Adam Brickley claims in his article that Bobby Jindal has no foreign policy experience.
But Bobby Jindal was on the House Committee on Homeland Security and was vice-chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks.
It’s something.
It’s a lot more than Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabee (despite his brilliant article), or Romney have.
That shouldn’t make you feel any better about his vote against CAFTA, though.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Point taken, but it’snot his forte…and Palin has to deal with a canadian border, trade missions, etc.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:38 am
“Deal with a Canadian border”? Oh, please, let’s not start this embarrassing round of affairs again.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Actually, I like his vote against CAFTA.
Alex, what is your solution to our $500-700 billion trade deficits? We last had a trade surplus in 1991. Never since NAFTA (coincidence?). Once NAFTA went into effect we went from annual trade surpluses with Mexico to annual trade deficits. The United States has lost about 4.5 million manufacturing jobs since George W Bush took office, or about 40% of all manufacturing jobs. That trade deficit means a net outflow of capital of over a half trillion a year, and is part of why we are in such sorry shape today (we consume far more than we produce).
February 27th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Gingrich this morning on Fox indicated that Jindal did not deliver the speech well the other night. He also said that he believe Jindal has a good future in the party, but implied that he needed more time. He said that he had 12 years before he would be the age of Obama, hinting that he needed at least a portion of them to gain the experience. I have nothing against Bobby, but I do believe he’ll need a little longer to be prime time.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Alex,
My point was that you can make SOME argument that ANY of them have FP experience…the question is do they have enough to really push the issue forward?
February 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Yes, MWS, we lost manufacturing jobs. That’s, like, part of the point. The world’s changing. I’m sorry; you’ll have to cope, and so will workers with manufacturing jobs. We no longer live in an age where you can grow up and be assured a job at the factory. Not as easily seen are all of the jobs that have been created due to NAFTA.
Support for free trade is almost literally uncontested amongst economists. It’s literally an issue of educating the public, rather than opening up the debate.
By the way, our money made from exports has actually increased dramatically since NAFTA and CAFTA — not sure if that means anything to you? (Apparently you dislike it when other countries are allowed to compete — and we actually have to compete with them, forcing innovation on both sides?)
February 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Hey, Adam, you’ll be at CPAC today again, no?
Shoot me an e-mail at apkkib@aol.com so I can send you my contact info.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Alex – You’re a smart kid. Although, I disagree with you on many things, I acknowledge that you have a good mind on you. Therefore, I would implore you to think about manufacturing jobs in terms of our national security. Think deeply about it. It appears that you have not done so. Think how quickly our enemies, or ‘would be’ enemies can put the squeeze on us if we have given up this much of our manufacturing base. Maybe one needs to have worked in manufacturing (as I have) to fully understand the implications of it. Please study up on this and ponder, ok?
February 27th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Don’t patronize the kid IG. He’s been talking more sense than you lately.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am
you need to run a few times to win the GOP nomination. romney would not be the frontrunner had he not run already. jindal needs to run in ’12 to set up ’16, or a VP run, or even pull out a win in ’12 by performing the way most of us know he can.
i think we need a deep field, so that even after a nominee is chosen we still have created other national figures with prime exposure.
romney, palin, jindal, along with newt and a few other govs like sanford, huntsman and pawlenty would round out a solid field, create a long primary, and help reintroduce the party and new ideas.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:40 am
haha… still doing the sarah palin foreign policy experience thing . LOL.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:41 am
9 I must have missed that part.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Agreed Alex. Jindal is the future of the Republican/Conservative movement.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:39 am
When you have the Chinese and other…3rd world nations manufacturing goods so cheaply and we have a standard and cost of living that is so high, comparably…there’s no way to compete….just no way…we live in a global market…end of story. Agriculture and defense…food and war…some profitable exports.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:46 am
tim (10), I personally disagree about the deep field aspect of your point…which isn’t bad otherwise. Can we really sustain a year or two of infighting between 10 to a dozen candidates…most of which could never win a general to begin with? I think we’d be better off with 5 candidates or less…keeping the playing field smaller so more campaign moneys can reach each candidate without the Hunters or the Tancredos of the party taking a share of campaign money away from a more suitable nominee…let the primary process last longer…keep the focus on Obama’s weaknesses. We will not be able to defeat Obama if we defeat ourselves in the primary.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Perhaps Alex is talking a bit more sense than Illinoisguy in this particular thread, but that is certainly not always the case.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am
jerseyrepub,
oh i understand what you are saying, and i wasn’t suggesting that ALL of them stay in for the long haul, but you do want a big field to start with so a handful can emerge as the frontrunners. its good for the others to be elevated by being a part of it. i imagine the pawlenty’s and sanford’s would end up out of it by the time we get to ames or a little while after, but thats still time to see them debate a few times on the national stage. i think it will be good for us to move through an Ohio Plan primary with a few top candidates, likely romney, palin, jindal, gingrich, and also a huntsman or a crist ( with no democrat primary the huntsmans/crists could bring in independents and dissafected dems and eventually push them behind our nominee).
February 27th, 2009 at 11:09 am
also, the infighting wont be as bad as before, because obama will be a lightning rod that they can unify to criticize like bush was for the dems.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Good point tim, I also must contradict myself because after further thought…I’m not so sure a longer primary for the Republicans would have the same effect it had for Obama…the MSM covered the crap out of their primary battle…giving Obama many opportunities to appear Presidential but I doubt they would give the Republicans the same respect…they would turn the story into how the Republican Party is spiraling down into some pit of irrelevance and infighting…too early to tell I guess.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am
8- Illinoisguy
“Think how quickly our enemies, or ‘would be’ enemies can put the squeeze on us if we have given up this much of our manufacturing base.”
I’ve worked manufacturing. AbitibiBowater paper plant in Catawba, South Carolina. I don’t see how that makes you smarter than anybody else on the issue of how manufacturing relates to national security.
Free trade is good for the world. Sure, we lose some jobs. We get new ones. It’s the way of the world. As a country develops, it leaves behind industries that become too expensive for it. Manufacturing is that industry now.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’m not claiming to be smarter than anyone else. Do you people not understand the security ramifications of having no manufacturing base? Really? Ohio, do you not? If not, I”m flabbergasted!!
February 27th, 2009 at 11:54 am
We have a manufacturing base. We aren’t going to be outsourcing defense contracts. We’re just saying that if a rubber plant in Ohio closes down, it’s not the end of the world.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Really? How many o’rings are required for a jet plane, or a tank? Listen, this is a complex issue, but outsourcing of many, many things puts our security in serious jeopardy. If you think this through deeply enough, and understand manufacturing well enough, and have a fear of terrorism (and the fact that we may well have countries called enemies), we have to be very, very careful what we allow to leave the country. You can’t start up steel mills overnight. Its far more than an economic issue my friends. Its too complex to convince anyone; not even sure I’m capable of it if I spent a week, but the problem is a big one.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I agree with you on many issues Illinoisguy, but I cannot totally agree with your views on trade. In my old age (haha) I am quite uneasy about blocking Free Trade. Yes, I care about national security and therefore believe that the government has the right to refuse sub-contracting out military project with certain countries, but all these being equal, it is not good to block trade on a day to day basis.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I’m saying that if a rubber plant in Ohio closes down, another one gets more of our defense contracts, thus getting more revenue. It now gets to make the O-rings that our first plant used to make. It also gets a greater share of the market for American made rubber. The government pays a premium to keep those plants here. There will always be competition for defense contracts. Streamlining isn’t a bad thing.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Robbie, I’m not arguing about plants within the USA. I’m talking about outsourcing manufacturing to other countries. The economic argument is not the only consideration by any means.
Ohio, the only thing is that ‘all these things’ are not equal. We can not forfeit our national security in the interest of free trade. Maybe we don’t disagree, it just seems like it.
My thinking is that some are not seeing the rippling effect. What some may see as items not important to oursourse over seas, others might realize their are very serious consequences if our enemies wanted to use it. And, the will!
February 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Robbie, I’m not arguing about plants within the USA. I’m talking about outsourcing manufacturing to other countries. The economic argument is not the only consideration by any means.”
I agree that we shouldn’t outsource government contract manufacturing. I’m just saying that NAFTA shouldn’t affect government contract outsourcing.
“We can not forfeit our national security in the interest of free trade.”
We don’t have to. We can have both. The jobs are still here. The government can continue to prop up demand for all sorts of things through government contracts while private companies send some operations overseas. The government just has to maintain a commitment to keeping contracts here.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Robbie…I’m not trying to be argumentative, but we are currently not even coming close to keeping the complete supply line for all components of our defense arsenal readily available within the USA. We have already put ourselves well beyond safety. And its not just for what you normally think of as defense. Think of all the computer components for example. How fast could a country or terrorist organization put the hurts on us by blowing up the supply line of computer components if they are all over seas. I could go on and on….like I said…we’re already in jeapardy.