers GOP Response
Like many Republicans, I was heartened to learn that Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana had been tapped to deliver the GOP response to the President’s address to a joint session of Congress. In tapping Jindal, “GOP leaders are acknowledging that without a majority in Congress, the big ideas necessary to rebuild their party are likely to come from state capitols.“
Even when we had a majority in Washington, it was Republican Governors (and even a Democrat or two) pushing reform consistent with conservative principles. Elected in 2007 and having barely served a year, Jindal has joined their ranks. He has taken on the corrupt establishment of one of the most broken-down state governments in the country.
Not just that, less than a month after the party elects an African-American man to chair our national committee, it is showcasing this the “first American governor of Indian descent” as an emerging leader of our party. This will make it increasingly clear that ours is not just a white man’s party.
Jindal is more than just a reformer with an immigrant background. A Rhodes Scholar, he is one of our party’s big thinkers. Unlike the man to whom he’ll be responding tonight, accomplishments not rhetoric have marked his rise to national prominence. He actually had executive responsibility before taking the helm of the Bayou State. He was the youngest president of the University of Louisiana system.
He also headed headed Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals and has served as Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. In short, he’s the ideal man to respond to a president who wishes to make health care reform a national priority.
While those focusing on the nation’s capital for the better part of the past eight years might think the GOP is bereft of new ideas, those who turned to the states would now that most of the new policy ideas being offered came from Republican governors. Bobby Jindal is chief among them. Thus, I am delighted that he’ll be responding to a Democratic president who signature achievement in office has been enacting a “stimulus” which is little more than a warmed over wish-list from the files of frustrated Democrats these past forty years.
76 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You were upset that you aren’t seen as a Gay blog in the Washington Post. This is why you aren’t a Gay blog. There isn’t a Gay angle in your story.
Perhaps you could add a Gay angle to this story? About how Jindal feels about Gay public policy issues and how you agree or disagree with it.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — February 24, 2009 @ 7:23 pm - February 24, 2009
Jindal is under attack (Little Green Footballs, for example) for being a hard headed creationist. There has been an effective campaign on the part of people without religious tolerance to beat up on people like Jindal as right wing religious zealots. They are particularly hostile toward “Intelligent Design” and have a religious fanaticism of their own for all things Darwin.
I expect Jindal to be cut off at the knees by the MSM and “enlightened” progressives as soon as he begins to gain national traction.
I do not consider the “Intelligent Design” vs. Darwin conflicts to be settled, but I do find the religious-like fervor of the Darwinists to be remarkably spiritually based.
Late last night, I was driving a back road and I caught sight of three deer because of the reflection of my headlights in their eyes. Little Green Football type Darwinists would say that they evolved those eyes as a defense mechanism!
Watch any of the BBC films on nature and listen to the loony evolutionary claims that are packed into every other sentence. The probability of chance in adaptation can not possibly be any more predictable than a garden variety miracle.
I would love to hear the Darwinist’s explanation of being gay.
Comment by heliotrope — February 24, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - February 24, 2009
I am a big fan of Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal, as well as several other Conservative voices that have finally made themselves heard after this last (horrible) election.
However, after years of screaming that our party is one for rich white guys, our opponents now accuse us of parading out our very own ethnic minorities to act as “front men”. Hard to win with that group, eh?
And Heliotrope has a point. There are many who are so anti-Creationism that they have become borderline obsessed with Jindal. This coming from the “tolerant” left. It’s hard to understand why they won’t even entertain the fact that others have a different point of view.
Comment by jana — February 24, 2009 @ 8:01 pm - February 24, 2009
I think that intelligent design should certainly be taught as one theory of earth’s beginnings and changes. As long as along with that all other creation myths are covered from the various world religions. It would be an excellent way to get students thinking and challenging the “facts” they are bombarded with. But try to get that one to fly past either the ID folks or the Darwinists. Neither group wants free thought, they want all others to swallow their “truth”.
“I am a big fan of Michael Steele”
Good luck with that, I sure hope you’re not expecting any kind of change in the rhetoric against gay folk.
Comment by a different Dave — February 24, 2009 @ 8:18 pm - February 24, 2009
“And Heliotrope has a point. There are many who are so anti-Creationism that they have become borderline obsessed with Jindal. This coming from the “tolerant†left. It’s hard to understand why they won’t even entertain the fact that others have a different point of view.”
the difference is that evolution has been studied by scientists and is supported by (overwhelming) evidence. that is not to say that the scientific community currently knows everything there is about how we came to be, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution currently. creationism is a belief based on a book. i have no problem w/ people believing in creationism, i just don’t want it taught as “science” in science classes. it is not science.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 24, 2009 @ 8:23 pm - February 24, 2009
oh, ddave. your logic is so twisted. you can’t teach something as science that is not science. remember that whole scientific method thing we learned in elementary school? creationism could be taught in a class on world religions or in a social studies class that discusses social issues. but science class? no, creationism isn’t science.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 24, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - February 24, 2009
btw, i know i’m going to get criticized for being condescending or “elitest” here, but one of the reasons a lot of moderates no longer take republicans seriously is because of the very thing ddave and java discussed above w/r/t creationism. you’re never going to win a battle of ideas and intellect when your arguments are so shallow and based solely on religion.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 24, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - February 24, 2009
Given that Intelligent Design is a hypothesis in desperate search of a way it could ever be tested, proven or disproven – i.e., given that it is in fact an assertion of religious belief, not real science – I think Jindal should get some stick for supporting it. Having said that, I know Jindal is a good guy in other ways and I am eager to see him and/or Palin develop as leaders of you Republicans.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2009 @ 8:38 pm - February 24, 2009
I hope that Jindal give a great response to Obama’s attempt to sell this stinker of a stimulus package. In some quarters he will be severely criticized for his “belief” in intelligent design……….. I will let him answer his critics.
Comment by Swampfox — February 24, 2009 @ 8:48 pm - February 24, 2009
I hope Jindal can blunt this religion of Obama as the chosen one, the Obama diety, the pious one. The anti religious bigots in America are very willing to trust, fawn over and generally bow down to the almighty Obama. These Obamaphiles are sickening. They hate churches but willingly erect monuments to saint Obama. Odd.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 24, 2009 @ 9:22 pm - February 24, 2009
Ya just grabbed a hold of that “executive experience” nonsense when Sarah Palin was running and just couldn’t let go of it. I guess John McCain didn’t win because he too had no executive experience? Yeah, that’s it….McCain didn’t win because he had less executive experience than his VP nominee…..
Comment by Kevin — February 24, 2009 @ 9:37 pm - February 24, 2009
I’ve been telling everyone that would listen (even before the elections) that Jindal would be on the ticket in 2012. As my Governor, I’ve been very impressed with him. We’re all expecting great things from him.
Comment by David — February 24, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - February 24, 2009
bob, we have so many other things to criticize you on, so no worries there.
Kevin. So we can now safely say experience doesn’t matter to you? At least we’ve had 30 days to see how much damage lack of experience does.
Bases in Kyrgizstan, gone.
Allies in Pakistan, gone
Opening negotiation with terrorist states dedicated to the destruction of our allies, done.
Projecting weakness to the world, done.
Hanging human rights out to dry, done.
Selling Poland, Ukraine, and Israel down the river, done.
Destroying our childrens’ future with debt, done.
But by all means, keep mocking Gov Palin and Jindal…
Comment by The Livewire — February 24, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - February 24, 2009
There’s an email going around that lets you check on the projects in Porkulus. This link may get you there:
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state
But if it doesn’t, I have a feeling SOMEONE will send it to you. If this doesn’t get the citizens picking up pitchforks, nothing will. Looks like any mayor who was able to write got all his wishes fulfilled.
Yeah, Obama taught Constitutional Law. Too bad he never quite “got” the idea. Still, he WAS president of the Law Journal at Harvard. Sarah never even got CLOSE to Harvard.
Comment by polly — February 24, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - February 24, 2009
I was sort of disappointed by Obama’s entrance. I expected him to pretend he had a limp, fall over, do a somersault, and then show everyone he’s OK. After that, he was going to open the doors to his magic factory where we can have anything we want from his world of pure imagination. I expected him to not only say there were funds for windpower, hybrid cars, and mortgages, but also a magic chocolate waterfall. Oh, well, maybe that’s in the sequel.
Nancy Pelosi reminded me a bit of Veruca Salt as well.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 24, 2009 @ 10:05 pm - February 24, 2009
13: I’m happy to keep mocking Republicans. You’re clearly not getting the message from the last 2 major elections. The response to the president so far is to act like a bunch of babies. Complain and moan, but have no real answers because they can’t think of different, positive ideas; I love Republican Governors saying they won’t take money from the federal government is a particularly nice touch and its really a sure-fire way for them to get re-elected (or elected) in 2010.
And by the way….I’m watching the President speaking right now and I find it interesting that for such a united front against Democrats, most Republicans sure aren’t sitting on their hands: when the room is leaping to its feet in applause, it’s mostly the whole room leaping up. I know there’s a Decmoratic majority right now, but the majority sure as heck isn’t that big…
Comment by Kevin — February 24, 2009 @ 10:06 pm - February 24, 2009
so proud of our president
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 24, 2009 @ 10:22 pm - February 24, 2009
Kevin,
I know you’re used to democrats booing the president when he’s of the other party, so I understand you’re surprised when Republicans don’t do the same.
Comment by The Livewire — February 24, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - February 24, 2009
Why bob? Because he’s going to blame Bush for the next 4 years?
Comment by The Livewire — February 24, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - February 24, 2009
Oh, forgot to add.
Kevin’s reply and attempt at snark, just shows that he really doesn’t care about damage done to all of us, as long as there’s a D after the person’s name.
Comment by The Livewire — February 24, 2009 @ 10:34 pm - February 24, 2009
18: Well then, it’s generally a given that if you’re going to give someone multiple standing ovations, then you like what they’re doing saying. Giving a standing ovation isn’t something you do “out of respect”, it’s meant to show genuine enthusiasm. If you don’t agree with someone, you generally don’t leap to your feet.
Comment by Kevin — February 24, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - February 24, 2009
Bobby Jindal “GOP Exorcist” is not rejecting the stimulus package; he is instead rejecting a portion of it that goes to laid off worker for unemployment benefits. Why? He says this might lead to future taxes for employers. Although this statement is demonstrably untrue–and let’s remember we are talking about $25 extra for families: oh, the horrors of creepinng socialiasm! Before you all declare him a hero look at that parts of the stimulis he accpets along with the small potion he rejected.
Comment by Brendan — February 24, 2009 @ 10:42 pm - February 24, 2009
so, um…that’s the future of your party?
yikes.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 24, 2009 @ 10:44 pm - February 24, 2009
Jindal rocked, but he had to get past his rehearsed opening that sounded just as stilted as Sarah Palin did after McCain’s handlers got their hands on her. Once Jindal got going, he was great – but Obama is hard to top as a speaker. Jindal needs to steer clear of the handlers, and just speak forcefully. No more nice nice careful modulation, just force.
Comment by Charles — February 24, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - February 24, 2009
Looks like Jindal did read President Obama’s speech, because Jindal repeated a number of items Obama said during his speech and tried to make them sound like the Republicans ideas. I noticed that he tried to weasel in that old link back to Jimmy Carter about America has seen its best days behind it, completely twisting something the president said previously (which essentially said we had to work hard now to make sure America’s best days weren’t behind us).
Also, during the speech to congress, President Obama was very clear that taxes would not be raised on people earning under $250,000 a year, yet Jindal repeated the lie that working class people were going to pay more taxes. Huh?
PS – his PR people/speech coach need to work on his delivery – he sounded as if he was trying to address a group of 8 year olds: Another reason why Republicans lost…people are tired of that folksy delivery….it stopped working for Bush and they can’t keep using it…
Comment by Kevin — February 24, 2009 @ 10:56 pm - February 24, 2009
I have to say I could not watch Obama’s speech because I cannot bear the sight of Nancy Pelosi’s rich white condescending bitch face. I cannot wait until she is history, or six feet under.
Comment by Charles — February 24, 2009 @ 10:57 pm - February 24, 2009
Intelligent Design???!?!?!
wtf?
Comment by gillie — February 24, 2009 @ 10:59 pm - February 24, 2009
Classy Charlie
Just like the Sen. hoping for the death of a supreme court justice
Comment by gillie — February 24, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - February 24, 2009
Kevin – Yes, that delivery of the Republicans is so bad, like they are talking to infants. They really need to stop doing that in order to win in the future. Obama does not do that, he is forceful and smart about his delivery. Jindal can do it.
Comment by Charles — February 24, 2009 @ 11:09 pm - February 24, 2009
Sorry, but I literally cannot look at Pelosi anymore. I am starting to feel the same way about Michelle O too. Life is too short.
Comment by Charles — February 24, 2009 @ 11:10 pm - February 24, 2009
I was extremely pleased with Jindal’s speech. It was an absolute disaster for the Republican party. Even David Brooks thinks so!
If Jindal is the 2012 candidate I might believe in god after all.
Discuss.
Comment by PeeJ — February 24, 2009 @ 11:44 pm - February 24, 2009
Heh – bob, and we know that you always, always, *always*, ALWAYS, *ALWAYS* will be
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2009 @ 11:46 pm - February 24, 2009
Also, during the speech to congress, President Obama was very clear that taxes would not be raised on people earning under $250,000 a year, yet Jindal repeated the lie that working class people were going to pay more taxes. Huh?
Know how S-CHIP is funded,. silly Kevin? By raising taxes on tobacco.
Who do tax increases on tobacco disproportionately affect? The poor and minorities — or so the Obama Party was previously screaming.
Same with the gasoline tax, which is the next thing on the Obama Party’s list. But I’m sure Obama will continue to stand up there and lie and claim he’s not raising taxes on “working families” — even as cigarette taxes to fund free healthcare for children whose families make well above the US median average income and gasoline taxes to pay off the “renewable energy” companies in which Obama Party members like Nancy Pelosi inexplicably own large stakes siphon immense sums from those least able to afford it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 24, 2009 @ 11:52 pm - February 24, 2009
Filter, GPW.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 24, 2009 @ 11:53 pm - February 24, 2009
Obama really did say he was going to cure cancer didn’t he? Maybe I was wrong about him.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 25, 2009 @ 12:05 am - February 25, 2009
Yeah, it would be much better to add thousands to the welfare rolls and then stick the states with the bill when the money runs out in 2-3 years.
Watching the same damn thing on DVR. Nobody’s “jumping up” and there’s plenty of Republicans still seated. Many stood and applauded when Chairman Obama entered, but that was about it.
No word yet from those other seven states our country somehow picked up last year.
And who are those folks? Small business owners and entrepreneurs we need to get the economy going again. Do you honestly believe those taxes won’t be passed on? Do you honestly believe that they’ll all be able to pay Uncle Sugar AND hire more people?
Oh, that’s right. They meet the current liberal definition of RICH. They can afford to do anything. Glad they decided, finally, on $250K since they weren’t that clear about it during the election.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 25, 2009 @ 1:48 am - February 25, 2009
Kevin, executive experience nonsense? I think these past five weeks have shown how hav ing much such experience matters & how lacking it, well, leads to Treasury Secretaries who haven’t paid their taxes and can’t reassure the markets.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 25, 2009 @ 2:17 am - February 25, 2009
I will not vote for a Creationist. Period. If the GOP puts forward a looney-tunes science denier in 2012 Obama doesn’t have to do a damn thing, he’ll probably get re-elected with 75-80% of the vote, and I’ll vote Libertarian.
Evolution is a FACT. Accept it.
And after what Michael Steele said to Mike Gallagher on the radio, when he asked whether he would accept civil unions instead of marriage:
MG: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?
MS: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No.Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.”
I think he should be fired.
Comment by Attmay — February 25, 2009 @ 2:44 am - February 25, 2009
#35: I’m with you, TGC and The Livewire (#20). I don’t understand the happy happy joy joy glee coming from Kevin and bob (“so proud of our president”), or all this stuff about Democrats and Republicans alike leaping to their feet to give Obama standing ovations. Maybe they are leaping to their feet and applauding like crazed teenagers–I’m not watching it. What I don’t understand is this: what are we celebrating? Seriously, I honestly don’t get it. I completely understand that Kevin and bob are pleased that the party they favor is in power and that they support everything Obama has done in the last 30 days, including the stimulus. Fine–I’m sure you both had a blast on election night. But Congress and the President just enacted a law that will allow them to spend almost a trillion dollars. We’ve already spent billions upon billions bailing out banks, car companies, and insurance companies. And there will be more billions spent on the foreclosure plan (and until then, ACORN will continue promoting anarchy by busting into foreclosed homes like hungry grizzly bears).
Even assuming that you believe the stimulus is going to solve all of our financial woes, why on Earth is this cause for celebration?! Isn’t the fact that Congress believes they HAD TO pass this law kind of a downer? It’s as if just by signing the bill, the economy is suddenly fixed. There. Done. Easy. Break out the champagne! I mean, even the OSCARS supposedly toned down their annual lollapalooza so that regular Americans living in reality wouldn’t be disgusted by their usual opulence. But apparently our government now believes there is sufficient cause for dancing in the streets. Why? I just don’t get it. I personally think that NOT having to spend trillions of dollars would be a better occasion for a hoe-down, but what do I know?
Comment by Sean A — February 25, 2009 @ 2:55 am - February 25, 2009
Leona Pelosi had to rush the vote so she could go on holiday and Chairman Obama delayed signing the bill so he could go on his. Nevermind that we were told that we needed the porkulus yesterday.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 25, 2009 @ 6:13 am - February 25, 2009
Jindal was fine. He came across as kind, honest and humble compared to Mr. Me-Me-Me-I-I-I, self-aggrandizing, narcissistic, snake-oil Obama. I actually think its an excellent contrast. Sort of a Frodo to Obama’s Sauruman. Whats more, focus groups apparently liked him very much, which is certainly more meaningful than what a bunch of partisans think.
Comment by American Elephant — February 25, 2009 @ 6:38 am - February 25, 2009
With president Obama giving the speech, and Gov Jindal giving the rebuttal, Sen Byrd (D-KKK) was unavailable for comment.
Comment by The Livewire — February 25, 2009 @ 7:04 am - February 25, 2009
#41: This just in! Senator Robert Byrd was reached for comment at the ribbon-cutting of the Senator Robert Byrd White Supremacy Campground and Resort. When asked about the stimulus, Senator Byrd commented, “The stimulus is historic legislation that will bridge the divide between black nig*ers and white nig*ers. Today my sainted mother, God rest her soul, is smiling down from heaven. White heaven. Not black heaven.”
Comment by Sean A — February 25, 2009 @ 10:30 am - February 25, 2009
Touche’ Sean,
That was funnier than mine.
Comment by The Livewire — February 25, 2009 @ 11:02 am - February 25, 2009
#7 yeah bob, that’s a big problem I have – basing my arguments “solely on religion”
Comment by a different Dave — February 25, 2009 @ 11:19 am - February 25, 2009
#41-42: Funny you should mention ol’ “Sheets” Byrd; he has sent a letter criticizing Dear Leader for (of all things) a power grab:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html
The al-AP caption of Sheets’ photo makes me ill; they call him “a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.”
They avoid mentioning the fact that he was a former Grand Dragon of the West Virginia KKK and also filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
This guy is ready for the glue factory.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 25, 2009 @ 11:31 am - February 25, 2009
#45: That old cretin probably calls the President “boy”.
Comment by Attmay — February 25, 2009 @ 11:35 am - February 25, 2009
Jindal was OK. Uneven — very good when he was good. His use of anecdote was spot-on, even humble. I wish he could have included a few laugh lines and for God’s sake, when you discuss an issue as complicated as health care, the only way you can convey you have a depth of understanding that inspires trust in future office is to go into some depth within one paragraph. Instead of speaking in bland generalities, give an example and discuss the layers of problems, then contrast with your solutions. Jindal’s greatest strength is his brain, whereas Obama’s greatest strengths are his smile and his skin. No false humility, Bobby — and if you want to be president, don’t play the Louisiana card too often. And just because you were a child when Dad told you “Americans can do anything!”, don’t assume we’re children when you repeat the phrase ad infinitum et ad nauseum. Once during the anecdote and once at the end, contrasted with a particularly dour Obama intonation.
Still, at 37 he’s damn impressive. Go, Bobby!
Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2009 @ 11:46 am - February 25, 2009
Filtered. Again.
Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - February 25, 2009
According to the WashTimes, longtime reporter and terrorist sympathizer Helen Thomas was heard making a racially insensitive remark about Gov. Jindal, calling him “pitiful” and then making a “Slumdog Millionaire” crack. Link is here:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/02/25/twittering-helen-thomas
This from a woman who has called America’s enemies “alleged terrorists” and openly calls for the destruction of Israel.
And don’t forget Chris Matthews’ “Oh God” moment on PMSNBC last night. He wanted to bring Jindal on his show tonight, and Jindal refused since Matthews also stated that the GOP had “outsourced” the Republican Response to the Indian-American governor:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sargent/2009/02/25/chris-matthews-gop-outsourced-response-indian-american-governor
Boy, I’ll sure be waiting breathlessly for the ACLU to investigate these two “journalists.” Not.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 25, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - February 25, 2009
I’m watching Jindal’s speech. I know some conservatives panned it. At least so far (first 2 min), they’re wrong. Yes, he needs to get his hands / mannerisms under control. But flaws like that can be fixed, and this is a sincere, articulate guy with a compelling story. Let the lefties go ahead and misunderestimate him, HAHAHA! They won’t know what has hit ‘em, in 2012.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2009 @ 3:59 pm - February 25, 2009
“Who amongst us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?” [i.e., Porkulus]
Great line. And I’ll supply the obvious answer, that Jindal was too polite to supply: Left-liberals would.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2009 @ 4:02 pm - February 25, 2009
I’ll take his talking to me like a 1st grader over an elitist snob, looking down his nose, constantly telling me how much America sucks any day.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 25, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - February 25, 2009
And actually, we have to remember that boob, PeeJ, and the rest of the liberal left don’t have the world perspective we do.
In Republican and conservative circles, minority members tend to be well-spoken, polished, intelligent individuals with distinguished records of accomplishment — who are regularly namecalled as “sellouts”, “acting white”, “house slaves”, “Uncle Toms”, “kapos”, “acting white”, and so forth.
Contrast that with the typical Obama Party member — Cindy Sheehan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Louis Farrakhan, and so forth — and you start to see why boob and PeeJ truly see Obama as a miracle; they simply don’t know any black or minority people who seemingly aren’t welfare dependents, race-baiters, or lunatics who have managed to parlay cottage industries out of their race and gender.
Not that Obama isn’t all of the above; he simply doesn’t show it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - February 25, 2009
Jindahl was a disaster. If that’s the face of the GOP, then the grand old party will be the minority party for a generation, rather than just the decade they face now…
Comment by buckeyenutlover — February 25, 2009 @ 4:36 pm - February 25, 2009
Translation (from bullsh*t to English): Jindal told the truth.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - February 25, 2009
(and lefties can’t handle that, so they just say how they *feel* about Jindal, or what they want to be true)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - February 25, 2009
#5 bob drops this pearl:
Sentence #1: Being supported “by (overwhelming) evidence” is still theory. Science has not found the missing links nor replicated the process in the laboratory.
Sentence #2: bob says here that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Once again, we learn that the scientific method has failed to develop scientific fact.
bob further states in #5:
Well, bob, Intelligent Design, is the basis of Deism. It says there is master builder behind the mechanics. Einstein, unlike Hawking, was a Deist. Many important scientists have been left in awe when studying cosmology and the probability of positive evolutionary adaptation.
Evolution is a theory of science. Some simple facts of adaption, continuity and change in the process of evolution are complete and are certainly scientific fact. But the search for the creation of life is still a search. If lab scientists are successful in creating some simple life form from a chemical soup, they will still be a long way from making whales flies.
As a child, I was taught that oil came from the compressed grave yards of dinosaur bodies. That was science theory taught as fact. Pluto was also a planet. Cancer was contagious. There were three races. Science is full of mysteries and theories. Those are the fundamental strengths and flaws of scientific theory. We have learned to be circumspect about eugenics. But eugenics was a natural perversion of misunderstood Darwinism.
bob, you reject creationism, yet you seem ready to endorse Darwinism. Why? Darwinism has created a religion like cult of believers. It is also a “creation myth.” Except it gets to be called a “scientific theory.” Many Darwinists reject religion while fervently cleaving to the theory of evolution. Theirs is a deep distrust of faith and a ready acceptance of rationalism. On an evolutionary scale, there is only a miniscule step between rationalism and moral relativism.
I will ask you again: What is the evolutionary explanation for being gay?
(From my perspective, God has let gays exist for a very long time. From a law of nature perspective, gays are dead enders of the first order.)
Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2009 @ 4:49 pm - February 25, 2009
Not so.
1) Science has replicated the process in the laboratory. Experiments have produced / measured evolution in bacterial species in real time, i.e., in the course of the experiment. Bacterial evolution in nature has also been widely observed – e.g., the evolution of super-TB, super-STDs, etc. – and is recognized as an important medical danger.
2) As far as fossils / evolution of large organisms is concerned, science continues to find more missing links. Of course, the fossil record is inherently spotty and difficult to work with, so there will be a lot of links that need filling in. And it’s quite possible that evolution happens in relatively fast jumps over a few thousand years, say; Darwinian evolution (predicting continuous, incremental improvements) is only one of the theories and is not even the most popular theory today. (Side note: a favorite trick of ID advocates is to refute Darwinian evolution, knowing – but not admitting – that evolutionary theory has already moved beyond Darwin.)
Exactly. Well put. “It says…” In other words: it makes philosophical or religious *assertions*. That is not science. Intelligent Design is something that, by its nature, does not yield and never will yield measurable, testable predictions or hypotheses. Which means it simply is not science.
Note: I’m not saying it’s wrong. I am only saying, it is a different type of animal than science is. Just like art is a different animal than science, philosophy is a different animal, religion is a different animal, etc. Those things may convey truth, or “be truth”… but they still aren’t science. A fraud is committed, if any of them are taught in school (public or private) *as science*. ID advocates should man up and admit that what they’re doing, while it may convey truth or “be true”,*is not* science.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - February 25, 2009
(and the same with Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates, btw!)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2009 @ 6:02 pm - February 25, 2009
OK, bad logic alert!!! This is a false choice fallacy. You falsely limit the number of choices to two in order to produce the desired result. If Einstein were a Deist, that doesn’t mean that he would have accepted ID, and since it didn’t exist when he was alive, who can tell. That said I doubt he would have. From a letter sold last year at an auction, here is Einstein ’s views of religion:
Doesn’t sound like he was much of a Deist, and it doesn’t sound like he would have supported ID to me.
Oh, and since Deism is much much older than ID – Thomas Jefferson 1734 – 1826, was a Deist, ID is about twenty years old – ID can’t be the basis for Deism. Plus, Deist tend to lean on the side of science (Jefferson did) so I personally wouldn’t classify ID as a Deist idea. But maybe that’s just me.
Comment by sonicfrog — February 25, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - February 25, 2009
(AGW does yield measurable, testable hypotheses – such as, specific temperature signatures in the atmosphere that mark greenhouse-style warming – and many of those hypotheses have been disproven; it’s just that the Democratic Party, New York Times and Al Gore won’t tell you about it)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - February 25, 2009
“bob, you reject creationism, yet you seem ready to endorse Darwinism. ”
actually, what i said is i don’t want creationism taught as science in science class.
btw, gravity is “just a theory” too.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 25, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - February 25, 2009
13: Experience does matter. It was all that nonsense about “executive” experience that I got a laugh at. Overall, Palin had the least governmental experience out of any of the 4. “Executive experience” was used as a weasel term to try and bolster her credentials. Didn’t matter though; she stuck her foot in her mouth more than enough times to help sink McCain in the end.
Comment by Kevin — February 25, 2009 @ 8:14 pm - February 25, 2009
Experience does matter.
Obviously not, since liberals pushed Obama.
But then again, Kevin will support and endorse anything that Obama does as perfect, so why are we bothering? After all, Kevin is the boob who insisted that Republicans are building concentration camps and attempting to kill all gays. We’re not talking someone who can make any type of an intelligent assessment here.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2009 @ 9:17 pm - February 25, 2009
actually, what i said is i don’t want creationism taught as science in science class.
But you’re perfectly happy with Richard Dawkins teaching as science that evolution disproves God.
The problem here is not whether something is scientific; it’s whether or not it supports your worldview.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - February 25, 2009
For the record, I’m not. God can no more be scientifically disproven than proven. God is not a measurable, testable hypothesis, but a philosophical / religious assertion. Statements about God are simply outside the realm of science. Someone who tries to “disprove” God through science is just as much a fraud as someone who tries to teach God as science.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 25, 2009 @ 10:07 pm - February 25, 2009
um, when did i say that, NDT? that’s right. i didn’t.
straw.man.
question: do you know what the core difference between science and religion is?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 25, 2009 @ 10:58 pm - February 25, 2009
question: do you know what the core difference between science and religion is?
yes, boob; you support the one and hate the other.
Problem is, your endorsement of people like Dawkins who teach that evolution disproves God is, as ILC aptly points out, not scientific. But unfortunately, whether or not something is scientific is less important to you than whether you can use it for your purposes of antireligious bigotry.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2009 @ 12:43 am - February 26, 2009
Hey, would you look at that! Me and ILC actually strongly agree on something!!!!! Time to smoke the peace pipe!
Comment by Sonicfrog — February 26, 2009 @ 12:53 am - February 26, 2009
sonic, I thought you did already
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2009 @ 9:17 am - February 26, 2009
Just for the record: I accept the scientific facts of global warming, global cooling and evolution. I also have spent a lifetime in the field of ethics and logic. Having said this, I find the zealots of Darwinism to be intoxicated with the belief that science will so complete the grid of scientific explanation for everything that religion will be so marginalized that only primitives and true kooks will have faith.
This is nothing new. The school of skepticism is an old and honorable one. But the school of skepticism is always wounded by those who take scant evidence and ride off to distant, immediate conclusions.
Reuters reported yesterday about an ancient fish the has been discovered to have reproduced by copulation. This fish was a jawed vertebrate. Reuters reported the science here as the beginning of all reproduction by copulation of all jawed vertebrates (that includes man) as stemming from this ancient fish. One small problem which Reuters did not mention is that that fish went extinct in the Devonian Period. They made huge claims for evolution which may be substantiated in a few million years of continued fossil discovery and research.
Hypothesis and the jig-saw of evolutionary proof are two very different things. We have watched evolution take place among microbes and fruit flies. Not big stuff, but little stuff. If we can record fruit flies becoming reptiles, I will be really impressed. If we can watch fruit flies develop wings that make it look like a barn owl as way to scare off predatory fruit fly feeders, I will be greatly impressed.
The point is, like global warming, evolution has been picked up by the entertainment media and college sophomores as the starting point for a lot of fantastic tale spinning. Jules Verne was a tale spinner and science pretty much caught up with him. I expect much more of the evolution hypothesis to be proven. But every day, old evolution theories get dumped down the drain as new theories elbow them aside. This is the work of scientists. However, it is not science. Science is the outcome of the work of scientists and it is proven and it can be replicated and it is a “natural” law. (Not to be confused with “natural law.”)
As to ID being twenty years old, the concept is as old as man. Because the current Webster’s definition differs from Plato’s use of the concept is to engage in epistemological claptrap.
One final note. Darwinism run amok was the foundation of Hitler’s holocaust. When honest scientific theory becomes political fodder for the Al Gore’s and various despots, it gives all science a reason to be extremely careful and precise.
Evolution has become a term that is laden with a lot of meaningless baggage. The Pope acknowledges the fact of evolution. He can understand metamorphic geology. But the biological sciences have a long, long road to travel to bring proof to their libraries full of theories.
Comment by heliotrope — February 26, 2009 @ 12:19 pm - February 26, 2009
NDT, while i’m not a particularly religious person, i do not necessarily agree that believing in evolution and being religious are mutually exclusive.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 26, 2009 @ 6:43 pm - February 26, 2009
I hate pipes, actually…. unless the pipes in question are the vocal chords of a very talented vocalist.
Comment by Sonicfrog — February 26, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - February 26, 2009
Again, great job posters! Completely ignore Jindal within a Gay context. Jindal has a record on Gay issues. And it is deeply troubling for many of us down here in the deep south.
I thought y’all were whining about why you aren’t included in a list of Gay blogs. I could have read thes comments and postings over on Lone Star Times.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — February 27, 2009 @ 5:23 pm - February 27, 2009
Bobby Jindal is the greatest speaker and greatest thinker in the GOP today!
And yes HE WAS HORRIBLE!
As for borrowing from our children, they are tapped out, thanks to GEORGE BUSH!
Comment by Perkins — March 1, 2009 @ 12:32 am - March 1, 2009