Bobby Jindal is still a GOP favorite. Athenae, over at First Draft, nails the M$M on this in her commentary today. But there's more to the menace Jindal poses than his oversold aura of "not a fat old white guy and still a staunch Republican." From the Politico piece:

Tuesday night, Jindal was playing to a friendly crowd at the National Republican Congressional Committee's annual March Dinner.

“America is now seeing the greatest expansion of government in anyone’s lifetime,” Jindal said. "I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t sound like the Barack Obama from the campaign trail."

Excuse me? To paraphrase Lambert, what a steaming crock.

The biggest expansion of government in anyone's lifetime, Bobby? Driven not by the sacred Free Trade / Free Market philospophy that's led us down the road to the current meltdown, government expansion is now the proper label for investments in the national infrastructure -- roads, bridges, railways, jobs, energy, education, health care, that the people of the US need, instead of military bases and wars on the far side of the world? Really? 'Cause, that was said of Bush/Cheney too -- from comments this morning at MSNBC's "First Read":

Someone needs to send Boehner and Jindal back to history class. The largest expansion of government took place under Bush/Cheney (both left & right experts agree), both with spending and expansion of their "Imperial Presidency" ideology. That's no surprise since Cheney is a Nixonite, who believed "When the president does it, that means that is is not illegal" (1977 David Frost interview with Nixon). Another moronic mental lapse by the GOP is they fail to mention that Bush' 2009 budget was for $3.1 trillion. Obama's is: $3.6 trillion.
Diane Reeves (Sent Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:08 PM)

to descriptions of how to behave directly after 9/11/01:

There is a dramatic incongruity between what Bush thought he was coming to Washington to do and what he is actually embarking upon. He was elected with an outsider's political agenda aimed at reducing the scope and influence of the federal government.

But now, as the ultimate insider, he is greatly expanding the reach and power of our governmental institutions in myriad ways that will affect not only the armed forces he will send in harm's way but ordinary civilians as well. As commander-in-chief, he has little choice.

The difference between the budgets Bush submitted ($3.1 trillion) and Obama submitted ($3.6 trillion) aren't so much matters of amount as matters of target, priority, and purpose. Plus, in the Obama budget, the costs of the wars we're fighting overseas aren't "off the books". I'm not a data-mining master; can anybody here find the amounts spent so far in Iraq and Afghanistan by President Obama, and compare them with any seven weeks of spending under Bush?

From that same Marianne Means column:

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has been exhorting Wall Street investors to prop up the markets because of patriotism, not profits. The Federal Reserve has artificially pumped money into the banking system, even cutting short-term interest rates just before the stock market reopened, and filling automatic teller machines in lower Manhattan with $20 bills.

His attorney general, John Ashcroft, is pushing Congress for an unprecedented extension of legal authority to spy electronically on suspected terrorism plotters, permit indefinite imprisonment of immigrants with questionable documents and use information on individuals gathered by foreign governments through dubious means that would violate our own constitutional freedoms. Many members of Congress, however, have raised concerns that the measure would create the potential for widespread civil liberties violations.

So instead of building bases in Africa and the Middle East, the new President wants to spend money in the US. First he's trying to get the banks to open up lending again. I heard him say during his appearance on Leno that he's working on finding other ways to make loans for necessities -- small business expenses, car buying -- available outside the banking industry. If that's done carefully why shouldn't it work? This mess didn't crop up overnight; like 100 extra pounds on a middle-aged body, it's not going away overnight, either, and it won't go away by wishing. To address the financial meltdown recklessly will produce the same kind of solution fad diets bring to weight loss: temporary and followed by rebound problems. What you have to do to lose and keep off excess weight is change your expectations, your behaviors, and your habits. Fixing the economy will have to come out of a similar level of effort and persistence, if it's to be a real solution.

Bobby Jindal's all about the fad diet, though. It's the same one the GOP has been pushing since Reagan. And he's just as disingenuous as any other GOP pol:

LSU Political Science Professor Jeffrey D. Sadow says the new governor's first five months can be split into the good, the bad, and the ugly. The "good," according to Sadow (who is also a registered Republican), includes budget cuts, new spending priorities and the passage of a package of ethics reforms for Louisiana politicians. If these new rules don't quite meet the "gold standard" Jindal promised on the campaign trail, Sadow said they merit a "silver."

State Democratic Party communications director Julie Vezinot said, however, that many of these reforms "were already in the works" before Jindal assumed office, while the rest "are not enforceable." The non-partisan Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana has echoed her second charge, and also alleged that a burden of proof change in the new ethics code will make "violations more difficult to prove." Nevertheless, the Center for Public Integrity was impressed enough to boost Louisiana's poor 2006 score on its state disclosure ranking.

Five months, before Sarah Palin was picked to stand beside John McCain, and Bobby Jindal's own party members were suggesting he had fallen short of his campaign promises during his elected tenure. Now he's ragging on a President in office seven weeks?

Okay. That's a pol in action. We know the GOP does projection well. But about Jindal that makes my back teeth itch?

Ties (and similarities) to W notwithstanding, there's his religious bigotry and his disdain for women's right to choose even in cases other Catholics, including Kathleen Blanco, consider acceptable premises to allow abortion.

Guys, we've got to get the word out. If you thought Bush was awful, just wait until it's President Jindal.