Hitting Jindal where it hurts

August 21, 2007

From time to time, some of us (including me) wonder why there’s a stark difference in tone when Dems go negative in an attack ad and when the GOP goes negative in an attack ad. The latter tends to be more … what’s the word … vicious.

For everyone who ever complained that Dems are afraid to throw the roundhouse punch, I give you the new ad from the Louisiana Democratic Party:

Ouch. That’s one of the hardest-hitting Democratic ads I’ve seen in a while. Indeed, it kind of reminded me of a Republican ad.

Here’s the context for those who aren’t following Louisiana’s gubernatorial race. Rep. Bobby Jindal (R), who narrowly lost a gubernatorial race four years ago, is the frontrunner to win the state’s open gubernatorial contest this year. A number of Dems are vying to take him on, but polls show Jindal with a very big lead.

This ad, obviously, is intended to help narrow the gap a bit. Louisiana Protestants are a key part of the state’s GOP coalition, and if they’re offended by Jindal’s previous comments, it could make the race far more competitive.

As for the response to the ad, the Jindal campaign insisted that it’s “false” and “an attack on his Christian faith.” There’s no doubt the ad hits hard, but I don’t think it’s either of those things.

In the 1990s, before he entered politics, Jindal wrote articles for New Oxford Review, a Roman Catholic magazine, in which he was, in fact, rather aggressive in his denunciation of Protestants. Indeed, the Louisiana Democratic Party has posted the articles. Jindal wrote what he wrote; it’s too late to pretend otherwise.

What’s more, New Oxford Review seems to realize the problem and, as Kos noted, is “doing everything they can to protect Jindal by removing copies of it from the web.”

OK, so the ad is true. But does it attack Jindal’s faith? That’s actually a complex question. On the surface, no, the ad doesn’t criticize Jindal for being Catholic, so the ad couldn’t be an attack on his faith. But if Jindal, who converted from Hinduism, were to argue that his Catholic teachings led him to believe that Protestants really are heretics, then maybe the ad could qualify as criticism of his specific religious beliefs.

Except, that’s not the argument Jindal wants to make at all. In other words, if Jindal says the ad criticizes his spiritual convictions, he would have to necessarily concede that he actually believes those awful things he said about Protestants. If he doesn’t believe them anymore, than, logically, it’s not an attack on his beliefs.

I suppose the more relevant, overarching point here is whether this issue is fair game. On this, I’m torn, but am leaning in the Louisiana Democratic Party’s direction. Jindal wrote some out-there stuff in the ’90s. If he no longer has those beliefs, great; he can denounce what he’s written and hope voters won’t care.

But it’s in the public record and now it’s on the air. Jindal probably shouldn’t complain about Dems highlighting his own words to voters.

I think its a great ad. He wrote those articles and he should either stand by them or denounce them.

IIRC, Jim Webb’s campaign team produce similar hard hitting ads. Or am I confusing his hard hitting responses with campaign ads?

Until the GOP stops producing hard hitting negative ads, I don’t think the Dems should stop. Unilateral disarmament just to keep to the “highroad” is a recipe for losing. Having said that, I think this ad is a great example of what to do: factual, no pulled punches, no scary sounds, no overt (or subtle) plays to fear. That is good stuff.

  • If a politician believes in the tooth fairy, that isn’t necessarily relevant to a political campaign. If he believes that my religion, or yours, is “depraved,” I think that’s relevant. That makes him a divider, not a uniter.

    Another thing – I don’t know what Jindal looks like, but the picture of him at http://www.jindalonreligion.com makes him look like he just spent the night in the drunk tank. Republican attack ads would never use an unflattering picture like that of their Democratic opponents. Would they?

  • I didn’t think this ad was hard hitting or an attack. It mentions what Jendal wrote. Seemed rather tame to me. If Dems consider this vid an example of a hard hitting attack ad they need to go snipe hunting.
    An ad that shows Vitter’s hypocrisy, complaining that Clinton shoud resign for doing less than what Vitter was doing at the same time he was making those remarks (video images abound) now that would be a hard hitting attack ad based on facts.

    But a spokesperson saying basically, this is what he wrote, read it it’s horrible because this is what he said…is really pretty tame stuff. Is your jaw supposed to drop or something because the best I could muster after viewing it was…hmmm. Oh well…just saying…

  • Republican attack ads would never use an unflattering picture like that of their Democratic opponents. Would they?

    ROTFLMAO. Thanks for the laugh OkieFromMuskogee!

  • “If a politician believes in the tooth fairy, that isn’t necessarily relevant to a political campaign.”

    True, there were plenty of other reasons to vote against Bush.

  • I can’t play the ad on the computer I am currently on, so I can’t comment specifically on the ad, but in general I think a politician’s religion, like his family and personal life, should be off limits. UNLESS, the politician makes those things part of his public life and positions. Then those things become fair game for consideration. If a politician, in this case Jindahl, publishes his views on religion, then those views are in the public domain and are fair game for comment in a political campaign.

  • In a region where fundamentalist religion, white supremacy, and patrician economics reign and where Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) enjoys a 66% approval rating, it’s hard to imagine that Jindal is in any real trouble.

  • I am a believer in fair play but over the years with all the lying Republican ads I think it’s time the Dems stopped turning the other check. In hindsight if Kerry came out swinging after the Swift Boat scum things might have been different these past 2 ½ years. I am all for being down and dirty and I don’t believe the Liberals will fault the Dems for it.

  • If Jindal’s Democratic opponent had written that screed the attack ads would stop just short of calling for the lynching of the Papist. Jindal wrote those words when he was, chronologically, an adult. He can either stand by them or he can, in a very Republican way, disavow himself.

    Either way, using a pol’s own words against him or her is fair game.

  • “In a region where fundamentalist religion, white supremacy, and patrician economics reign and where Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) enjoys a 66% approval rating, it’s hard to imagine that Jindal is in any real trouble.”

    One big difference–Vitter is part of the white community and Jindal is not. That is why it might make a difference in Jindal’s case. It isn’t right, but that is Louisiana.

  • I agree with bjobotts…this is hardly an attack ad.

    Additionally, as Louisiana is made up of a large number of Catholics (hence, parishes), I doubt this will hurt him very much.

  • “selfish,” “depraved,” and “heretical”

    They’re not Jindal’s words. He’s quoting John Calvin, the infamous papist.

  • stevesh…

    john calvin was a french protestant – not a “papist” (papist being a kind of derogatory label for catholic where i come from!).

  • Hmmm. Michelle Obama-wife says something generic about taking care of family, and it’s twisted into an attack on Hillary.

    Democrats run an ad using the actual words of a GOP candidate, and it’s a dirty viscious smear.

    Damn librul media.

  • We can expect Jindal to resort to that time-tested Republicans act of social hypocrisy and cynicism: the Unpology. That is, facing recriminations for ethical failings, racist behavior, sexist statements, religious bigotry or outright criminality, this new generation of Republican wrong-doers delivers the facade of apology by uttering obligatory words of remorse devoid of actual regret, contrition – or even an admission of guilt.

    For more on what the coming Jindal unpology might look like, see:
    “The Unpology: How Republicans Never Say They’re Sorry.”

  • Steve and others seem to be missing an essential point. The Louisiana Dems’ ad throws around several inflammatory quotes by Bobby Jindal. But not one of them is backed up in the accompanying website. I read two of the Jindal articles reproduced in “jindalonreligion.com”, and they’re not especially alarming or extremist. I suspect that the Jindal quotes are ripped out of context.

    Sure, we all want Democratic campaigns to get tough. But do we want to be cheering on campaign smear jobs? If the answer is “yes,” how are we better than the wingnuts who cheered on the Swift Boat ad campaign?

    To be clear, I don’t know that the Jindal ad is a smear job. But if the authors took the trouble to put up a website to corroborate their charges, and the website tends to undermine them instead, color me suspicious.

  • Jindal is one of the better Republicans. There are about a million other Republicans in a thousand other purple districts against whom we can spend money running against, and feel good about it. I disagree with DailyKos on this one…

  • Protestants are heretics. They need to know this so they can convert and return to the One True Church – the Holy Roman Catholic Church, lest their souls spend all eternity in hell.

    • Comments are closed.