[StBernard] Jindal won't be able to quit after a year or two

[Westley Annis]

-----------------------------------------------------
"Jindal won't be able to quit after a year or two" --Sharon

**So many professionals, politicians, officials, and those in power use the
power of office to "stair-step" their way to higher levels of power. Look in
Sunday papers and notice how names are mentioned frequently in advancements
and power shifts. It's commonplace to see ANY (including Mr. Jindal, Mr.
Boasso and countless others) take a position, get egotistic, power-hungry,
etc. and make a political decision to advance their careers and status after
a short time (2-4)years in that position. By doing so, it seems to release
one from any commitment, campaign promise and gives the person the edge by
starting the "burning desire to excel" before the public/voter. By following
such a practice, the politician rarely gets time to receive major
disappointments, negative press and check any failures while in office. When
moving up the ladder, it appears as "success after success" while only
serving minimal time in office. This outward appears serves a dual purpose:
Firstly, it increases positive strokes and exhibits its powerhouse of images
before the public. Very few will attain years of public eye at the same view
as what was years ago. There seems to be no advantage to staying around for
a long time in the same position (corruption chances increase as in the old
adage: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely") and therefore, who wants to
attract flies for excess garbage uncollected? <G>.

"I find it more than a little curious, ironic and hilarious that Bobby
Jindal's campaign and John Georges' campaign are focusing on "corruption" in
state government. Why?"

**Why not? Doesn't the public love to see LA politicians either produce or
be replaced? "S*** or get off the pot" is becoming the norm for LA voters
who expect to see results in a reasonable short period of time. Who has the
patience to wait a decade or more to get some project off the ground?
Therefore, using "corruption ads" will demonstrate to the public via media
that politicians by nature are proven guilty of being naturally corruptible
(until proven trust-worthy and in the best interest of the lowly voter who
by nature is not bogged down by political details and knowledge of the
system. After all, who has the time to be a political scientist, informed
voter, etc. when forced with simple recovery of a national disaster as its
victim?
  
"Because the only corruption that I have heard of in the past four years is
in the state Legislature, which is Republican majority! "

**I'll be honest here. It's who gets caught and which party is most vicious
at the moment in history. Believe me, when given the opportunity to use the
media to the advantage of any party, it will be taken. Liberals can be just
as corruptible and morally bankrupt if given time with carelessness to cover
up the truth. We all are potentially corruptible in some degree, shape or
form. No one is excused or immune to my knowledge of human nature.

"Also, someone should tell Bobby that the term of a governor is four years.
He won't be able to quit after a year or two as he has with so many of his
other jobs. Sharon Pangle Baker"

**Come'on, Sharon. Luck is "When Preparation meets Opportunity". If one is
ready and prepared, then considered for an important position, who wouldn't
jump at the chance to become a party's VP as a politician? The pay is good,
the chances for worldwide recognition is possible and prestiege/ego is
enhanced by one's time in office. Even dethroned or scandalous, one can
write a book thereafter and become rich, do speaking engagements, etc. No
one's saying it will happen that Bobby Jindal "will be" chosen party VP of
our nation. However, when hand-picked with the opportunity, who can turn
down the privilege to serve on a national scale? I'll be willing to bet ANY
LA Governor runner would jump at the chance for the spotlight.

--jer--