Illogical reasoning.
Aug 21st, 2007 by Daniel Z.
One of the theme’s of the Bobby Jindal campaign for governor is that people are going to fight Jindal’s attempts to bring ethics reform to Louisiana. From his campaign commercial where he states that people will fight him every step of the way to a recent article in the Times Picayune where Timmy Teepell is quoted as saying that the Democratic ads are “nothing more than a transparent attempt to stop change in Louisiana, and they will not succeed”, it is clear that there is a failure of logic on the part of the Bobby Jindal campaign.
http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-5/118767659144080.xml&coll=1
Here is a newsflash for the Bobby, Timmy, and anyone else who embraces this flawed theory. Just because people oppose the idea of Bobby Jindal becoming governor does not mean that they oppose ethics reform. All it means is that they believe Bobby Jindal will be ineffective in bringing any reforms just as he was ineffective in the majority of governmental jobs he has held.
(6 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ...
Loading ...
Desperate Democrats attack Bobby Jindal’s religion
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. The Louisiana Democrats are the same bunch that mismanaged the NOLA levees for years and then planned out much of the politicization of Hurricane Katrina before it ever made landfall, calling in Clintonistas like James Lee Watt to help them craft an anti-Bush message. They failed to use the dozens of school buses all over the city, then screamed for buses from the feds. They kept the Red Cross out of New Orleans and then blamed the feds for the lack of supplies for the stranded. They spread rumors of riots and looting, but couldn’t send their ghost police force, many of whom had deserted their jobs, out to maintain law and order. Of all the cynical and corrupt Democrats in the country, the ones in Louisiana are certainly among the most corrupt and that breeds an unhealthy amount of cynicism to go along with it.
Jillil: While your response has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, I am amused by the irony of you posting that in a thread about illogical reasoning. Thank you for the laugh.
Following Jilli’s well-thought (and well cut-and-pasted response lifted from hotair.com) position, I’d like to add that I, too, guess we shouldn’t be surprised. The Louisiana Republicans are as amoral as they are “religious”. The same ethics that had them supporting the Federal government’s decision to allow their own citizens in New Orleans to die rather than supply assistance soley because they were neither Republican nor white can’t expect to have much respect for life or ethics
And while the oh-so-moral “christians” supporting Jindal probably aren’t aware that he views his Protestant supporters, as well as anyone who doesn’t adhere to his warped version of Catholicism, as having “utterly depraved minds”. Ethics is wonderful in Louisiana!
http://www.jindalonreligion.com/
Interesting that you mention Jindal’s ineffectiveness — many of the anti-Protestant, anti-Hindu, anti-Tolerance articles he penned while he was Secretary of HHS — maybe if he had spent a little more time on his job and a little less time as an amatuer theologian, he would have been more effective.
Also NONE of his articles were written while he was in college.
I noticed today that one candidate called for full disclosure of HOUSEHOLD income for all elected officials. If Jindal were truly about ethics, he would disclose his wife’s income — after all, she has worked for his entire career in an upper level position for a Baton Rouge chemical company that is a major supplier to the pharmaceutical industry — even while having two babies and moving to Kenner, where the company has no offices (and they frown on telecommuting). While Jindal has been in Congress, they have purchased stock every quarter in the company and their holdings in this company are now at $250,000.
Given that he votes on pharmaceutical issues and takes money from pharmaceutical companies, shouldn’t he voluntarally disclose her income — AND her work arrangements with regard to hours and telecommuting in comparison to others at similar levels at the company? She appears to be an extremely talented woman so if he does not do this, it will only perpetuate the idea that the best way to have a politician on your side is to employ the spouse (where the only legally required disclosure is to say if they make more than $1000 and show stock transactions).