[StBernard] Opponents to Jindal: Can We Talk?

[Westley Annis]

So if Jindal is not debating because Politics says he should not and if
Jindal makes his moves based on politics, how in the world will he govern
this state.  If politics says he should not do something, then how can he
make the tough decisions that he will need to make.  He is just another
politician that will only do things that is politically safe.  Even worse,
if he is afraid that 3 people will gangf up on him in a debate, how in the
world will he stand up against the vultures that will come after him once he
is governor.  The answer is he won't.  He is a coward and will not stand up
to anyone.  Bobby Jindal needs to get some guts and come out of hiding and
face real debates. 

Robby

	-----------------------------------------------------
	Opponents to Jindal: Can We Talk?
	
	Criticized though he may be for not appearing at more candidate
forums,
	Congressman Bobby Jindal is only following the first rule of the 
	frontrunner's handbook, which is to spend as little time as possible
in his
	opponents' line of fire.
	
	Jindal finally got around to agreeing to a third televized forum, on
Oct. 3
	in Shreveport. With an Oct. 17 event to be seen on New Orleans and
Baton 
	Rouge CBS affiliates, the only chance for the whole state to see the
	candidates together will be on Louisiana Public Broadcasting
stations on
	Sept. 27.
	
	The League of Women Voters and a number of Fox stations across the
state 
	tried to set up a forum using the novel format of college student
body
	presidents asking the questions. But Jindal passed on it.
	
	He as also skipped over a dozen non-televized forums that his
opponents have
	committed to attend. Relatively few voters would see those events
live, but
	press reports of how candidates differ inform more than repetitious
TV ads
	do.
	
	So, only three appearances before limited audiences, with only one
of them 
	statewide, on ratings-challenged public TV at that. Not enough but
seemingly
	all we're going to get.
	
	This governor's race would be more interesting and engaging to
voters--some
	might even realize there is an election going on--if the candidates
could 
	exchange their ideas more in person than in position papers, which
seems to
	be the frontrunner's favorite medium.
	
	Jindal has defended his stand-offish position by challenging his
opponents
	to first put forward their positions on issues, as he is doing with
the 
	steady release of his multi-point policy papers. That's a dodge.
Voters
	looking to be informed don't need a symposium but rather to hear
candidates
	state and defend what they stand for.
	
	But that's power politics, and Jindal has good reasons to play it
that way. 
	When he does meet the competition, it will be in the role of target
for
	Walter Boasso, Foster Campbell and John Georges. Jindal can take
care of
	himself verbally one on one, but at three on one, someone can land a
punch. 
	
	Even if he holds his own or out-talks the bunch, appearing as an
equal with
	worthy competitors does not fit Jindal's campaign strategy. This
race
	started last year as a referendum on Gov. Kathleen Blanco, and,
though she's 
	long gone and Jindal's the man to beat, he doesn't want this
election to
	turn into a referendum on himself.
	
	Instead, he wants to frame this election as a choice between himself
and the
	past. To hear his first commercials, you would think his opponent is
someone 
	named Corruption, Incompetence and Out-of-Control Spending, who has
an evil
	running mate named Crime. The more that voters see that as their
choice, the
	harder he is to beat.
	
	Another danger for Jindal with too much side-by-side comparison is
how much 
	similar three of the candidates--except for Campbell--are on key
issues.
	They may vary some on solutions, but their shared campaign theme is
that
	government is broken and needs a radical top-down fix. Then it
becomes a 
	question of character, leadership and who can get the job done.
Better for
	Jindal for keep the choices down to himself vs. the ghost of Edwin
Edwards.
	
	It's not like Jindal is ignoring his opposition. His supporters are
relieved 
	to see him responding to attacks against him. When Boasso said
Jindal's
	$178,000 in contributions from insurance companies proved he was too
cozy
	with that industry, his commercials answered that Boasso, depicted
as a 
	clown, had taken insurance money too and had voted for an
industry-backed
	bill to raise the minimum mandatory coverage for car insurance.
	
	Rarely does it score points with voters to criticize the source of
your 
	opponent's money. For starters, $178,000 out of Jindal's $7 million
warchest
	hardly seems out of line. And it only takes one check to Boasso from
his
	insurance agent for him to be accused of feeding at the same trough.

	
	There is bound to be more such barbs exchanged in 30-second bites
for the
	remainder of the campaign. Yet voters are better served when
candidates talk
	to instead of past one another. The shame is that those
conversations will 
	barely begin before the election ends.