The Ricochet Podcast - CPAC #3: Governor Bobby Jindal
Episode Date: February 27, 2015In our continuing series of podcasts from CPAC, National Review’s Jim Geraghty interviews Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Source...
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Looking for reliable IT solutions for your business?
At Innovate, we are the IT solutions people for businesses across Ireland.
From network security to cloud productivity, we handle it all.
Installing, managing, supporting and reporting on your entire IT and telecoms environment
so you can focus on what really matters.
Growing your business.
Whether it's communications or security, Innovate has you covered.
Visit Innovate today.
Innovate, the IT solutions people.
This is Jim Garrity with the NationalReview.com Ricochet podcast
with our special guest, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal,
who has just completed his speech on the CPAC stage.
We heard the dull roar of applause several times throughout that.
So, first of all, this has got to be several.
You've been to a bunch of CPACs now.
How many now?
Jim, I've come the last few years, so it's at least my third, maybe more than that, but at least my third.
What is the mood you've found?
I realize, obviously, you're being flooded, Brian, with people, and they're asking all kinds of questions,
but I have a theory on the mood of conservatives at this moment,
but I want to get your take first.
Here's my sense.
I see it here at CPAC, which is a great sampling from across the country,
but I see it in other places across the entire country, red, blue, purple states.
One, I think there is a mixture, and it seems contradictory, but it's not.
There's a great concern with where we are as a country today.
And it's not just domestic issues.
It's ISIS. It's Iran. And it's not just domestic issues. It's ISIS.
It's Iran.
But it's also Obamacare.
It's also concern about the Republican leadership, what they're going to do, what they're not going to do.
But despite that, and there is a real concern, and despite that and the frustration with the president, there's also an optimism.
I think there is a sense that this country is tired of the false promises from the extreme left.
They're tired of this president.
I think there's a real sense amongst conservatives that we can win in 2016,
and we can win with a principled conservative.
We don't have to vote against somebody.
We've got enough choices.
We've got a good deep bench.
We can be excited about the future.
So it's both anxiety about where we are today,
but also a sense of optimism that hope and change,
to borrow some words from the other side, may be around the corner, that things could be getting better sooner rather than later.
I would say hope and change is not the most automatic applause line here at CPAC.
No, not at all.
I purposely use that ironically.
I would say that one of the things I think that people elected Republicans or a conservative
base, we elected a Republican Senate in 2014, and they had this, okay, now things are going
to get better.
We're going to really show those.
And it's not necessarily going that way.
Obama certainly seems untethered or there are no strings on him anymore.
So I kind of want to, you know, is Republicans on Capitol Hill, were they ready for this?
Or does it kind of feel like they're playing catch up to this?
No, I think that's a great question.
I don't think they've been ready at all.
I think there's a disconnect between Republicans on Capitol Hill as well as the voters that put them there,
as well as a disconnect between how they're governing and how they campaign.
You see them about to wave the white flag of surrender on amnesty,
and what I worry about is they're about to wave the white flag of surrender on Obamacare.
It's really simple to me.
In all the TV ads you saw last year, the most common theme from Republican candidates was,
give us the majority and we'll repeal Obamacare.
There were no asterisks.
There was no disclaimer language, not the legal caveat saying, we're only going to get rid of the easy parts,
not the hard parts.
We're only going to do a little bit of it.
Now they're beginning to backtrack and say, well, you can't really get rid of all the tax increases,
but we're going to get rid of some, so that's better.
We've got to replace this with another new entitlement program once we get rid of Obamacare.
Well, we're going to count success by how many people have cards, not whether they really have access.
I don't remember any candidate in the Republican side saying,
we're going to be for Obamacare-like, we're going to be cheaper Democrats.
This election wasn't about getting McConnell, Senator McConnell, a better office.
It was about changing the direction of the country fundamentally.
It was about electing Republicans that would fight.
Now, the president gave a State of the Union speech after the election
completely without any reference
to what the voters just told him they wanted.
He was unbowed.
He was as radically left as he's always been.
It was a campaign speech for the next cycle, for the next candidate.
It wasn't about governing.
I don't like anything of what he's saying and doing to our country, but you've got to
respect the fact that he is the most ideologically extremely liberal president we've had, and
he's consistent about it.
I'd like to see some Republicans in Congress actually do what they said they were going to do,
at least fight for our conservative principles.
One final thought on Obamacare.
So Hillary Clinton started HillaryCare, started the fight back in the early 90s.
It took the left almost 16 years to realize their dream of this government,
I would call it takeover of our health care and this interference with our health care system.
Conservatives seem to be willing to give up the fight without even trying.
We need to repeal all of it.
And that means all the tax increases, not another new entitlement program.
So I am disappointed, and I think there will be a very big backlash from voters
if the Republicans in Congress don't start doing something with their new majority.
Otherwise, voters are going to say, what was the point?
DHS funding.
Is this our hill to die on?
Is this something that's worth shutting the government down,
or at least shutting that part of the government down,
in order to say, hey, this executive amnesty is just not going to fly?
One of the things that Republicans have done over and over in D.C.
is allow the president and Harry Reid, and to a lesser extent Nancy Pelosi,
to find the terms of the debate.
To me, that's ridiculous.
The last time we got caught in this trap, you didn't hear enough Republicans say,
well, why would the president shut down the government over following the law? Instead, we've got our leadership saying,
well, things like, well, we're not going to shut down the government. We're going to pass
a clean bill. It sounds to me almost, it's not a great comparison because I don't mean to insult
them this much, but when you hear the president say what he's not going to do, and you know how
he's taking away leverage when he's dealing with our enemies abroad, why are Republicans giving
away tools before the fight's really started? I think voters, Republican voters, want them to be able to do three things. It's
kind of like being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We think we can do three
things at the same time. They want them to undo this amnesty. It's unconstitutional.
It's illegal. It's unpopular. The president purposely did it after the election. He's
not a dictator. He's not allowed to do that. He doesn't get to choose which laws he wants
to ignore. Secondly, they want this Congress to secure the border once and for all.
And third, they want them to continue to let the government to function and operate.
We can do all three of those things.
It's not rocket science.
There are all kinds of theories up on the Hill.
People talk about things like, well, they should get rid of the nuclear,
they should push the nuclear option,
at least threaten to get rid of the filibuster rules like the Democrats did.
People are saying they should use reconciliation or they should go to conference.
There are all kinds of tactics, but it seems to me they need to start from the place of saying,
I remember them saying, the candidates saying, if you give us the Senate majority, we'll stop amnesty.
We can't do it until we've got the majority.
Well, now they've got the majority.
It's time to use it to do something.
One of the big topics has been the King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court decision,
which conceivably, obviously we're still awaiting the arguments and it's a little bit down the road,
but conceivably it could end the subsidies for a large number of people who bought it through the federal exchange.
And a lot of people kind of argue, cripple Obamacare.
And I've talked to some Republican senators who really aren't eager to see that scenario come down.
They kind of don't see themselves being able to get Obama to sign legislation that they would want.
They fear Obama might do it through executive order.
Perhaps a bit of a pattern there.
So, one, any thoughts on the Supreme Court case, whether it will go that way or not?
And the second thought is, if it does, what should Republicans and Capitol do?
I hope it goes our way.
I hope that the justices read what I think is black-letter law and say the law means what it says.
You can't just make things up because you want them to read differently.
This is part of the problem when you pass a bill so you can find out
what's in it, when you don't have transparent hearings and input and amendments, when you force
it on a party line vote. The reality is, is we need to win this case. We should win this case.
It will be like the dog catching the car if these Republicans in Congress don't pass their plan
today. Don't wait for the Supreme Court ruling. I provided a detailed plan for how do you repeal and replace Obamacare. Even if they don't like my plan, they can pass
somebody else's plan. Pass the plan today. Now, there are some stepping out, like Senator Sasse
and others that are saying, well, if this does happen, there are ways we can address this problem
without replacing the subsidies. I will tell you, in the state of Louisiana, I'm not doing a state
exchange because when the subsidies go away, so does for the most part the individual mandate.
So does the employer mandate.
That's a huge tax cut for the American people, saves taxpayer spending as well.
So I think we should win the case.
I hope we do.
I'm not a lawyer.
I would have thought we would have won the previous challenge on constitutional grounds against the individual mandate.
I think this is a strong case.
I think Republicans should show the plan they've got today.
I've got a plan.
You can go to AmericanNext.org and find out my plan.
But there are other plans.
But don't wait for the ruling because this is what the president will do.
I mean, I didn't ask him, but another governor asked him in a closed-door meeting at the National Governors Association,
and he basically said there was no plan.
His attitude was he thinks he should win the case, and it will be up to the states to do state exchanges.
This is what the left is going to do.
It's as predictable as rain.
This is what they're going to do.
If and when we win this case, they'll say, well, you heartless Republicans,
you're going to have people losing access to life-saving treatment.
All you have to do is set up an exchange.
This president is fond of saying he won the election.
Elections have consequences.
That trap is coming, and I hope but I worry that these Republicans in Congress,
many of them will fold, that's
why they need to pass their plane before the ruling happens.
Now
you and I have talked before and you've been pretty
consistent that you have a timetable for making a decision
on whether you want to run for president.
You're a governor who just happens to be putting
out national plans, the sort of thing that a
person running for president might do if he was
so inclined. Are you on the same
timetable?
I am still.
Look, the next couple of months, we're thinking and praying about it.
I will say this.
You're right.
We have put out these detailed plans on energy, on education reform, on health care,
on repealing Obamacare, on foreign policy.
Anybody thinking about running for president?
You know, the national media loves to focus on consultants and fundraising and polls.
The most important thing is for every candidate who's thinking about running for president to think about what they would do.
We need the next president to be somebody who wants to do something, not just be somebody.
Jim, we need big change in this country, not incremental change.
I want somebody who understands we're going in the wrong direction.
This president's trying to redefine the American dream, redefine what America stands for,
and we need to get back on the right track.
It is defeating ISIS. It is denying Iran nuclear capabilities.
It is repealing Obamacare.
It is growing the economy and energy independence.
But fundamentally, it's also saying the American dream is not about redistribution.
It's not about taxes.
It's not about growth in government.
It's not about spending and borrowing.
It's about opportunity.
It's about the circumstances of your birth, not determining your outcomes as an adult.
So I think that's the most important thing for, and I hope people that are considering
running will run.
I hope that voters have more choices.
I hope Republican voters can vote for somebody, not just against somebody.
So I think it's great.
We've got a deep bench.
I'm partial to governors.
They've run things before.
But the good news is I think we've got a really deep bench.
One of the reasons I ask is that, obviously, at this conference,
there's an enormous amount of discussion about who are you behind already.
It's February 2015.
Who are you voting for in primaries of 2016?
Are you feeling any pressure as you hear
Jeb Bush is trying to raise $100 million,
but it seems like effectively $100 bazillion.
Do you feel any pressure to jump in this
as other guys are jumping in?
Not at all.
My timetable won't be impacted by what other people do.
The reality is when I first ran for governor,
I was polling at 2%,
which means I was within the margin of error.
I'm going to get in based on whether, and I'll make the decision based on whether I'll get in,
based on whether I've got something unique to offer.
And, you know, this is an election, not an auction.
I'm sure there will be plenty of people that will raise a ton of money.
I don't think voters want the party insiders to clear the field, to select the nominee,
to ordain a candidate, whoever that person is. I think they want a contest. I think they want debates. I think they want to clear the field, to select the nominee, to ordain a candidate,
whoever that person is. I think they want a contest. I think they want debates. I think
they want to kick the tires. They want to hear what people have to say. They want to look them
in the eye on the ground in Iowa and South Carolina and other states. They want to hear
where people stand. And they want somebody who's brave and strong enough to look them in the face
and even tell them when they disagree with them. They want a candidate that says,
I know the left and the media is going to attack me when I say this. I'm going to stick by it
anyway. I gave my speech in London about radical Islamic terrorism. I was
called racist and anti-Muslim because I said Muslim leaders need to condemn individuals,
not just generic acts of violence. And we need assimilation and integration for people coming
in our society. And I said, well, you know, I'm sorry the president won't say radical Islamic
terrorism, but somebody's got to speak the truth. So I don't think anybody should make this decision
based on what others are doing
or on fundraising or polling.
I think folks should stick to their timetables.
The most important thing they can do, though, is think what they would do,
what they would actually want to accomplish.
It's a very important office and a very important time for our country.
You made a reference to Iran a couple of moments ago,
and two developments in the last day or two just seemed particularly unnerving,
one being the alleged administration plan of there's going to be no processing of the nuclear fuel for 10 years,
and after that, maybe it'll be okay.
Coupled with the Iranians apparently blew up a model of a U.S. aircraft carrier,
like a full-size, you know, which...
So we're negotiating with people who are practicing killing us,
and that just struck me as just not...
Like, well, I'm not going to give you concessions if you're practicing killing me.
That would precondition for a conversation we stop trying to pretend to killing
me um have i taken crazy pills the world is spinning off its axe do you do you look at this
and say like okay maybe i don't want to be president this thing's really screwed up really
fast well jim three things one you've again and this shows why you write so well you've again
said it better than anybody else has and that's exactly i don't have a word the endorsement of this no point in saying that i i i
but i
but i'm saying i think that you know again you've shown why you're a witty
smart uh... uh... conservative intelligent conservative
began i think you some eyes are very very well this is but look there's a
pattern here this is an administration that tells
uh... israel you need to go negotiate people that want you up wiped off the
face of your that one eradicate you did that have said that and have not repudiated that.
So there is a pattern here.
This is the worst legacy the president could leave to his successors in our country,
is a nuclear-armed Iran or Iran on the verge of becoming nuclear-armed.
The reality is this.
I fear he wants to deal so badly he might take a bad deal over no deal at all.
And it is infecting our entire Middle East policies.
I think, for example, one of the reasons we haven't been firmer about Assad is that we have ceded that sphere of influence to Iran.
I think it's one of the reasons Turkey is hesitant to go in and take on ISIS on the ground
because they want to create a void that strengthens Assad and Iran by proxy.
I think it is one of the reasons that perhaps, I can't prove this,
but it may be one of the reasons we've not been as tough on Putin and Russia. And again,
all because I think this president thinks this is his great legacy, that this is what he's going
to leave behind. I hope Congress would step up and not only invite Netanyahu to speak, but say,
we're going to get to vote on any deal and we're rejecting a bad deal and would say we are going
to pass the tough sanctions bill. Look, so what if the president's threatened to veto it?
Get it to his desk.
Let's see what he does.
Let's give him the opportunity to do the right thing,
and let's at least challenge him to do the right thing.
So I do agree.
It is important for us to defeat ISIS.
It's important for the president to actually say we face the threat of radical Islamic terrorism,
but he absolutely must not allow them to become a nuclear power
or on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
That's an existential threat not only for Israel and our European allies but also the United States,
and it won't end with Iran.
Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, other countries will also then want nuclear capabilities.
We'll be in no position to stop them after we fail to stop Iran.
I believe some of those countries may be able to buy that technology from Pakistan.
They may have an option to do that.
Again, we can't prove that, but can you imagine now you've got multiple countries in the Middle East with nuclear weapons? It's a volatile,
dangerous place already. Think how dangerous that becomes with that development. So I think this is
a dangerous, dangerous game this administration is playing. He doesn't seem to understand peace
through strength. That is the best way to conduct our foreign policy. Governor Jindal, thanks very
much for your time. This has been Jim Garrity with Governor Jindal on National Review and
Ricochet Podcast.
Jim, thank you.
Thank you, Governor. Thank you.
Ricochet.
Join the conversation.