Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Jindal Rises Again

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is planning to re-emerge on the national stage this week. AP Photo/Kita Wright

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) will wade into the national debate over health care this week by penning op-eds in Politico and the Wall Street Journal and appearing on a series of cable chat shows today and tomorrow.

"Governor Jindal has seen enough," said Curt Anderson, a consultant for Jindal. "As a health-care policy expert, he strongly believes that the House Democrat[ic] plan would be a disaster for the long-term health of the American people, and the long-term health of the economy."

That Jindal is adding his voice to the chorus of Republican critics of Democrats' approach to President Obama's chief policy priority -- Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele will offer his own critique today at the National Press Club -- is evidence that the youthful governor sees a role for himself in the national policy debate despite a rocky introduction to the country earlier this year.

Jindal, who is widely regarded as one of the rising stars within the Republican party, was chosen to deliver the party's response to Obama's February address to Congress. His performance was, to be charitable, weak and turned him -- briefly -- into fodder for the late night talk shows due to his resemblance to one Kenneth the Page.

Allies of Jindal insist his disappearance from the national stage from February until, well, now, had everything to do with his engagement in the legislative session and nothing at all to do with his lackluster performance.

They note that Jindal spent much of his 20s and early 30s working on the issue of health care -- he was named the head of Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals at age 24 (!) -- and is a natural spokesman for the party nationally on the issue.

Regardless of the reason(s) for Jindal's re-emergence, it is certain to re-ignite chatter about his presidential prospects in 2012.

We see such a run as far-fetched.

First, Jindal's debut on the national stage was shaky (at best) and even his strongest allies admit he may need more seasoning. Second, it is logistically impossible for Jindal to campaign for a second term in Louisiana while cultivating the network of supporters he would need to compete in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. And, at 38 years old, there is little reason for Jindal to rush a presidential run; in 2020, he still won't even be fifty years old.

How Jindal is received in his planned health care push won't ultimately change his presidential calculus -- we strongly believe he will run but no sooner than 2016 -- but it will impact how he is perceived within the Republican Party establishment and the media for the foreseeable future.

If Jindal comes across as knowledgeable and non-partisan, the poor speech he gave back in February will be a distant memory. If he struggles, however, that speech will serve as a frame for the coverage.

Allan Crow, a Democratic media consultant who does considerable work in Louisiana, said that while Jindal may have been knocked down, he is far from out.

"Though his national star may not be as bright right now as other Republicans such as [Alaska Gov.] Sarah Palin, there is still room for a Republican star to emerge," said Crow. "So, while Bobby Jindal may not viewed now as the superstar some wanted him to be back in January, he is still someone to watch."

Monday's Fix Picks: The vote on the newest member of the Fix Political Hall of Fame is coming. Stay tuned.

1. Matt Bai on the "shuffle president."
2. A policy agenda at a fork in the road.
3. Dan Balz on Haley Barbour.
4. Walker Cronkite: Anchorman.
5. Mark Sanford on the future.

McCain Stays Active on Fundraising Front: Proving that he has no plans to step quietly into the background of the Senate following his 2008 presidential defeat, John McCain collected $524,000 through his Country First leadership PAC in the first six months of 2009, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. While McCain's take was well short of the $1.6 million raised by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney during that time, McCain's PAC total is still significant given that he is running for reelection in 2010 -- meaning that is where most of his fundraising energy is going and will go -- and that he is coming off a presidential bid in which all of his major donors almost certainly exhausted themselves physically (and financially). Several stalwarts from the campaign are on the PAC payroll including deputy manager Christian Ferry and regional manager Craig Goldman as well as fundraisers Carla Eudy and Becki Donatelli. Country First doled out a significant amount over the first six months of the year to a variety of candidates including longtime McCain allies like Sen. John Thune (S.D.), Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running for the Senate in Florida, former Sen. Mike DeWine, a candidate for attorney general in Ohio, and South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster who is running for governor. McCain also donated to the Republican nominees for governor in Virginia and New Jersey -- the lone statewide races on the ballot this November. The most interesting contribution from Country First? A $2,300 donation to former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential debt retirement committee.

Ensign In Trouble, Sez New Poll: Republican Sen. John Ensign's acknowledgment of an affair with a close friend's wife has badly hurt his standing with voters in Nevada, according to a new independent survey conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Thirty-one percent of those polled saw Ensign in a favorable light (down from 53 percent in May) while 38 percent saw him unfavorably (up 20 percent from May). While Nevada voters still don't believe Ensign should resign (34 percent say yes/54 percent say no), it is a virtual toss up over whether the Republican senator should seek reelection in 2012. The most amazing numbers in the poll? Six in ten Nevada voters believe Ensign having an affair with his best friend's girl is very serious while only 49 percent said Ensign's parents paying his mistress $96,000 was very serious. Seriously?

Ox/Watson (Almost) Do It: Whenever sports and politics intersect, the Fix smiles. So, we had a big grin on our face over the weekend when 59-year old golfer Tom Watson -- with Philadelphia-based Democratic media consultant Neil Oxman caddying -- nearly delivered on one of the greatest story lines in the history of major championship golf. Oxman and Watson met more than three decades ago -- Oxman was caddying to help pay for Duquesne Law School, Watson was a first year pro -- and since 2003 Oxman has been Watson's bagman more or less full time. Although Watson and Oxman came up short in a four-hole playoff to Stewart "Kitchen" Cink, the duo made the Open weekend -- without Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson -- watchable.

Lis Smith to Corzine: Lis Smith, who served as press secretary to former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe's unsuccessful bid for the Virginia governorship, has moved up the east coast to serve in the same role for Gov. Jon Corzine's (D) campaign in New Jersey. Smith is an itinerant campaign worker; she spent the 2006 cycle working for Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and then worked for Democrat Dan Seals against Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk last November.

Say What?: "My goal is not to stop the president." -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on his strategy for health care reform during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 20, 2009; 5:07 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sanford Apologizes (Again)
Next: The Most Important Number in Politics Today


In addition, the "I didn't kill Jews myself" defense did not apply at Nuremberg. All of America is being judged for the 50+ million elective abortions.

Posted by: JakeD | July 22, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8 said: Nobody close to Hitler ever heard him utter a word about the Jews outside his speeches.

I wouldn't believe this for a second even if there were no proof to the contrary, but there is plenty. There are many first-person accounts of Hitler going off on psychotic rants about Jews in private.

Posted by: JCharles1 | July 21, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I haven't killed any babies, Jake/Lisa

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

What Bobby Jindal has done for Louisiana Health Care would be disastrous for the country.

CityBusiness states: "Louisiana has reclaimed its status as the least healthiest state in the country, according to the 2008 America's Health Rankings released today (December, 2008) by United Health Foundation.

Last year, Louisiana ranked 49th.

Since 1990, Louisiana has ranked 50th every year except in 2003, 2005 and 2007." (Jindal has been a presence either at a state level or a federal level in health care issues for the past 14 years.)

"For Louisiana, the report cited a high prevalence of obesity, a high percentage of children in poverty and a high rate of uninsured residents."

Once again, we're first in the worst and last in the best...and Jindal wants to lecture the rest of the country about how to manage anything???

Posted by: casaheart | July 21, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Hope you had a good laugh, baby killer.

Posted by: JakeD | July 21, 2009 9:18 AM | Report abuse

For the record, I hold Hitler responsible for what Himmler and Mengele did.


hahhahhhahahaha oh please my ribs ache

For the record why don't you go back in time and perform a bloody citizen's arrest.

hahahhahahahah gasp must stop hahhahah

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 2:57 AM | Report abuse

hahahahahaha silly fool.

It was never about the Jews, that was just to get the base riled up. The real extermination program was supposed to be racial and global. The Jews were a trial run. Nobody close to Hitler ever heard him utter a word about the Jews outside his speeches.

But I wouldn't expect "JakeD" to understand that.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 2:54 AM | Report abuse

For the record, I hold Hitler responsible for what Himmler and Mengele did. All of them wanted 100%, not just 90%, of German Jews killed. I don't expect someone like "chrisfox8" to understand the morality of that. I would be happy to discuss Gov. Palin and how she is not Hitler with anyone else too.

Posted by: JakeD | July 21, 2009 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Has Piyush had his nose broken? It looks like it

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 2:08 AM | Report abuse

No, Jake, Hitler didn't make decisions like that. Hilter was one of yours and acted on the same divisive impulses that your party of allegiance acts on today. When your beloved "Gov." Palin talks about "real Americans," she's appealing to the same xenophobic weakness of character as Hitler appealed to with his "wirklichen Deutchern."

Decisions about race science were made by Heinrich Himmler. Former chicken farmer who walked funny.

The one you're thinking of was Dr. Josef Mengele, who stood on the Birkenau train platform and pointed to the left or to the right as the prisoners went by. Sorry to complicate your tidy little world with complicating detail, but Hitler never chose the who lived and who died stuff.

Leave it to you to see a parallel between medical ethics and bleedin' Hitler.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 1:16 AM | Report abuse


Sure these are complex issues, but keep in mind that Hitler made up the same type of definitions about which human life is worthy.

Posted by: JakeD | July 21, 2009 1:10 AM | Report abuse

He also is reading at a 4th grade level at the age of 3 1/2. In some sense, he's defective. In another, he's extraordinary.


Uh, if he's reading at a fourth grade level at that age you have another Goethe on your hands. I was reading at ninth grade level at age 7, and your kid is way ahead of me. At his age I had barely started to *talk*.


Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 1:06 AM | Report abuse

@BB: I think you're wasting your time with JakeD, his opinion on homosexuality is unassailably interwoven with his despicable politics. He seems to actually believe that being gay is in some way shameful.

If you want to read a really interesting discussion of autism in the context of a work of fiction, read Greg Egan's "Distress." It's only a few pages of the book but for me it's unforgettable. Egan has some of the best intellectual discussion found anywhere.

I work with one guy I'm pretty sure is autistic, I'm certain he's hyperthyroid .. I have to ask any questions with extreme care or he has no idea what I'm talking about, even if it's the project we are both working on and we spoke about it five minutes before. He leads a functional life, he's a stellar contributor. Autism is nothing like mental retardation, and I would not regard it as an abortion reason.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

The reason I spoke in support of vbhoomes was that the original statement was fairly broad. I will quote:

"Abortion SAVES money, every time a developmentally defective fetus is aborted we save hundreds of thousands in future treatment."


I think you've read enough of my posts to know that I'm not a person who would place money before life. I was responding to vbhoome's ridiculous statement that legalize abortion would be a major component of universal health care.

In the case of mental retardation, especially severe retardation, I think knowingly bringing such a child into the world is just bizarre. Mild cases can lead relatively whole lives, severe cases don't even know where they are. And it cannot be fixed, and when it can be fixed we'll be playing God, constructing personalities from a template. I'd be against that.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 12:33 AM | Report abuse

@Chris - I appreciate your thoughts as well as your honesty. We chose not to go for prenatal testing on several factors. The rate of miscarriage associated with amnio is roughly that of finding an anomaly. The test is uncertain, so I'm fairly sure a significant number of fetuses that would have developed into healthy babies would have been aborted.

I suspect that if there were an autism test, a lot of kids like my son wouldn't be around. Autism is a funny one in that it seems to be an interaction between genetics and environment. My other son has some developmental delays (social). He also is reading at a 4th grade level at the age of 3 1/2. In some sense, he's defective. In another, he's extraordinary.

I figure we short-circuited natural selection a couple thousand years ago anyway. Heck, with my eyesight, I would have been bear bait. Still, thanks for acknowledging the complexity of these issues.


@Jake - Homosexuality is a whole different issue, though I suspect shares some commonality with autism in that there is an interaction between genetics, environment, and experience. A good reason not to judge one or the other.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 21, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about your loss, BB.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 11:35 PM | Report abuse

It would serve him right if the "gay gene" could be tested for.

Posted by: JakeD


For reasons I already outlined and which no doubt went over your head, there is probably no such thing as a "gay gene."

But be careful what you wish on others, because had YOU been born before civilization, or into an aboriginal culture, with a brain as dim and dull as you have, there is little chance you would have survived. Either you would have injured yourself learning to provide, or your parents would have strangled you in disgust.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Since amniocentesis, yes, 90% of Down Syndrone fetuses are aborted upon identification.

Jake may have made his first correct statement since he started posting here in noting that I wish it were 100%.

It's not about dollar signs.

Nature is cruel, but for a reason, and I think that when we short-circuit natural selection we do much more harm than good. I agree with Fairlington about saving every life that can be saved, but there is nothing anyone can do about mental retardation.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 11:30 PM | Report abuse

I'd like Bobby Jindal to say he's "had enough" to a Louisianan who was denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Medical underwriting and denial of care are alive and well in his fair state, thanks to his "brilliant" leadership in health care.

Posted by: pcare_mdstudent | July 20, 2009 11:24 PM | Report abuse

It would serve him right if the "gay gene" could be tested for.

Posted by: JakeD | July 20, 2009 11:12 PM | Report abuse

VeloStrummer, the resemblance is primarily in speaking style and carriage, not physical.

Posted by: nodebris | July 20, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse


If it were up to "chrisfox8" every Down syndrome child would have been aborted.

Posted by: JakeD | July 20, 2009 10:58 PM | Report abuse

@chrisfox (&drindl) - Thank you for the clarification. I would agree with you that an abortion in the case that the defect is so severe is a kindness. I faced that choice myself a few years ago. At around 15 weeks, my wife had some bleeding. The subsequent ultrasound revealed that the fetus had stopped developing. In a real sense, it had died. They call this a missed miscarriage. Our choices were to in essence to wait for the inevitable or proceed with a D&C (in other words, abort). We went home, drank a few buckets of good wine (I think we spent about $200 on Pinot Noir), and cried a lot. As it happens, nature took its course and my wife miscarried around 3 in the morning that night. This is very very real to me.

The reason I spoke in support of vbhoomes was that the original statement was fairly broad. I will quote:

"Abortion SAVES money, every time a developmentally defective fetus is aborted we save hundreds of thousands in future treatment."

That statement takes in my son (who has autism, he's doing very well, but that is a developmental defect) as well as one of his classmates who has Down syndrome. The fraction of children with Down syndrome has dropped dramatically as most fetuses with Down syndrome are aborted. As I said, one of my son's classmates has Down syndrome. He's a wonderful little boy. I don't see $ signs when I see this little boy (and he gets a lot of services), I see a little kid who needs help. I can see why prospective parents of a child with Down syndrome choose to abort. I won't judge them for that. However, to cheer that decision on the basis of cost savings is obscene.

Let us touch on children who would not survive birth, but who can have normal lives. I"m thinking of children who have defects that can be remedied by pre-natal surgery. It's an amazingly cool development in my view. Actually operating on a baby in utero. Extraordinary. I'm certain the research to get to this point was hideously expensive. And surgery itself has to be expensive. I think this is why your original statement in favor of abortion as a cost savings was fundamentally wrong.

I'm not a knee jerk pro-lifer. Heck, I'm not even a pro-lifer. Yet, I see a tragedy in every abortion.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 20, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Sorry I missed this thread too -- looks like FairlingtonBlade and vbhoomes did a great job -- on topic, I would vote for Jindal.

Posted by: JakeD | July 20, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

You guys are so sexy when you talk about reproduction.
You must get all the girls!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 20, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Expert? Bobby is a "health care expert"?

Does shilling for the big insurance companies qualify you as an "expert" on health care? Or, does it just mean you'll do or say whatever they want you to say and they'll then return the favor with campaign contributions?

If Bobby is a "health care expert", then I'm Babe Ruth.

What a joke.

Posted by: snesich | July 20, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Where the HELL are you from?
It sure ain't MY America.
(See, I can TOO be hateful.)

Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

As someone who voted for Obama, I would like to see him show some leadership and tell Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the Congressional leadership to start engaging issues like health care in a serious way or else butt out and let the grownups step in and do the job.

Posted by: bot_feeder | July 20, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes said:

"Palin is not my 1st choice but I am now inclined to push her just so the liberal MSM can choke on her for 4 years. Its what they deserve after the way they trashed her."

Hoomie, did it ever occur to you that the left wingers may have intentionally trashed Palin so that conservatives would sympathize with her and rally around her as a Presidential candidate and thus guarantee a Democratic victory in the 2012 Presidential election as the public, recognizing she was not up to the job, would defeat her in a landslide?

Posted by: bot_feeder | July 20, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Jindal is speaking up now. Between Jindal and Palin I'm not sure which one provides more humor for me. Anyway, if Jindal wants to standup and say he's had enough, where his outrage at his fellow Republicans. It's intersting while each one is looking the other way or their covering for one another over on "C" Street, Jindal would do more for himself, speaking against that outrage. I can only speak for myself, but when a person commits "adultry" it tells alot about his or hers character. I would never vote for them. Just like I would never vote for a "quitter". That's Palin. I don't care how she prettys her reasoning, I see her very simply. A quitter.

Posted by: vikkids | July 20, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Mark, I hadn’t read the New Yorker article before…interesting. I particularly liked the statement, “But both reserve special contempt for the pragmatists, who would build around the mess we have…” Overall, I’m simply a rational pragmatist, very much interested in making things work. If I had to describe myself, guess I'd say I'm a Radical Centrist, leaning to the right on some things (fiscal policy, global trade) and to the left on others (civil liberties, healthcare). I might be a Libertarian if I had more faith in human nature.

This is why I’m an advocate for government-sponsored universal healthcare, in that I believe because it’s the simplest, it’s the path that can result in the best balance of services, coverage, and cost.

I’m familiar with current government healthcare… retired military using Tri-Care and also with a VA disability rating (still use my employer’s dental plan though). That combination works well for me and my family. In cost, and measures of effectiveness and customer satisfaction (remember, data, not anecdotes), government-managed Tri-Care, VA, and Medicare compare very favorably to private healthcare.

By the way, under the systems I think would work best, it’s certain that I’ll personally pay more in increased taxes or equivalent than for my current combination of Tricare and VA—those will not be needed because I’ll then be covered by the same national system as others. This will not be the case for the vast majority of people (most of whom will pay less than their current healthcare costs), and I don’t think that’s unfair.

Posted by: malis | July 20, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Jindal isn't "coming back," this is just another GOP puff piece. The doubts are buried deep in the text while the headline screams Next Big Thing, just like for Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney .. nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I'll tell you why Jindal is coming back now, Republicans are smelling blood as Obama's approval ratings are starting to slip.. Politicians!!!!

Posted by: pere5577 | July 20, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

severigegrab asks
"WHO is 'Kenneth the Page'?"

The latest in a long line of TV characters based on urban/coastal stereotypes of country bumpkins. Imagine a combination of Woody from Cheers and Radar O'Reilley from M*A*S*H and you'll have a reasonable approximation of Kenneth the Page (from 30 Rock).

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 20, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

@mark_in_austin: I haven't read anything about either, I've just reasoned it out. If the predilection toward being gay was genetically dictated then I would expect pretty much all identical twins to match. They don't.

Fraternal twins of mixed gender often produce decidedly masculine women ("tomboys"), I see a parallel.

But female homosexuality is different from male; there's substantial evidence that a woman can decide to be a lesbian much more than a man can decide to be gay. And that's consistent with female heterosexuality, where the relationship is more important than the sex (yeah I'm generalizing, sue me).

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

CF8, I have read reports that suggest male homosexuality is linked to prenatal development or womb environment, but nothing similar about female homosexuality.

I could find the research links for males tonight, I think, if you were interested, but if you know any links for female homosexuality and uterine environment I would be interested.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes -- like most republicans, you are simply creating straw men.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox, it may be in the near future, scientists will be able to determine the sexual peferences of the fetus. So what will stop Christian extremists from aborting their gay & lesbian fetuses. Its a slipperly slope you are on my friend.


Slippery slopes are logically fallacious.

I'm talking about survivability, not selection. But, OK, I can run with this .. the characterization of homosexuality as a defect is scientifically insupportable; the constancy of gays in the population across time and culture suggests an evolutionary equillibrium, not a defect. And the fact of identical twins heterogeneous with respect to sexual orientation (I've known several) all but eliminates a genetic component. I'm leaning toward uterine environment.

But let's say for argument that all this does come to pass .. it's still the mother's decision. She's the one who's going to have to spend 18 years feeding and raising the kid, she should be the one who gets to decide to bear it or not. Aborting to hold out for a hetero kid strikes me as frivilous, but then we already have abortions because the parents want a girl, or want a boy, or want him to be tall, or whatever .. that's the breaks.

Last I checked, being gay is survivable. Regardless of what Paul Cameron says.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

P.S. WHO is 'Kenneth the Page'?

Posted by: sverigegrabb | July 20, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, the US needs one of the approaches 'malis' mentioned in her initial post.

My very best friend is a German doctor whom I've known since we were 16, and we're both political junkies. He is horrorstruck at the American health care system as it exists.

I dare to speak for him as well as myself when I say that denying EVERYONE COMPLETE, AFFORDABLE health care IS criminal--truly 3rd world.

How would it be if all the 'pro-life' (Crikey! Is every term in this country market-tested???) advocates showed they had a care for some of the (presumably sentient) people already walking about? Or for the care of the unborn foetuses AFTER they're born?

I fear even the (eventual) health care overhaul will at best be nothing more than using a plaster over a gangrenous sore, but the Congress is only concerned about itself, NOT the welfare of the US populace.

to drindl: Very informative on Sen. Ben Nelson. So THAT's why he's being such a skunk at the picnic!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | July 20, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox, it may be in the near future, scientists will be able to determine the sexual peferences of the fetus. So what will stop Christian extremists from aborting their gay & lesbian fetuses. Its a slipperly slope you are on my friend.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

BB- you are mischaracterizing. You probably are not aware how many awful awful ways human development can go wrong, especially chromosomally. As chrisfox says, there is no reason to bring to term a fetus which can survive only a few minutes or months and be kept alive only on a machine.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

@BB: if the baby is going to die anyway why bring it to term? It's not so much the cost but the pointless suffering and pain. Especially when the defects are cerebral. Jake was acting outraged that an *anencephalic* fetus would be aborted, naming a single instance of one being kept alive on machines. I think this is completely abhorrent and twisted.

A lot of abortions are performed because the fetus is non-viable. I think any impulse to keep them alive is the humanitarianism run amok. And in case I need to state the obvious, I am not talking about aborting diabetics or other treatables. I'm talking about missing parts and unsurvivable developmental defects.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Wiki says his legal name is "Piyush Amrit Jindal". Piyush Amrit Jindal though talks with an American accent has the typical approach of an Indian politician these days- that is to squeeze the middle class to pay for the upper class.


That's not an approach peculiar to India, it's shared by Republicans in the USA. They really have no use for the middle class. Having a middle class creates an expectation that workers be paid enough not only eat three meals a day, but own their own cars and houses and big-screen TVs. Employers hate that. They'd rather sell to 5% of the world than 60% of America. Who needs a middle class? People should work for calories and live in company barracks. They can have conjugal visits with their wives if they really work hard, their kids will be raised in company schools where the most important lessons will be brand loyalty and reverence for their future employers.


By the way, the accent .. if Jindal spoke with a call-center accent nobody would be puffing him up as the Next Big Thing. It's really quite the phenomenon how Americans can't stand Indian accents (neither can anyone else I've heard of). I'm a guy who has lived with a succession of partners, none of whom spoke English as their first language .. I speak several languages including Vietnamese, which sounds utterly unearthly, you can't even pick out the words until you're well advanced into learning .. yet even for me an Indian accent is all but intolerable.

Years of getting Indian workers on customer service calls have not softened our reaction.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Where to start.

Obviously no one is familiar with the Louisiana legislative process. Lots of give and take, horror stories abound but in the end, health care came out very well. Draconian cuts were avoided. It is the annual game legislators play.

Poor health care in Louisiana? No. This may be the only state where charity patients can and do receive heart transplants and a host of other cares, including wellness, that most state/county charity systems refuse to do.

Medical inflation is largely technology driven. Because we don't have nationalized health care, we can and do figure out cures and better based outcomes largely through R&D and tecnical innovations that drive up prices but improve outcomes. That will disappear if the feds take over.

Jindal knows health care and if you really know health care, you know how much waste there is in the system that can only be coaxed away by the budgetary process.

Posted by: pub123 | July 20, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Oh please, after Jindals Mr. Rogers impersonation, do you honestly think anyone is going to take him seriously?

Posted by: NotFooledTX | July 20, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

@bsimon - Fox's original comment was "every time a developmentally defective fetus is aborted we save hundreds of thousands in future treatment." Don't you find that a chilling thought? It seems the value of a human life is being measured by the potential cost of treatment. I can't see how that is conceivably defensible. I'm with vbhoomes on this one.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 20, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

margareted ourselves to be conned all these years by the corporations who run this country, so I think that argument is fundamentally flawed, unfrtunately.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

thank you malis, good comments.

"The legal system is also very different and malpractice litigation negligible (as you say, a significant factor in the US though not as large as most think)…medical mistakes are reported and tracked much more easily and compensation paid from a fund established specifically for that purpose."

one thing that's seldom brought up is that 'tort reform' needs to center on malpractice reform -- which includes a central system of reporting and tracking errors. A very small percentage of doctors are responsible for an overwhelming percentage of malpractice cases.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

They keep throwning these losers, into he Ball Field. this guy thinks he is White... Somebody get me a box so I can start to wail... These people don't have any solutions. If they did, they should have brought them out when Bush was dismantling the country. Too late, now it will take many years to pull us out of the pit they put us in... I mean Jindal's Party...

Posted by: janeyre | July 20, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

@malis: my sister lived out the Bush era in Germany, she's back now, and she says the same you do; the healthcare is good, it's accessible, and it's universal. You can get an appointment the same day instead of three weeks in the future, you get seen promptly, nobody asks for money. It works. It covers everyone.

Why do people defend our system? it fails to cover a sixth of us, it's expensive, it enriches executives and has people suffering from treatable ailments. It's nothing to be proud of.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad the GOP has advised their crew to use the word "experiment" when talking about Obama's plan for universal health care. Seeing as this particular "experiment" has already been successfully duplicated throughout the industrialized world we, as intelligent people, should be able to perform it successfully, too.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 20, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Wiki says his legal name is "Piyush Amrit Jindal". Piyush Amrit Jindal though talks with an American accent has the typical approach of an Indian politician these days- that is to squeeze the middle class to pay for the upper class. In India, public hospitals are death traps being not funded much and rich folks enjoy all the healthcare as they can pay for it. No insurance there and if you are a middle class and poor Indian and develop for example heart disease and cannot find money to see a cardiologist and pay for the medication, you simply die. Piyush Amrit Jindal has this easy solution. Piyush Amrit Jindal a healthcare expert? He was just a teenage bureacrat. I am from England and of Indian extraction (so no one can blame me of racism towards Piyush Amrit Jindal)and we do not die here in England if we do not have money. There is queue in public health service( National Health Service) but the best surgeon/physician one can see privately also treats those in public health service and the standard of treatment is the same. Indeed, even though I have private medical insurance, my diabetes is best treated under public health care as there are excellent diabetologists working for public health service. Piyush Amrit Jindal
sounds like an Indian politician to me.

Posted by: normantheconqueror | July 20, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The rightwing MSM gives Jindal a pedestal to peddle GOP talking points and that's suppoed to constitute 'rising.'?

More llike being held aloft and carried by GOP stooges.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Drindle, I agree a starting point is needed so am glad there are initiatives in Congress. As Mark observed, these initiatives differ substantially from President Obama’s publicly stated priorities. Many on the left are unhappy that Obama is not taking a more forceful position, but is instead leaving creation of the actual votable programs mostly to Congress. I hope this just reflects his habit of taking the long view…he doesn’t insist on winning the daily news-bite battle but notice how often he prevails after 3-6 months.

But as I said earlier “We’ll probably move through a number of intermediate phases of greater or lesser efficiency and effectiveness…” I’m not fighting for any single one of the many possibilities out there (I’m OK with the Federal system of experimentation by the different States), but I will be very disappointed if the next federal step (and I do hope it will be passed this year) doesn’t have a substantial component of ‘inflation rate reduction’, however that may be achieved.

Vbhoomes, you may want to take a close look at Germany’s national system (I’d mentioned as “the interesting hybrid”)… ~140 privately-owned and managed HC provider networks receive a set amount of public funding for each patient enrolled. They can’t turn down any patient, for any reason. Most procedures have defined affordable co-pays. Patients can periodically change providers. The providers compete for patients (more patients=higher revenue at greater efficiency) based on customer service and on measurable outcomes (success by procedure published four times a year). Private companies can propose establishing new providers, which may replace the lowest rated existing providers (the new one must assume the assets and patients of the existing).

Medical school in Germany is, by the way, free (as is most higher Ed for those who qualify)…since they don’t start out with huge debts, most medical personnel are satisfied to be solidly upper middle class, with a much smaller pay gap between generalists and specialists, or doctors and nurses than in the US. The legal system is also very different and malpractice litigation negligible (as you say, a significant factor in the US though not as large as most think)…medical mistakes are reported and tracked much more easily and compensation paid from a fund established specifically for that purpose.

Need I mention that the data show much lower costs per patient, and much higher measures of both societal health and patient satisfaction than in the US? (and if you’re really interested in that field, I recommend starting with the professional journal, “Population Health Metrics” / …helps you recognize data slanted one way or the other).

Posted by: malis | July 20, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Naw, she's just practicing sanity BSIMON. God bless her.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

ts becoming evident no matter who the GOP nominates in 2012 will beat Obama, Palin is not my 1st choice but I am now inclined to push her just so the liberal MSM can choke on her for 4 years. Its what they deserve after the way they trashed her.


Republicans are trashing her too, you know.

She's offered to campaign for them and even for conservative Democrats. See any takers? Mostly they look at their feet or start counting the wallpaper patterns, or bolt for the elevator, when asked if they want to appear with Palin.

Come on, stop this obnoxious trolling, we already have Jake and channeling his tired points is just noisesome. The elephant in the living room here is the pretense that Sarah "Chauncey Gardener" Palin is something other than a complete idiot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Of all people to bring in on Health care, why Jendal? He's destroying his own state of affair in Health Care with his cuts. That poor state is suffering more than any of our states in the U.S. Come on, at least give us a good pick, ya screwed up chooseing Mccain/Palin-------The least you can do is get something correct! Good greif GOP, ya was talking about Sanford as a leader for Prez., Ya choose Mccain/P and now you want to through Jendal out there for a second time, when he was already knocked down once. Did ya give him speech lessons/new staff and a talking to? Ya, think it will help?NO, get some fresh blood in here, and help the GOP party and shut steel up permently, as well as session and grassely.

Posted by: abbytreadway2 | July 20, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Because we do not hold power in Washington, so their is no single GOP leader to rally around. The nominating prccess in 2012 will produce a leader. Only kidding about Palin, but she is now running even with Obama in the polls, should give you a good idea what americans think about Obama.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, you just don't know what you are talking about. there are fetuses with such profound chromosonal defects they have entire organs and systems missing, such that they will live only minutes or days or months once born and require intensive care every minute they are alive. and yet you would force poor women to bear them and all the heartbreak that entails, yet not pay for their medical care.

how can anyone be so cruel?

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"Hey Chrisfox, you seem to be advocating Eugenics will killing off a defective fetus."

vb- if you take a chick home and the next day she takes some ru-486 because she doesn't want to carry the baby of that crazy mofo vbhoomes, is she practicing eugenics??


Posted by: bsimon1 | July 20, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chrisfox, you seem to be advocating Eugenics will killing off a defective fetus. Hey Chrisfox, you seem to be advocating Eugenics will killing off a defective fetus.


It's not eugenics. If a fetus once born is going to go directly to life support and die anyway, consuming tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care in the process, I really don't see any point in bringing it to term, after which it will have all the legal protections of an adult.

Tear at your breast if you want, get as hysterical and outraged as you want, don't put me in the same class as Himmler.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

malis, that was an excellent post - I think you and I are revisiting some of the better discussions of last summer.

You would enjoy

if you have not already read it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes posted @ 10:13AM
"Its becoming evident no matter who the GOP nominates in 2012 will beat Obama, Palin is not my 1st choice but I am now inclined to push her just so the liberal MSM can choke on her for 4 years. Its what they deserve after the way they trashed her."

Palin is the republican fund-raiser-in-chief for the next 3-4 years or until she make another over the top verbal gaff.
She could not take the pressure as governor so there is no way corporate and neo-con republicans are going to put the ex-governor of the country's largest welfare state on the presidential ticket.

The GOP has been leaderless since Gingrich and Delay took over the party in 1994. The face of the republican party are senators like McConnell, Sessions, Kyl, Coburn, Hatch, Graham and Rep Boner.

So you'd better start looking for a leader first. A leader with a vision for the USA.

Posted by: knjincvc | July 20, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

This comment right here should serve as an indictment of the media and of all of us as a nation -

"His performance was, to be charitable, weak and turned him -- briefly -- into fodder for the late night talk shows due to his resemblance to one Kenneth the Page."

So his performace was weak because he looked like Kenneth the Page?

Jesus H. F@cking Christ. Is that what politics has become? Look, I'm no fan of the GOP or Jindal, and I think his ideas stink. But at least he can present them cogently and can form sentences using polysylabic words.

So I smart guy like Jindal is a nobody because he looks like Ken the Page, but a complete and utter idiot with nice legs and big rack is a star in Republican politics. Pretty pathetic.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | July 20, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I live in Nebr., and I can tell you drindl is right about Ben Nelsen. Anything to do with health Ins. that takes away from the private sectors in place now, Ben Nelsen will talk it down, and vote against it! The Ins. Comp"s back Nelsen in his campagnes, and he can return to the Insurance work after retireing from Senate. You have to look at why these Senators are not backing Health care, there back ground and how they are tied with Health Ins. giveing to their campagne. Jindal has a back ground ok, his campagne money comes a lot of the Ins. company's, as he backs the insurance company's in this. It's a sick game Senators (republican/demacrates), alike are playing with our health,our childrens health and our families. There only job is stop complaining and find a good way to do it, and stop useing this for Political football for darned points against each other.

Posted by: abbytreadway2 | July 20, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone checked on this guy. Sure he was a wunderkind at 24 and head of Lousiana's health and hospitals. But what Jindal did was not administrate the department, he cut its funding from top to bottom. Healthcare under Jindal's leadership in Louisiana was a disaster. And this is the guy the GOP wants to put forth as a healthcare expert? Bring him on.

Posted by: sundevil55 | July 20, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chrisfox, you seem to be advocating Eugenics will killing off a defective fetus. At least you are brutally honest about your beliefs, give you credit for that. And remember if a Abortion Provider should screw up the abortion and the defective baby is born, get a good Trial Lawyer (Obama can provide you with a list) and sue the heck out of them. don't feel guilty, the money is just taxpayers money through so called free health care.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

If Jindal could be bipartisan, he could certainly separate himself from the crowd. But after his last speech, I'm expecting nothing but party line rhetoric. If that happens, what are the odds of him just disappearing back into the crowd?

Posted by: theamazingjex | July 20, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"Two different articles came out today on healthcare reform. One is in Politico and the other is in the Washington Post. They both do two things that are inexplicable and inexcusable.

First, the president's healthcare reform package is thrown into doubt in both articles. Will he be able to pass it? Is he floundering? Is this reform effort in trouble?

When you read the articles, however, you don't get any reason why these assumptions are made or these questions asked. There are no poll numbers to indicate that the American people want healthcare reform any less - or that they are more skeptical about Obama's version. In fact, we know the opposite is true. There have been many different polls that show the public is overwhelmingly in favor of Obama's version of reform, which includes a public option (for example, a CBS News/New York Times poll had 72% in favor and even a poll done by healthcare reform opponents showed 83% in favor of the public option).

Those are unreal numbers and indicate that Obama has the public clearly behind him on this issue. So, what does the media do? They write an article about how Obama is in trouble on this issue. Their evidence? He called a "hastily scheduled" press conference on Friday that Republican Senator Chuck Grassley was not in favor of. Are you kidding me?

But mainly they almost seem to rejoice in pointing out that he is having trouble getting some of his fellow Democrats on board. That is true. And that gets us to point number two. Throughout both articles, they credulously point to conservative Democrats concerns about how quickly this is all proceeding or how much the plan will cost.

Did it not occur to these reporters that some of these so-called conservative or centrist Democrats might be against this reform effort because their primary financial benefactors are the same healthcare companies that are desperate to kill this bill? Would it not have given the reader a better and more informed perspective to at least mention this possibility? Or do you want to just take these politicians at their word?

Look, we all knew the healthcare industry was going to try to kill this reform effort, especially the public option provision. How did you think they were going to do it? Did you think they would just walk up to the media and announce, "We have bought these six to eight senators and they will vote our way because we paid them."?

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

CC wrote:

"The most amazing numbers in the poll? Six in ten Nevada voters believe Ensign having an affair with his best friend's girl is very serious while only 49 percent said Ensign's parents paying his mistress $96,000 was very serious. Seriously?"

Maybe the results would have been more definitive if the affair had been described correctly. It was his "best friend's WIFE", not 'girl". I know, CC was riffing off of a bad song.

Thanks to CF8 for catching that I used the original Italian spelling of "innamorata' to describe a female soul mate, when the anglicized form is "inamorata". CF8, Dean Martin sang a song entitled in the Italian and I have used the word since.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey vbhoomes, if all you're going to do is recite GOP talking points why don't you just link to some GOP propaganda site and give it a rest. Torts and abortions don't account for 50 million uninsured, those are just hot-button issues.

Abortion SAVES money, every time a developmentally defective fetus is aborted we save hundreds of thousands in future treatment.

Torts are just a distraction.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Here's a prime example -- Ben Nelson:

On May 1, 2009 Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson came out against including a public health insurance plan option as part of this year’s health care reform legislation. Sen. Nelson called the inclusion of a public plan a “deal-breaker,” according to Congressional Quarterly.1

Seemingly chastened by criticism about his opposition to significant health care reform, Sen. Nelson issued a series of “health principles” this week.2 The elements of his proposal mirrored what had recently been proposed by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the leading lobbying group for the insurance industry.

These negative comments about the best way to bring about comprehensive health reform, and his parroting the insurance lobby’s line, should come as no surprise given Sen. Nelson’s background, his campaign fundraising, and his other connections to the insurance industry.

This short report describes some of the pertinent information regarding Sen. Nelson’s background and connections to the health care and insurance industries.

Before entering politics, Ben Nelson spent his career as an insurance executive, insurance company lawyer and, early in his career, Nebraska’s state insurance regulator. He was chief executive officer of an insurance company and has sided with and received political support from business groups opposed to a public health plan as part of health reform.
“Nelson enjoyed a successful career in insurance law,” says his Senate website. “He has served as CEO of the Central National Insurance Group, as chief of staff and executive vice president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and as director of the Nebraska Department of Insurance.”3

In his 2006 re-election campaign, Nelson received endorsements from the National Federation of Independent Business, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Lincoln Journal Star, “NFIB jointed BIPAC (Business-Industry Political Action Committee) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in handing the Democratic senator strong business support.”4 These lobbies are either publicly opposed to a public insurance option, or are expected to be.

Sen. Nelson has depended on the insurance and health care industries to pay for his campaigns for public office.5
According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Nelson has raised more than $2 million from insurance and health care interests in his three campaigns for federal office.

Sen. Nelson has received $1,195,299 from insurance interests, $399,345 from health professionals, $258,483 from the pharmaceutical industry, and $195,138 from hospital and nursing home interests.

Of Sen. Nelson’s campaign contributions from the insurance and health care industries, 83.4% have come from out of state sources"

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Mark, you mean I have to go back that far and read your entries? OK, wait a sec… …yes, thanks for the O’Neill quotes. Those are precisely some of the initiatives that have been put forward as realistically lowering costs from the provider side (and opportunities for cost containment are there, both on the provider and payer side—I’d add more are available through the rapidly increasing automation of healthcare information, a topic with which I’m professionally involved).

We’ve ended up in the worst of possible worlds. It’s ridiculous that healthcare availability is tied to employment…in addition to the increased business cost, it distorts the employment free market (people don’t feel free to move among jobs because they’d lose coverage for existing conditions). Decisions are severed from actual costs because most consumers are not aware of those costs. Providers are motivated to drive up costs because they’re paid primarily by the procedure (the more procedures they perform, the higher their income). Payers increase their profits primarily by denying coverage, so they maintain huge costly infrastructures whose purpose in life is to slow down or eliminate payment.

In addition, the weird US healthcare system creates a perverse incentive to make healthcare more expensive through introduction of new technologies, tests, and treatments with theoretical benefits but without a demonstrable effect on overall health rates (measurements across a population). I guess I’m not particularly compassionate…I don’t think everyone deserves every possible potential treatment (interesting and evenhanded article on that in this week’s NYT, “Why We Must Ration Health Care”: ).

The current American healthcare system is broken. It provides neither the discipline of a free market nor the efficiencies of scale of a single system. Reviewing the data (and remembering the maxim, the plural of ‘Anecdote’ is not ‘Data’), we spend more per capita than any other modern industrialized nation while ranking in the bottom quintile in nearly every measured health outcome.

As someone once said in different context, if this system had been forced on us by a foreign power, we might have considered it an act of war!

Posted by: malis | July 20, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Mark, Tort reform would help address the runaway Health costs. But Obama took that off the table because Trial lawyers are one the democratic special interests groups. Obama miscalulated, he looked at the democratic numbers in the House and Senate and thought a bi-partisan Bill was unnecessay. Also, of course the dems Health plan would include abortions, which will further drive up costs. This is the most Partisan president in my life time, not through style but through the way he governs.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Mark, you have addressed the problem. The Blue Dogs and the Rs both are simply playing politics with the issue. They are not being helpful in the least. Most of them are too well-funded by insurance companies to even want health care reform -- that is the problem.

The chief constituency of Congress is now primarily corporations -- no longer even American ones-- not citizens, and as long as this is the case, who can we expect them to serve?

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

For eight years, the Bush Adminstration and the Republican party did nothing to improve or even repair our ridiculously bad system of providing healthcare in this country. And before that, the GOP did everything to keep President Clinton stonewalled on health care.

The Republicans would rather spin healtchare in circles M-F and golf on S, than resolve healthcare or (gasp) make it fair and equitable.

Posted by: molsonmich | July 20, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Lest anyone entertain the possibility that Piyoosh is going to buck the GOP and be a constructive critic of health care reform, remember that this is the PhD who claims to not believe in evolution. He's bought and paid for and grooms his fellow goopers for lice just like all the rest of the baboons.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

At this moment, the Prez's public pronouncements on aggregate cost containment are steps ahead of the Congress', drindl. He should be getting support on aggregate cost containment from bluedogs, but they are not being helpful. His left wants more federalization without regard to cost containment. The Rs really could play a role here b/c no Ds except the Prez even seem concerned about the disaster of rising health care aggregate costs regardless of the system through which we pay them.

I think a few of them may be helpful, say Gregg and Grassley. But I fear they will just snipe. Malis and I are not sniping. We are pointing up the staggering aggregate inflationary costs of health care that should have been addressed first and must be addressed now.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"Gov Jindal Rises Again" Check out what he is doing as Gov. of Louisiana Jindal is NOT ready for President of the United States! He is not concerned about people and do not love his own race as evidence by his wife and he saying they have NO Indian Values! They Like crawfish and not india foods my behind!

Posted by: turtlelovenurse | July 20, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I admire Reagan's policies that created wealth and won the cold war.


And there we have it. Reagan won the Cold War.

You idiot, if Carter had won re-election the SU would not have collapsed one millisecond later. Reagan had nothing to do with it.

Cherish your myths, they're all you have left.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Why do republicans hate this country so much, chrisfox? it puzzles me.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

bradcpa, i think you are the one who's drinking Jones juice, comparing Reagan to Obama is laughable, Reagan unleashed the great american free enterpise/capitalistic engine to turn the economy around and Obama is trying to kill it with European style socialism.


"great american free enterprise"

Give me an unlimited credit card and eight years before I have to pay the bills and I can look pretty damned prosperous too.

What Reagan unleashed was rapacious and unchecked corruption. We're still reeling from Reagan's ideological tomfoolery and Laffer's napkin economics. Grow up.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

i agree with you primarily, malis, but we have to start somewhere. As it is, people are dying because they can't get adequate medical care.

And there is a start to cost-containment in Obama's plan.

Why kill off our chances of getting anything at all done this year?

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

ts becoming evident no matter who the GOP nominates in 2012 will beat Obama, Palin is not my 1st choice but I am now inclined to push her just so the liberal MSM can choke on her for 4 years. Its what they deserve after the way they trashed her.

Posted by: vbhoomes


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you citizenship, Republican style.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 20, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Bobby "Kenneth" Jindal, the governor of Lousiana, a great state that was destroyed by Bush and Katrina, rises again from a diastrous State of the Union rebuttal wandering around, and wades into giving the right-wing mainstream media another snail crawling along the edge of a razor-blade messenger boy to exorcise health care reform.

The Republican Party of America, always acting according to its bosses in the health care and pharmaceutical industries shows once again that it knows how to take orders. The critical care question now is whether they will be able to marshall enough forces to swiftboat health care reform.

Posted by: Patriot3 | July 20, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

malis, you channel my 9:11A and 9:42A posts. And I completely agree with you. Again.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, if you can't argue honestly, don't bother. Transparent propaganda is BORING.

Posted by: nodebris | July 20, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I’m not satisfied with the current proposals because they don’t address the single largest problem—how to bring healthcare cost inflation (4x the rate of general inflation over the last 20 years) back down to the general inflation rate.

I’m glad Jindal has specialized experience in this area and welcome his entry into the debate—the more entries in the marketplace of ideas, the better the chance for good ideas. Given the history of his state involvement, however (some of the highest cost growth in the nation), I’m not overly optimistic that his ideas are the ones that will work.

Still, I am optimistic, at least in the long run. It may not seem like it yet but if you take a long-term view, the healthcare debate is over and overall outcome, inevitable—we'll eventually end up with a national program like the rest of the industrialized world. The reason it’s inevitable is that it’s not a liberal idea—it’s the position of the business wing of the Republican Party, supported by centrists like me, and by liberals.

We understand the current system places America at a tremendous disadvantage in the world economy. Because of an accident of history (WWII wage and price controls), US business pays the cost of workers’ healthcare. Global business competitors don’t. Our splintered healthcare insurance industry adds around ~30% to costs. Other countries' single systems don’t.

Our new system will be either single payer like Canada, single provider like Japan and France, or an interesting hybrid like Germany.

How will we pay for this? We’re already paying for it, and paying about a third more than other countries (per citizen). We’ll probably move through a number of intermediate phases of greater or lesser efficiency and effectiveness, but the end result is that the money we’re currently paying to insurance companies (including that substantial percentage that goes to providing emergency care to the uninsured) will go more directly (yes, through the government) to providing services.

When the changeover inevitably happens we‘ll pay less as a society and have better outcomes (in reference to standard societal metrics of health) just like the rest of the industrialized world. It may take 20 wasted years to get there but a single national healthcare system will put us back on a level playing field in the world economy, cost less per person covered, and improve Americans’ health. It’s that simple.

Posted by: malis | July 20, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Jindal could re-emerge as a central GOP spokesman for healthcare. Jindal could not just say no to Obama's plan, he could push for the direction he thinks healthcare should go in. Plus, he could push to inact some strategies to improve healthcare as Gov. of Louisiana. If Jindal could prove his strategies as governor, it would certainly make him a huge winner for Gov. in 2011 & set him up for US Senator Leindrieu's seat in 2014. That could definately put him in a great spot to run for President in 2016 or beyond. Jindal has alot of options and I don't think he should risk it all on a 2012 Presidential bid. But establish himself as an intelligent idea guy in the GOP.

John McCain will likely win reelection in 2010. O' Johnny will still be a national presence, as long as his health holds up. His givings does tell a few more stories, however. Thune & Crist are definately huge favorites to win in 2010. McCain's contributions just boost their fundraising totals to save for any national ambitions in the future. Mike Dewine of Ohio will likely run for Attorney General, and he will get the nomination hands down. The Guiliani donation was telling, as Guiliani is mulling a run for Governor of New York. That may indicate that he's leaning strong toward running. Also, in the SC governor's race, I guess we can conclude from the McCain donation that Lyndsey Graham has picked AG Henry McMaster for the governor's race. Wonder who DeMint will pick? This could end up being a great GOP primary!

Posted by: reason5 | July 20, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Apparently all Jindal has done is cut services to the poor. The good old-fashioned way of 'cost-containment.'

Let's call it for what it is -- rationing.

"Louisiana's community hospitals face financial devastation if the state Legislature approves the Medicaid reimbursement rate cuts implemented for hospitals and other providers, industry members say.

Under the emergency rules, Medicaid reimbursements to providers were cut by 7 percent. The reductions are part of the state Department of Health and Hospitals effort to slash its budget by $445 million for the new fiscal year, which begins July 1.

"If we're in a downward spiral to begin with, this is going to be devastating if we have to absorb these gigantic cuts," said John Matessino, president and chief executive officer of the Louisiana Hospital Association. "I hate to say, 'Everyone is going to close services,' and I certainly don't want to issue any idle threats, but I'm getting very concerned."

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

When Obama took office thigs were even worse than they are now. Does the koolaid erase your memory so you can be reprogrammed every morning?

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Well, BOBBIE! I'm FED UP with YOUR do NOTHING, RACIST party! How about that!?

Posted by: x4faith | July 20, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

From Louisiana:

"The case for reform is becoming still more urgent in Louisiana coming on the heals of a disastrous (for providers and patients] legislative session for healthcare. Medicaid is a big-ticket, unprotected item in the state's budget and the poor have no well-healed army of lobbyists to work the Capitol for them. As a result, the only opposition raised to a quarter billion dollars in Medicaid cuts were hospitals who will lose money through reduced reimbursements.

And, while the initial pain will fall squarely on the poor, ultimately those of us with health insurance will pay for these cuts, as hospitals and other providers shift costs onto those with coverage to recoup the lost dollars resulting from the state budget cuts. Oh, there is also the matter of the thousands of healthcare jobs that will be lost as a result of these cuts. But, it's all good because taxes were not raised and the Governor's presidential ambitions remain intact."

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

History lesson for a few of you. When Reagan took office, unemployment, inflation and mortage rates were in the double digits. Yes, the deficit increased, but Reagan was a man not God, three our four aint bad. When Obama took office, inflation was all but non-existant, the Fed was lending banks interest free money and unemployment was in the low single digits. Now, inflation is on the horizon, Goldman Sachs got even richer with Obama money and unemployment is now in the double digits in 15 states and rising. Reality tells me dems will lose the House in 2010 and the Senate and White House in 2012. Hate it for ya.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - That's what I've heard, too. But look at the map, costs were way too high in 92, and way too high in 06. He was head of the Dept. of Health and Hospitals in the middle of it, and then Governor. In the middle of turning around Medicaid, what happened to cost containment? The state has the regulatory oversight of all providers, it looks like it was done in a lax manner.

Posted by: RollaMO | July 20, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - That's what I've heard, too. But look at the map, costs were way too high in 92, and way too high in 06. He was head of the Dept. of Health and Hospitals in the middle of it, and then Governor. In the middle of turning around Medicaid, what happened to cost containment? The state has the regulatory oversight of all providers, it looks like it was done in a lax manner.

Posted by: RollaMO | July 20, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse


I don't always agree entirely with your comments (although we're often in the same 'ballpark'), but today I do--110 percent!

Really, it's like the blind leading the lame to put forth Jindahl as an 'expert' voice on health care, just as it was to set Sarah Palin ('I can see Russia from my window!') up as an authority on energy.

Why not Mitt Romney, with his smooth, unctuous, insincere manner? Romney, at least, pushed through a(n arguably bad) state health care plan for the people of Massachusetts.

Let's face it: the Republican party in it's desperation to counter the initial Obama 'wave', is trying to put forward as many 'token' ethnics as possible (viz., Michael Steele and Bobby Jindahl), as extremely distasteful as that prospect is.

We've already discovered that Jindahl is not 'ready for prime time'. Must we see a reprise of that pathetic spectacle--part Gone With The Wind, part Prissy/Gomer Pyle-style ramblings? Frankly, I'd prefer to watch Michael Jackson's hair catching on fire for the 300th time!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | July 20, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Thanx, drindl.

I want to add something else y'all may not know about Jindal - but I am not sure of my dates, here. I THINK that WJC appointed Jindal to lead a bipartisan study of Medicare funding around '98. Considering that the underfunded mandate of Medicare is over $50T for the rest of the century and nobody seems to care about it Jindal might offer some constructive information here.

I want to emphasize that a R with Jindal's experience and intelligence can make constructive suggestions.
Like Bsimon1 wrote, I do not think that he will. But if he does, then he gains credibility, and may actually be helpful.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Reagan didn't 'create' wealth -- he simply transferred it from the middle class to the wealthy -- as republicans always do.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

He's 57, Mark. A 'military analyst' for Fox.

"Here Peters advocates outright criminality in my opinion, overt military attacks on the media:

'…Future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.'

In my opinion, any media outlet that interviews this man or pays him a red cent in consulting fees is doing the deepest disservice to itself and the entire profession of journalism. Even Fox News, where this guy is most comfortable, should shun him. He’s advocating killing journalists!

To top it all off, Peters closes his essay with this piece of horrific, self-justifying logic:

The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win."

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

bradcpa, i think you are the one who's drinking Jones juice, comparing Reagan to Obama is laughable, Reagan unleashed the great american free enterpise/capitalistic engine to turn the economy around and Obama is trying to kill it with European style socialism. Get real, if Obama/Pelosi got their way with card check, cap and tax, and public health care, the economy would be in a serious depression. he screwed up the stimulas bill and now says we should trust him with healthcare. Only kool aid drinkers like yourself would buy the same broken down car twice.

Posted by: vbhoomes
Borrow and spend was Reagan's religion not Christianity and he also spent 8 years blaming Carter for everything. At least Obama is claiming Keynesian economics.....Republicans forget that they're supposed to fill the coffers when times are good and not just borrow at an accelerated rate.

You should be loving Obama.

Posted by: theobserver4 | July 20, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

My Louisiana attorney friends tell me that Jindal faced a destitute Medicaid program $400M in the hole when he was appointed, and he turned it around. I believe them; their admiration of him dates from the 90s and they are Ds. They are also unambiguous when they say few LA pols are honest by any rational standard, but that both Jindal and Mayor Nagin are. Nagin supported Jindal against Blanco in 2003 and when Katrina hit, Blanco's inaction was viewed in LA as "payback" to Nagin.

I suggest that when comparing LA today the appropriate comparison is not to any other state but to LA previously.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I am not into idol worship BSIMON, leave that to the North Koreans and american democrats. I admire Reagan's policies that created wealth and won the cold war.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, I have a used car to sell you. Trust me, I fixed all the mechanical defects.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I knew a retired Col. Ralph Peters but I am sure he is now deceased - he would be a minimum of 88 years of age.

How old was this man?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
"Reagan unleashed the great american free enterpise/capitalistic engine to turn the economy around"

Reagan borrowed and spent. If Reagan is your idol, Obama's imbalanced budget should be triggering pleasant flashbacks.


Posted by: bsimon1 | July 20, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Piyush Jindal on health care is like Michael Brown on hurricanes.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 20, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

OH -- and OT but just can't help it.

"Fox News wants to see the Taliban kill a captured American soldier. 'Supporting the troops' is just a lie repubicans tell themselves, apparently:

Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who has been captured by the Taliban and appears in a video released this weekend by his captors, “went missing from his base in eastern Afghanistan on June 30.” The circumstances of his capture are still unknown. ABC News reports, “Defense officials said it appeared he somehow left his base in Paktika Province at night, likely accompanied by several Afghan soldiers.” On July 6, the Taliban claimed that “a drunken American soldier had come out of his garrison” and was captured by them.

On Fox News yesterday, guest Ralph Peters, a retired Army Lt. Col., urged against leaping to conclusions. “I was to stress first of all that we must wait until all of the facts are in until we make a final judgment,” Peters said, but quickly added, “He is an apparent deserter,” “he is collaborating with the enemy,” and “we know that this private is a liar.” Peters then suggested that if Bergdahl is a deserter, the Taliban should kill him:

I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime, I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills."

Oh btw, GW Bush was a deserter. Guess they would have wished the same for him, huh?

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

nodebris, it's not just that Louisiana ranks so low in health stats, they're near the top in spending.

Posted by: RollaMO | July 20, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Typical. Cilliza thinks that because Piyush has had some experience with the pathetic health care system in Louisiana, he has something to say nationally. And this tells you exactly what you need to know about republicanism today:

"Though his national star may not be as bright right now as other Republicans such as [Alaska Gov.] Sarah Palin,"

God help us.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"Candidate Obama promised change. President Obama is conducting an experiment," Steele said, using the term "experiment" as party leaders were advised to do in a widely-distributed memo written by veteran Republican consultant Alex Castellanos. "He's conducting a dangerous experiment with our health care. He's conducting a reckless experiment with our economy."

Alex Castellanos, republican consultant extraordinaire. Writer of the famous 'White Hands' ad for Jesse Helms. Specialist in class warfare, now writing your health care policy for you. Just another super rich consultant managing to pull the wool over the heads of the rubes and make them vote against their own self interest once again.

The stupidity and credulity of people in this country is incredible.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Pupster, excellent point. According to every health report I've ever read, Louisiana is at or near the bottom. Example:

So we should listen to their governor's advice on improving health care? Jindal, heal yourself.

Posted by: nodebris | July 20, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, what a sad, delusional case you are. i feel so sorry for you -- swallowing every last pathetic lie and fairy tale.

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Check out all over the WaPo -- everywhere you look the 'liberal media' is attacking Obama and trying to kill health care reform.

Check out the editorial today -- straight out of the playbook of the kind of rightwing loons we see on this board. Instead of the Rs moving to the mainstream, you now have the entire republican MSM moving to the lunatic fringe:

"You get neo-con warmongering, establishment excuse-making and as$-covering, as well as sneering glibertarianism:

"Barely six months into his presidency, Barack Obama seems to be driving south into that political speed trap known as Carter Country: a sad-sack landscape in which every major initiative meets not just with failure but with scorn from political allies and foes alike. According to a July 13 CBS News poll, the once-unassailable president’s approval rating now stands at 57 percent, down 11 points from April. Half of Americans think the recession will last an additional two years or more, 52 percent think Obama is trying to “accomplish too much,” and 57 percent think the country is on the “wrong track.”

--Yeah- Obama sucks because the minority hates him, the economic crisis he inherited will last into next year, and because the decades of mistakes will take more than a few weeks to correct. I suppose the most annoying thing about the Carter comparison is that it comes around the anniversary of the malaise speech, and you should read it again to see how much of what Carter was right then about, he is still right about today:

"What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends."

Posted by: drindl | July 20, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

bradcpa, agreed. The good thing about taking over a plummeting economy is that, with a little care, it's bound to better in four years and you will get credit for that.

Posted by: nodebris | July 20, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

This is the same guy who mocked volcano monitoring right before the volcano in Alaska exploded, right?

Posted by: nodebris | July 20, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

bradcpa, i think you are the one who's drinking Jones juice, comparing Reagan to Obama is laughable, Reagan unleashed the great american free enterpise/capitalistic engine to turn the economy around and Obama is trying to kill it with European style socialism. Get real, if Obama/Pelosi got their way with card check, cap and tax, and public health care, the economy would be in a serious depression. he screwed up the stimulas bill and now says we should trust him with healthcare. Only kool aid drinkers like yourself would buy the same broken down car twice.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I want to say one thing to our Republican friends who post here... quit drinking the Kool-Aid. Now I will tell you what you do not want to hear. First look at graphs of past presidential approval ratings. I want you to look at Ronald Reagan's approval in 1982-1983. There are many reasons why I compare the two presidencies. They include the fact that both men are transformative, excellent communicators, pragmatic, driven by philosophy and most importantly inherited a bad economy. Both took bold steps to cure the economy and had to suffer with a period before the steps taken took effect. Reagan benefited when the economy came back in 2004 just like Obama will benefit as this economy comes back. Second look at the leading economic indicators. They are coming back stronger than anytime in the past 25 years. Do not expect a lagging indicator like unemployment to come down for a year but it will. The incidental indicators show we are still in a recession so it will be in the fall before the expansion starts. So look for the Obama recovery to hit right before the mid-terms and Obama being luckier than Reagan. He should be able to hold both houses and the Republicans will have egg all over their faces.

Posted by: bradcpa | July 20, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Jindal "knows something about healthcare." I wonder if he knows that from 1992 through 2006, Medicare costs per patient in his state stayed at the third highest in the country, behind only New York and New Jersey (even Mass. had lower costs). What exactly did he do as the head of the Dept. of Health and Hospitals, or as Governor, that did anything to impact these high costs?

Posted by: RollaMO | July 20, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

What Good is Health Care Reform When a Fed-Enabled Multi-Agency "Program" Violates the Civil and Human Rights of the Unjustly "Targeted"?


FEMA, Secret Service, FBI, the U.S. military and intel agencies are among the federal enablers of volunteer community policing, anti-terrorism and town watch organizations transmogrified by Bush-Cheney into fronts for a nationwide, civilian Gestapo-like army. The "program" is now enabled by the naivete of Team Obama.

This grassroots-based extrajudicial targeting and punishment "torture matrix" uses covertly implanted GPS tracking devices to stalk, harass, vandalize and terrorize unjustly "targeted" Americans and their families.

When "targets" travel, the GPS system alerts local units of this American Gestapo, and the harassment follows. Local police cooperation denies these targeted Americans their Constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

Silent, injury- and illness-inducing microwave and laser radiation "directed energy weapons" are being used to torture, and to degrade the lives of targeted citizens -- what could be described as a quiet, ideologically-motivated genocide.

And companion array of “programs of personal financial destruction — using the IRS as a political weapon — decimates the finances of “target” families. Their telecommunications and U.S. mail appear to be subject to warrantless surveillance, interception and tampering — including the alteration of financial accounts and credit card and utility billing statements.

This cruel bypass of the American judicial system makes a mockery of the rule of law -- and political "dissidents," "whistle-blowers" and those considered to be social "deviates" are among its prime targets.

Civil rights advocates: Wake up and smell the police state that has co-opted POTUS and a deluded Congress into becoming enablers of vigilante injustice and domestic torture.

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

See "GESTAPO USA" at ("stream" or "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 20, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Its becoming evident no matter who the GOP nominates in 2012 will beat Obama, Palin is not my 1st choice but I am now inclined to push her just so the liberal MSM can choke on her for 4 years. Its what they deserve after the way they trashed her.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 20, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Who's Bobby Jindal?

I rest my case...

Posted by: parkerfl1 | July 20, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon1, I anticipate no better, but a responsible R might focus on aggregate costs by asking:

Which of the proposals will attack infectious disease breeding grounds by placing public health nurses in every public school again?

Which of the proposals will move care for the indigent out of the regional hospital emergency rooms and into pharmacies, public health clinics, and storefronts, staffed largely by nurse practitioners?

Which of the proposals will increase the supply of GPs, public health nurses, and nurse practitioners?

Which proposals will tie USDA food programs in the schools and Head Start to healthy eating and nutrition?


Which of the reform proposals will eliminate the millions of infections acquired at hospitals every year?

Which of the proposals will eliminate the annual toll of 300 million medication errors?

Which of the proposals will eliminate pneumonia caused by ventilators?

Which of the proposals will eliminate falls that injure hospital patients?

Which of the proposals will capture even a fraction of the roughly $1 trillion+ of annual “waste” that is associated with the kinds of process failures that these questions imply?

[my thanx to Paul O'Neill, a responsible R, for the comments below the dotted line]

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

After Gov Jindal's SOTU response I am skeptical that he has the inclination to buck the party on a critical issue like healthcare. My expectation is that he will join the chorus promoting the status quo.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 20, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 20, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

In an oversimplified version suitable for a blog post there are two consuming, parallel, but separate problems with the delivery of health care.

1. The [un]availability of affordable and responsible health care insurance.

2. The ever blossoming aggregate cost to society of the delivery of health care services.

The Prez, to his credit, has spoken to both and understands the second is critical to the future stability of the nation.

The Congress has shown interest in #1 but with the exacerbating irritant of disinterest in #2.

If Jindal were to checklist the known and now well cataloged approaches to #2 and tell Rs to concentrate on them in bargaining on health care he would be taking leadership of a responsible opposition. I think Judd Gregg would join him. I have not heard other Rs talk responsibly, but as David Brooks has said, being in the complete minority in American national politics breeds complete irresponsibility.

My point about Jindal? He has an opportunity, as someone who knows something about delivery of health care, to responsibly and constructively criticize, or to simply join the sniper brigade.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 20, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Health care policy expert? Sounds like Jindal was just a political appointee with no medical experience. AFAIK, Louisiana does not have universal health care, nor is in the forefront of medicine with their health statistics. So what exactly has he done except sit on a board when he was too young and too inexperienced to do anything? Or is Cillizza just repeating talking points fed to him like the monkey he is?

Posted by: Pupster | July 20, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't he have the guts to use own name? If Barak Hussein Obama can get elected, why not Piyush Jindal? Oh wait, these are Republicans, sorry about the stupid question.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 20, 2009 8:05 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Jindal (or anyone else on the 'no change to health care' front) is that they generally favor maintaining the status quo which is also disatrous. There should be some middle-ground to enact changes that will be beneficial to the population at large.

Unfortunately, we as country would rather sit and complain about things than try to do something about it. (Even W tried to do something about Social Security and got nowhere...)

Anyway, not sure how much coverage or viewers Jindal will get with people on vacation.

Posted by: RickJ | July 20, 2009 7:03 AM | Report abuse

I hope the GOP has had Jindal at Presence School.
I can see Jindal is an intelligent, hard-working fellow (for a lifetime bureaucrat)but there are lots of reasons for quickly promoting young people within your party (24 year-olds as head of the state-wide Department of Health and Hospitals? -- Lousiana is famous for its quality of care). GWB did this a lot, becuase if you give an inexperienced, underqualified person a fabulous job they will be ever-so-grateful and ever-so in your debt and will take ever-so much direction. That's how we got that great AG and several other party-hack flamers in seats of power for the past 8 years. They can't make independent decisions for the good of the country, but they sure do follow instructions when it comes to the party.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 20, 2009 6:41 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company