A self made man unaccustomed to asking for infrastructure to get himself out of poverty has been made governor of the state of Louisiana. This is bad news for liberal’s favorite victim - the poor - because apparently Bobby Jindal actually believes in the American Dream.

One reason Mr. Jindal was able to win votes across ethnic and demographic lines is that while he treats his Indian background as an overall plus, he won’t trade on it. He has in the past left the space for “race” on government documents blank. “I’m against all quotas, all set-asides,” he says. “America is the greatest. We got ahead by hard work. We shouldn’t respond to every problem with a government program. Here, anyone can succeed.

Sorry about the vulgarity in that quote. You know the part where he says “America is the greatest”. I know reading that kind of thing can really piss off some my more left leaning readers.

At any rate, now that someone that understands the power and strength of America is governor of Louisiana keep any eye on the state cause I’m willing to bet it will pull itself out of the liberal shit hole its be wallowing in for some time.

Link here.

In 2006, PMA Group lobbyists gave $1,333,074 to three Democratic congressmen and walked away with $100 million worth of contracts for PMA clients. That’s a return of $75 for every $1 invested in just 6 months. In 2008, look for mo’ money and mo’ Democratic congressmen to cash in.

The 3 Democratic rent-to-own congressmen are John Murtha, Jim Moran and Peter Visclosky.

Here is his video response to Hillary Clinton’s universal health care.

Darwin writes in response to my previous post:

Do you think that campaign finance reform would lead to better debates?

It’s not entirely clear how campaign finance reform will lead to better debates.

Several problems with debates. They are formated for television consumption. This plays against the strengths of the speakers as was obvious when Paul and Huckabee begin articulate their position when no longer hindered by the absurd time constraint. Good speaking requires having enough time to get into the vibe of the speech. The stop and go method completely eliminates this possibility.

Another problem is the way clips are used after the debate. A candidate must be careful not to ill phrase something to avoid having that used over and over again. Case in point, last night one of the questions that Romney was asked inquired about his poor choice in words when indicating his sons serve the nation in the same capacity as the solider by campaigning for him. Faced with that kind of bad media coverage candidates naturally attempt to control what they say in the public. Innocuous platitudes can’t be used against a candidate.

One can’t also help but think a contributing problem to debates is the inexorable march of whussification in humanity. Instead of having two opposing candidates mash out their difference in front of a crowd the events are much more genteel and refined. This much more scripted and friendly debate no doubt shields candidates and public alike from the terrible force of conflict. It also has the effect of rendering the debate useless for evaluating a candidates viability for office. But anything to make sure johnny’s feelings aren’t hurt.

To head off the obvious counter argument, I’m not advocating that debates should be screaming contests (obviously i might add). The debate should be open to letting two candidates argue about a positions for a sustained amount of time. To allow their passion and rhetorical skills enable a spirited meaningful debate.

This evening’s republican debate turned into….well….a…..debate. I crave actual debate. What also interesting is that once they start going they sound better. They articulate more clearly and speak more lucidly.

I wish these debates were more like debates.

Darwin I found your candidate for the 2009 presidential election.

Came across a talk Karl Rove gave about six weeks ago. I highly recommend watching it. He goes over the major policies of they day but does so in such way that you get a really good understanding of the issue and the administration’s position. Later on he talks about global warming and he gives data showing that we have reduced our carbon output much more than most European countries. How you ask? Turns out its more cost effective to be energy efficient and thus the markets in this country have forced efficiency that have reduced carbon output.

Huh, imagine that, free markets have done more for the environment then the environmentalist who are hyper critical of the free markets. No big surprise there.

Towards the end he has some great things to say about education.

Link here. Once you get to the page you need to click on the link that begins with Karl Rove

The unbiased AP has decided to defend Obama’s silly remarks on the war in Afghanistan. Captain’s Quarters has the details:

Besides, Obama and his campaign didn’t just say that civilians had been killed in Afghanistan. He claimed that it was Bush policy to kill civilians and that his strategy consisted “solely of air raids and bombing of civilians.” What’s the best way to fact-check that statement?

How about seeing whether ground forces have been deployed in Afghanistan? That seems to be a rather good indicator as to whether the strategy solely relies on dropping bombs indiscriminately on civilians — and as it turns out, the data is easy to find. The Congressional Research Office did a breakout of deployed American forces in Afghanistan. It shows that of the roughly 22,000 American troops in the country, only 3100 come from the Air Force. Over 17,000 come from the Army. You know — ground troops.

LOL

A couple of posts ago I mentioned an interview show with Tony Snow as the guest. They have posted the transcripts. I wanted to post one thing that I found interesting in the interview and its in regards to Tony Snow talking about George Bush.

AMB: What surprised you up close?

SNOW: Again, it’s something I had suspected, but I’ll you, he’s got one of the most interesting analytical minds I’ve ever seen. I described it like watching these chess masters who will go and play 40 boards at once. He can keep a lot of moves in his head, and especially when he talks about geopolitics.

He will lay out a scenario that deals with a whole series of countries, he thinks and recount their national interests. Then he’ll start talking about their leaders and how the leaders might react and interact, and how they may be affected by different conditions.

And as he talks about framing up issues and framing up policies, it makes a whole lot of sense, because he really has thought it through. It’s not simply sort of - he does not think in a linear method - I go from here to here, I’ve achieved my objective. There’s no way, because this move is going to have ramifications on both sides. And, you know, he’s just great at thinking it through and explaining it to people.

I point it out because Bush is regarded, particularly among liberals, as not very intelligent. I think this helps highlight that Bush is not nearly as dumb as his detractors would have you believe.