By comparison, some publications have written reviews of the governor that appeared to be taken directly from Jindal’s press secretary notes or from other columnists who have a habit of only write puff pieces about the governor.
And, then, there are other publications which will not cut the Governor any slack whatsoever, who paint him as the devil incarnate despite his very personable persona and his obvious sense of decency.
Cillizza did not take either approach but instead looked at what he considers to be the good and the bad of the governor as a vice president nominee.
Which is exactly what we have tried to do in the series “The Good, the bad, the pretty and the ugly of Bobby Jindal”. We want to look at both sides of the man who is reshaping Louisiana and who could reshape America.
The national writers should be holistic in taking a view of the man that leaders such as Gingrich have called “transformational” and that others, such as a Louisiana public service commissioner (who ran against the governor) recently has called hypocritical.
The Post did that. On Wednesday, the paper published “The case for Bobby Jindal to be vice president”
In paraphrasing the author, I feel Cillizza noted that picking Jindal would show the world that the GOP leadership is not lilly white, that the governor would prove to be a strong fundraiser, that he would be a good campaigner and not one who would be boring or who would overshadow the main man, Romney.
In describing Jindal's performance, Cillizza wrote:
“In his four-plus years in office, Jindal has built a very impressive record that would fit nicely with Romney’s promises to bring conservative principles to the federal government.
Jindal’s top priority coming into office was ethics reform — political corruption is as common as good beignets in Louisiana — and he got it done quickly. Jindal has also pushed hard to reform the state's education system, an effort that won him praise from none other than the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. (Make sure to read HuffPo’s Jon Ward on Jindal’s impressive record.)”
On Thursday, Cillizza presented the other side of the case against the governor.
In doing so, he said, “And, if you are Mitt Romney, can you watch Jindal’s 2009 speech and not feel a little bit of trepidation about how he might perform under the hot glow of the national spotlight? We say not.”
The Post writer also described some who question the governor’s loyalty (he was once a major Rick Perry supporter).
Cillizza also noted that some do not buy what has been written the "Jindal Koolaide" writing, “Mile wide, inch deep record: For years, Democrats have been insisting that everything Jindal has done — from ethics to education — in the state has been aimed at being able to quickly take credit and leverage that credit to build his national profile.
They point to negative press surrounding the implementation of Jindal’s education policies , questions about how Jindal will close the state’s Medicaid budget gap and even take issue with Jindal’s proposed policy prescriptions in the wake of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon mine in 2010 — an event for which Jindal has drawn almost universally positive press.”
The Washington Post article closed with the claim that there are too many unknowns to Jindal referring to the fast political rise of the Louisiana governor and indicated that in introducing Jindal to the American public, it is likely that the national Democrats would do a much more effective job in bringing out the governor’s warts than the demos have done within the deep state of Louisiana, physically at the bottom of the Deep South.
The Washington Post columns are good and fair reads. More of the national media should follow suit in writing about Jindal as well as all of the candidates on both sides of the political aisle. The real background and philosophies of our future leaders deserve a real “Fair and Balanced” scrutiny. Too much syrup from Fox News or vinegar from MSNBC makes for a horrible diet and for a sorely misled nation.