Let's say that the runoff goes differently, higher GOP turnout pushed by Bush and Rove's national machine. Effects on Katrina are somewhat different of course. But otherwise, let's discuss.
Let's say that the runoff goes differently, higher GOP turnout pushed by Bush and Rove's national machine. Effects on Katrina are somewhat different of course. But otherwise, let's discuss.
In the scenario from that thread, there was no 9/11 and Bush solidly beats Edwards in '04.In that case Jindal's career may be pushed forward four years. If the natural swing of the economy still sees it falter in '08, then the GOP still loses, though maybe not as hard, and Jindal, already pressured in '08 and possibly the VP candidate will be encouraged to run if the economy is still weak and a Dem. President vulnerable in '12.
Before forum liberals complain at the fact that RB and I have managed to swing this thread around to something pro-Jindal in fewer than 20 posts (by the way, well done buddy) Let me turn that scenario into a general question of who will run in '08?
Meanwhile, assume as RB states that Bush doesn't have Iraq war and bungled Katrina baggage. In that case, having had a role in the Bush administration is far less poisonous ITTL than it was as of early 2008 in ours. While Cheney still would never run, the GOP primaries certainly look more toward capitalizing on the successes of an administration that probably still has approval ratings in the mid-high 50s (before the recession starts). Maybe a run from Mitch Daniels?
Remember what the Democratic strategy was, both then and in 2007: Atwater-wank.
Religious trolling: "is he truly a sincere Catholic?" "Are his Oxford writings anti-Protestant?" Exorcism.
Racial trolling: using "Piyush" in the same way Birthers use "Hussein" about Obama.
Plain childish: "We know he has a brain, but does he have a heart?" That's an actual attack ad quote from 2007.
Now I know it's hard to discuss economic issues with a pro-life Blue Dog and a conservative Republican as the candidates, but I don't think it's hard to avoid allowing your proxies to troll.
Blair: you forget that Nagin partially dragged his foot because of his feud with Blanco, and said feud arose precisely because Nagin crossed party lines to endorse Jindal over Blanco in 2003. So that irritant is removed. This time you have someone in Baton Rouge who does know what the hell they're doing, will tell the President what sort of troops are needed and where instead of saying "anything and everything you've got", etc. Also, Guard is mobilized earlier. Jindal is also much more assertive than Blanco was, and Nagin would be more inclined to listen to him than Blanco.
I'll copy/paste parts of my response from the alternate 2004 thread.
In the scenario from that thread, there was no 9/11 and Bush solidly beats Edwards in '04.
Even without that added into the mix, one still has to assume that without a bungled Katrina, Bush's approval ratings aren't quite as bad as they were IOTL. Katrina really highlighted the fiscal mismanagement at all levels of government and though both parties participated, the Republicans took it on the chin. Assuming that Jindal takes charge and sees the job done, and done well in 2005-6, Bush goes through '08 with approval ratings only bad, instead of terrible. Low-mid 40s maybe?
I think Jindal is too outspoken for that to stick though. Look at the approach to the oil spill. He was out there early looking to get the job done, making the problems and screw ups plain and obvious for everybody to see and emerged as a hero when it appeared he was the only one doing anything productive with incompetence surrounding him. If the relief efforts are still botched, and Bush goes down, I can't see Jindal going down with it.
I think Jindal is too outspoken for that to stick though. Look at the approach to the oil spill. He was out there early looking to get the job done, making the problems and screw ups plain and obvious for everybody to see and emerged as a hero when it appeared he was the only one doing anything productive with incompetence surrounding him. If the relief efforts are still botched, and Bush goes down, I can't see Jindal going down with it.
I don't think thats a good comparison... people in LA have a deep economic relationship with the oil industry that isn't as likely to bring them into a populist frenzy as Katrina did which was just a strait humanitarian and economic disaster
How much would Bobby be willing to blame Bush if Bush screws up the rescue efforts and rebuilding process (Bush is the party leader after all) how much can he blame Nagin or the NO police department and not come off like a buck passer... I think there is too much in that situation that is out of his hands, but still capable of hurting him and his reputation for that to help his career in anyway
Re 2008: "train wreck", Democrats sure to win, and insufficient experience. It would be seen (somewhat correctly) as crass ID politics without sufficient software date to divert the inevitable media gaze at the hardware. Plus being literally half McCain's age. McCain really wanted Jindal because of his well-earned reputation as a reformer meshing with McCain's maverick persona, in addition to a personal rapport. Plus, both are great on the talk shows. Newt and Rush (who are both longstanding Jindalistas) were Jindal's biggest backers for the Veepship IOTL. Undoubtedly he'd do an excellent job of it.
Re 2012: youngest presidential candidate since his namesake, and undoubtedly he'd be a very tough opponent for Obama. Equally charismatic, much more fiery than Obama plus would pwn him in the debates. To be safe 2016 would be better, but he'd be out of office for 4 years because Landrieu is only up in '14.
He could work with Landrieu, though it would reveal to the public his (justifiably) less than cordial relations with Vitter by working with his state's Democratic senator.
I'll agree there, if BW is correct and Jindal is too loyal to his party to rebuke and demand from the President, then Jindal may still win in '07 but his elected career is largely limited to that. Maybe by '14 he can run against Landrieu if everything isn't completely butterflied into confusion.
I still think of his focus on active results during the oil spill. Obviously, the hurricane isn't nearly as much of an opportunity for scoring political points, but assuming he isn't about political points and is about getting a job done, then I think he handles the situation better in many ways. I doubt anybody would have the foresight to see the levees rebuilt on day one, but I do expect there would be better organized evacuation efforts than in OTL.
Meanwhile, one of the criticism of relief efforts was the lack of organized leadership, that left state agencies pointing the finger at the National Guard, and the National Guard giving the finger to the state and local governments. I think Jindal, seeing a lack of organization, would be quick to fill that leadership vacuum with his own presence.
In that case either FEMA is brought into line, or it is the odd man out, and bears the brunt of questions like where is the money. What is taking so long. That possibly still hurts the Bush administration, but I see Jindal going bipartisan and working with Landrieu in going after the agency, if not the President.