Bobby Jindal is an exorcist that cures cancer (new window). Him's our nextest president.

This is liberal blogger B.S. The story is clear.

Bobby Jindal tells Katrina story, some facts might be erroneous. TPM and Kos are outraged. Joe Biden outright lies about Louisiana losing "400 jobs a day" when the state is one of the only ones actually showing job growth. TPM and Kos: {crickets}. I guess we don't get outraged about lies told by those who tell us lies we like, eh, TPM?

Well, now I really know who to call when my boss demands I "call the Internet" when something is broken on a site I can't control. Al Gore hasn't been returning my calls.

Sad but true: I call my cell phone and leave messages for "the Internet" to placate my boss who thinks I am being "stubborn" when I tell her I simply can not "call the Internet" to fix things.

Nabb1: Bobby Jindal tells Katrina story, some facts might be erroneous. TPM and Kos are outraged. Joe Biden outright lies about Louisiana losing "400 jobs a day" when the state is one of the only ones actually showing job growth. TPM and Kos: {crickets}. I guess we don't get outraged about lies told by those who tell us lies we like, eh, TPM?

If you don't see the difference between lying outright in the first person during a direct address to the American people and Biden's quote, you have no business discussing politics.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/27/the-obligatory-nutroots-tries-to-smear-ji n dal-over-katrina-post/ (pops)

John Paul Jones: If you don't see the difference between lying outright in the first person during a direct address to the American people and Biden's quote, you have no business discussing politics.

Okay, Mr. Truth Person, what do you recall about Jindal's role during Katrina? I have some personal recollections that had him down here doing a hell of a lot more in person than you or TPM. So, go ahead, what was your first-hand experience with the first two weeks after Katrina? Did you get on Fark and say some nasty things about Bush? Because, man, we in New Orleans sure are greatful for that.

Yep TPM and Kos are biased.

It feels good to admit that, like getting a burden off your soul.


maybe more people should admit where they really stand.

Nabb1: I have some personal recollections that had him down here doing a hell of a lot more in person than you or TPM. So, go ahead, what was your first-hand experience with the first two weeks after Katrina?

Great, so why did he make up this story? Remember Fark was pretty brutal on Hillary and 'sniper fire', this is the same thing my friend, except I bet you like Bobby better than Hill, and that is the real difference.

But you knew that.

BladBoy: Nabb1: I have some personal recollections that had him down here doing a hell of a lot more in person than you or TPM. So, go ahead, what was your first-hand experience with the first two weeks after Katrina?

Great, so why did he make up this story? Remember Fark was pretty brutal on Hillary and 'sniper fire', this is the same thing my friend, except I bet you like Bobby better than Hill, and that is the real difference.

But you knew that.

I know for a fact he was down here after the storm, deeply involved in rescue efforts, much more than most of our politicians. What is your personal recollection of his role? Do you recall his interviews on the local radio station that had managed to get up and running? Do you know anything about his getting his Jefferson Parish office up and running as soon as possible? What do you know about his role here after Katrina? What were you doing at the time?

Nabb1: I know for a fact he was down here after the storm, deeply involved in rescue efforts, much more than most of our politicians. What is your personal recollection of his role? Do you recall his interviews on the local radio station that had managed to get up and running? Do you know anything about his getting his Jefferson Parish office up and running as soon as possible? What do you know about his role here after Katrina? What were you doing at the time?

Well, I wasn't writing his response to the State of The Union Address, that's one disaster I was no where near.

BladBoy: Well, I wasn't writing his response to the State of The Union Address, that's one disaster I was no where near.

Honestly, someone needs to have the GOP handlers responsible for that speech taken out back and beaten. Jindal is not the most engaging speakers when giving a rehearsed speech, but everyone I talked to the next day who wasn't too hungover from Mardi Gras - from ardent supporters to raving detractors thought it was a sub-par performance for him. His poise on the morning news circuits was more along what we are used to. His Gustav press conferences were awe-inspiring.

Holy crap that's farked up. I find it hard to comprehend that level of FAIL.

Nabb1: Honestly, someone needs to have the GOP handlers responsible for that speech taken out back and beaten.

It's almost as if (adjusts tinfoil) someone wanted him to fail. This was a big speech, big speeches make careers, just ask our president.

Blown speeches tend to make you a footnote. Given Tancredo's early burial, Jindal has at least some who are hoping he fails, maybe someone helped him along. Just sayin'.

If Jindal really is a decent man and a good politician then I truly hope he can maintain that and not be stained by the vile scum that control the republican party right now. After trouncing the John McCain they didn't like in 2000 and treating him like a piece of shiat they turned him into one of themselves in 2008. I hope they don't do that again.

Frankly, Jindal's response the other day was that of a good little member of the party. And if that's how he rolls now then I don't much care about any good that may have once been inside him.

Mordant: If Jindal really is a decent man and a good politician then I truly hope he can maintain that and not be stained by the vile scum that control the republican party right now. After trouncing the John McCain they didn't like in 2000 and treating him like a piece of shiat they turned him into one of themselves in 2008. I hope they don't do that again.

Frankly, Jindal's response the other day was that of a good little member of the party. And if that's how he rolls now then I don't much care about any good that may have once been inside him.

He had the opportunity to put his state in the national spotlight and would have been a fool to say "no." Yes, I am a big fan of Jindal. I don't march in lockstep with his policies (caving in to the evangelicals on the ID in schools was a massive disappointment), but I have met him, and he is one of the smartest people you can ever speak to, and of all our major politicians from the Mayor to our Senators to the Governor to the President, he was the only one who displayed any real leadership - hell, any real competence - after Katrina. So, yes, he has my respect because he earned it, much more than some gas bag blog with a political agenda.

BladBoy: It's almost as if (adjusts tinfoil) someone wanted him to fail. This was a big speech, big speeches make careers, just ask our president.

Ok, fine, but have him fail in favor of who? Before this speech, I was under the impression he was one of the better GOP up and comers, and a MUCH better speaker than that. Clearly Huckabee is still the best speaker.

Nabb1

I can understand the respect that you have for him-- as I've said before, aside from the crazy religious shiat I've heard nothing but good stuff from Jindal.

But didn't his speech strike you as his attempt to launch himself onto the national level, more than an opportunity to do good for Louisiana? What about his speech makes you feel that he was doing it for the good of Louisiana, rather than for the purpose of moving to the national level?

I was prepared to be impressed by him, and I still believe you and all the other Louisiana's who have said that (again, religious nuttery aside) he's done well by the state. That just makes things like his speech-- and now, this bullshiatted anecdote-- more confusing to me. Was he just unprepared for that level of discourse, or-- to take the more cynical route-- do you think he was attempting to make ideological claims and did not care about the truth overmuch?

What with this, the volcano monitoring bit, and the deceptive talk about Louisiana fixing thing themselves at the same time that huge amounts of federal aid are being spent in Louisiana, the speech seemed to me like a attempt to portray himself in a certain way to hardcore "right-wingers", without much concern for those in the middle.

Does this mean manbearpig actually exists?

I'm very scared.

Finally, an Alfred E. Newman for the Third World.

Obdicut: Nabb1

I can understand the respect that you have for him-- as I've said before, aside from the crazy religious shiat I've heard nothing but good stuff from Jindal.

But didn't his speech strike you as his attempt to launch himself onto the national level, more than an opportunity to do good for Louisiana? What about his speech makes you feel that he was doing it for the good of Louisiana, rather than for the purpose of moving to the national level?

I'm sure personal ambitions played a part in it as well. I'm not that naive. But, I think that for the GOP to pick Louisiana's governor for the response puts the state in the spotlight as well as putting Jindal in the spotlight.

I was prepared to be impressed by him, and I still believe you and all the other Louisiana's who have said that (again, religious nuttery aside) he's done well by the state. That just makes things like his speech-- and now, this bullshiatted anecdote-- more confusing to me. Was he just unprepared for that level of discourse, or-- to take the more cynical route-- do you think he was attempting to make ideological claims and did not care about the truth overmuch?

What with this, the volcano monitoring bit, and the deceptive talk about Louisiana fixing thing themselves at the same time that huge amounts of federal aid are being spent in Louisiana, the speech seemed to me like a attempt to portray himself in a certain way to hardcore "right-wingers", without much concern for those in the middle.

Honestly, I've caught pieces of it and have probably now seen it in it's entirety in a piecemeal fashion, but I didn't see it live because it was Mardi Gras. We ridicule politics on Mardi Gras. We don't wallow in it. That said, the speech looks like a sub-par performance for him. I know what he was trying to say with the volcano thing, but that sounded like something scripted for him, not by him. Not his style. If he catered to the GOP handlers on that, well, that was his mistake. His sure-handed performance on the Today Show the next morning and his off-the-cuff rebuttal of Joe Biden's snide (and erroneous) knocks on Louisiana are more what we are used to seeing. He won't win any awards for beautiful speeches, but I think he could handle Obama in a debate format.

Nabb1: Honestly, I've caught pieces of it and have probably now seen it in it's entirety in a piecemeal fashion, but I didn't see it live because it was Mardi Gras. We ridicule politics on Mardi Gras. We don't wallow in it. That said, the speech looks like a sub-par performance for him. I know what he was trying to say with the volcano thing, but that sounded like something scripted for him, not by him. Not his style. If he catered to the GOP handlers on that, well, that was his mistake. His sure-handed performance on the Today Show the next morning and his off-the-cuff rebuttal of Joe Biden's snide (and erroneous) knocks on Louisiana are more what we are used to seeing. He won't win any awards for beautiful speeches, but I think he could handle Obama in a debate format.

So you're content to blame the content of his speech on handlers, and absolve him of any responsibility for the things he said?

And what was he trying to say with the volcano thing?

You should watch the whole speech, from start to finish, so you can understand why people are just farking befuddled by it.

Obdicut: So you're content to blame the content of his speech on handlers, and absolve him of any responsibility for the things he said?

No, that's not what I said at all. That's your version of it. He made the speech. He shares the blame.

And what was he trying to say with the volcano thing?

A government expenditure of questionable merit. I think it does, and I think it's fine for it to be done, but if it were me, I would have questioned what it was doing in an economic stimulus bill.

You should watch the whole speech, from start to finish, so you can understand why people are just farking befuddled by it.

I'll get around to it, I'm sure.

Nabb1: No, that's not what I said at all. That's your version of it. He made the speech. He shares the blame.

This is the first time you've said anything like that, whether you realize it or not.

Nabb1: A government expenditure of questionable merit. I think it does, and I think it's fine for it to be done, but if it were me, I would have questioned what it was doing in an economic stimulus bill.

Okay, so--- you realize that people are angry at him for suggesting it's a government expenditure of questionable merit, right? So what he was getting at, according to you, is exactly what people are angry at him for saying.


Again: I've heard nothing but good things about Jindal as governor of Louisiana, but to the rest of us in America, this is the way that we know him, by this speech. You're defending him rather aggressively, which obviously speaks to the affection he can engender in his constituents, but that very affection may be blinding you to the flaws he's displayed in that speech.

Nabb1: John Paul Jones: If you don't see the difference between lying outright in the first person during a direct address to the American people and Biden's quote, you have no business discussing politics.

Okay, Mr. Truth Person, what do you recall about Jindal's role during Katrina? I have some personal recollections that had him down here doing a hell of a lot more in person than you or TPM. So, go ahead, what was your first-hand experience with the first two weeks after Katrina? Did you get on Fark and say some nasty things about Bush? Because, man, we in New Orleans sure are greatful for that.

I was evacuated without power with a close family member being diagnosed with cancer.

What does that have to do with what you said? Nothing.

I'm sure Jindal did some good things during Katrina, but that doesn't change the fact that he praised and defended the response to Katrina, nor does it change the fact that he wasn't very honest concerning this specific story regarding his role during Katrina.

And I've seen more ridicule and eye-rolling in response to Jindal, not so much actual outrage.

The Dems, by and large, are in a pretty happy place right now, and seeing the Reps represented by the likes of Jindal and "Joe the Plumber" keeps us in a good mood, because they're no threat to us.

Now, some may be getting outraged, and I'll go right ahead and say they're dumbasses, and I'll even admit that THIS much focus on such a stupid story is too much... but to obfuscate and go on about what good he DID do, what parts of his story WERE true, and how the SPIRIT of his story is still in tact... well, that's silly too.

You want to point and laugh at the libs defending Obama and attacking conservatives, but you're on the other side of the fence attacking Obama and Dems and defending conservatives.

Dan the Schman: The Dems, by and large, are in a pretty happy place right now, and seeing the Reps represented by the likes of Jindal and "Joe the Plumber" keeps us in a good mood, because they're no threat to us.

Party first, eh? Yeah, the prominent Democrats in Louisiana certainly distinguished themselves in that one... Blanco, Nagin, Jefferson. Oh, Bush was simply awful to the point of gross negligence, but I'd say it was a bi-partisan effort from top to bottom on screwing that up. I mean, if you think what he did as compared to our other {ahem} "leaders" after the storm is a partisan issue, well, I consider that rather sad.

Obdicut: Nabb1: No, that's not what I said at all. That's your version of it. He made the speech. He shares the blame.

This is the first time you've said anything like that, whether you realize it or not.

Nor did I completely absolve him, either. You made that assumption.

Nabb1: A government expenditure of questionable merit. I think it does, and I think it's fine for it to be done, but if it were me, I would have questioned what it was doing in an economic stimulus bill.

Okay, so--- you realize that people are angry at him for suggesting it's a government expenditure of questionable merit, right? So what he was getting at, according to you, is exactly what people are angry at him for saying.

I didn't realize that disagreement over such a thing necessitated anger. Reasonable people can disagree on such matters without getting riled up about it.

Nabb1: Dan the Schman: The Dems, by and large, are in a pretty happy place right now, and seeing the Reps represented by the likes of Jindal and "Joe the Plumber" keeps us in a good mood, because they're no threat to us.

Party first, eh? Yeah, the prominent Democrats in Louisiana certainly distinguished themselves in that one... Blanco, Nagin, Jefferson. Oh, Bush was simply awful to the point of gross negligence, but I'd say it was a bi-partisan effort from top to bottom on screwing that up. I mean, if you think what he did as compared to our other {ahem} "leaders" after the storm is a partisan issue, well, I consider that rather sad.

There you go again, committing all sorts of silly logical fallacies. Yeah, I'm a Democrat, but I'm not afraid of pointing out incompetence, regardless of party.

See, now, if you and I had ever actually engaged in a discussion about Katrina, then you'd know that I do think it was a clusterf*ck from top to bottom.

When you go and start making up all kinds of stupid assumptions just because I admit to being a Democrat, well then you don't give me much incentive to be nice or respectful to you.

Nabb1: I know what he was trying to say with the volcano thing, but that sounded like something scripted for him, not by him. Not his style. If he catered to the GOP handlers on that, well, that was his mistake.

That was actually the impression I got.

I haven't heard much about Jindal before last year, and had never heard or seen him. So many have vouched for him, including Farkers like yourself whose opinions I more or less respect or at least pay attention to, that I was looking forward to this big national introduction. I am disappointed to have been so disappointed.

As I said in the Fark thread, parts of it seemed genuine and potentially compelling. Other parts, though, just seemed jarringly out of place, like the whole thing had passed through two or three different committees.

The impression I came away with was that the Party wanted to give him this big introduction to the nation, but with a big tangle of strings attached; during bits of the speech I was listening to him directly, but other parts - most of it - it seemed like it wasn't him talking any more, but (at different times) veteran GOP warhorses, or overpaid marketing consultants, or pudgy young Republican congressional-staff theme-teamers.

My mind is still open. But if Jindal's willing to submit to the idiots currently in charge of the GOP and walk up to the camera to parrot lame talking points and and hoary old gummint-is-the-problem adages, I think he'll be destroyed on the national stage, and maybe his talents would best serve the state of Louisiana.

BuckTurgidson: in the Fark thread ... about his response that night ...

Dan the Schman: When you go and start making up all kinds of stupid assumptions just because I admit to being a Democrat, well then you don't give me much incentive to be nice or respectful to you.

And this:

"You want to point and laugh at the libs defending Obama and attacking conservatives, but you're on the other side of the fence attacking Obama and Dems and defending conservatives."

Wasn't an assumption on your part? I hadn't mentioned Obama at all. I did mention Biden, but he did make a misrepresentation of fact in order to make a political point. And as for hurricane response, well, I'm sure you would agree Jindal's handling of Gustav was in a completely different league from Blanco's handling of Katrina. Now, I will grant you he had the benefit of learning from her mistakes and the storm did not cause any widespread devastation, but even then, it was a completely different affair form a leadership standpoint.

Nabb1: Dan the Schman: The Dems, by and large, are in a pretty happy place right now, and seeing the Reps represented by the likes of Jindal and "Joe the Plumber" keeps us in a good mood, because they're no threat to us.

Party first, eh?

Not exactly. They're a threat to the entire country when they actually get in office. Since the odds of that happening are pretty slim at the moment, they're no threat to us.

I think he was simply doing his Kenneth impression from 30 Rock.

Nabb1: Dan the Schman: When you go and start making up all kinds of stupid assumptions just because I admit to being a Democrat, well then you don't give me much incentive to be nice or respectful to you.

And this:

"You want to point and laugh at the libs defending Obama and attacking conservatives, but you're on the other side of the fence attacking Obama and Dems and defending conservatives."

Wasn't an assumption on your part? I hadn't mentioned Obama at all. I did mention Biden, but he did make a misrepresentation of fact in order to make a political point.

No, it wasn't an assumption. I read other threads on Fark. I've seen your posts. They're easy to spot because they're highlighted in yellow.

Nabb1: Nor did I completely absolve him, either. You made that assumption.

I asked a question. You seem to, for some reason, not treat questions as questions.

Nabb1: I didn't realize that disagreement over such a thing necessitated anger. Reasonable people can disagree on such matters without getting riled up about it.

Um, okay. The reason why people find his statement to have been categorically stupid is apparently exactly what he meant.


And:

BuckTurgidson: My mind is still open. But if Jindal's willing to submit to the idiots currently in charge of the GOP and walk up to the camera to parrot lame talking points and and hoary old gummint-is-the-problem adages, I think he'll be destroyed on the national stage, and maybe his talents would best serve the state of Louisiana.

This.

I've heard Jindal is smart and competent. Smart and competent is great. But smart, competent, and endorsing a bankrupt, childishly simple ideology is not great.

BuckTurgidson: I am disappointed to have been so disappointed.

This. All of this, wholly this, and only this, amen.

I know what he was trying to say with the volcano thing, but that sounded like something scripted for him, not by him. Not his style.

That puts into nice words exactly the concern I had with another McCain redefined to march the way the party wants. Since I don't have exposure to Jindal's "usual" style I don't have good feelings that reassure me.

the fib and the flub seem to be distracting from a deeper problem with the speech...it's lack of worthwhile content.

read from text and redacting the fib, you're still left with 'those two american cities are evil, so connecting them is really evil' and 'monitoring natural disasters is for chumps' as the driving concepts.

can't speak for anybody else, but considering that's been the failing game plan for awhile now, it didn't resonate with me because the content was whisper thin, not because of intonation or stretching the truth.

Nabb1: Bobby Jindal tells Katrina story, some facts might be erroneous. TPM and Kos are outraged. Joe Biden outright lies about Louisiana losing "400 jobs a day" when the state is one of the only ones actually showing job growth. TPM and Kos: {crickets}.

Joe Biden says Louisiana is losing "400 jobs a day", some facts might be erroneous. Nabb1: is outraged. Bobby Jindal tells Katrina story that is an outright lie. Nabb1: {crickets}.

I don't know about you guys, but his manner of speaking is very calming and relaxing and makes me feel like he's a parent-figure and that I can sleep without my teddy bear, knowing that he will protect me from the creatures under my bed.

I thought the Republicans were better at this. They've been the masters of the scandal-game for awhile now, and yet this time they're not playing by their own book? Denials and backpedaling only keep the story in the air and given news time, because it's still a "developing" story. You kill a scandal by actually doing the one thing Bush's White House perfected into an artform - burying it in self-confidence. Admit it happened, do not acknowledge it as a mistake, offer no apologies or explanations, and stay on a designated party message instead of offering any answers whenever asked about it. With nothing new happening about the event, it ceases to be "news" and falls off the 24-hour cycle after about two days when even the commentators run out of things to speculate on about it due to the lack of new information.

What, did all their spin-doctors quit?

Could someone find this fact that Louisiana is creating 400 jobs a month cause I can't find it.

GAT_00: Ok, fine, but have him fail in favor of who? Before this speech, I was under the impression he was one of the better GOP up and comers, and a MUCH better speaker than that.

even as a yellow-dog democrat, i have to say, his performance in interviews was really above par. That speech made me wonder if he was high or not.

log_jammin: Joe Biden says Louisiana is losing "400 jobs a day", some facts might be erroneous. Nabb1: is outraged. Bobby Jindal tells Katrina story that is an outright lie. Nabb1: {crickets}.

yeah he does appear to have that creationists balls in his mouth...

The interesting this is the validity of the story all stems from info from the governors office. So at some point Someone either misspoke or lied. But there's no third party verification of which it was.

BladBoy: Great, so why did he make up this story? Remember Fark was pretty brutal on Hillary and 'sniper fire', this is the same thing my friend, except I bet you like Bobby better than Hill, and that is the real difference.

Hillary's story had third party debunking. An actual video. So far this can be all attributed to a game of telephone.

5-Second-Rule

Could someone find this fact that Louisiana is creating 400 jobs a month cause I can't find it.


This may have been a garbled misquote from Biden referring to the fact that Jindal has increased the number of state employees by 4% (about 4,000) in one year, after having campaigned on reducing state employees. He still claims he has. Conservative talk radio in Louisiana is upset with Lord Jindal about this.

Nabb1: I know for a fact he was down here after the storm, deeply involved in rescue efforts, much more than most of our politicians. What is your personal recollection of his role? Do you recall his interviews on the local radio station that had managed to get up and running? Do you know anything about his getting his Jefferson Parish office up and running as soon as possible? What do you know about his role here after Katrina? What were you doing at the time?

It's weird that he would make up something if he did all these Tick-worthy heroic achievements you list. My god, I can't believe he got "interviews on the local radio station that had managed to get up and running". Herculean, I am sure.

I'm not dismissing anything he's done (although listing "getting interviewed" is pretty dorky), but if they were so awesome... well, it doesn't make sense, does it?

\for the record, tpm, I never thought he meant "during the storm". "Katrina", to me, involves the storm and the aftermath. I took it to mean during the aftermath.

Also, Nabb, the PR rewriting stinks to high hell. Just admit it as a misrecollection or a misretelling of the story. Big whoop. Now it looks like a lie that needs covering instead of what might have just been nerves.

Btw, the arrest-congressman-jindal-too part makes it pure bullshiat and not a mistalk. It couldn't have happened that way, could it?

Nabb1: Joe Biden outright lies about Louisiana losing "400 jobs a day" when the state is one of the only ones actually showing job growth.

Is it an "outright lie"? Wasn't the job growth due to seasonal work? (not to dismiss seasonal work outright)
Didn't louisiana's unemployment go UP to 5.9%? I'll admit that you are right in it, so you likely would know better than I. I'm just going off a quick google of the claim.