The man talks an awful lot of sense.

I am not impressed with Governor Jindal. He went to the Obama school of leadership it seems, the scold method.

I like Bobby Jindal.

I don´t like some of the things has said recently. I´m not a fan of people who are so quick to publicly condescend towards Republicans. I think that was big part of Romney´s lack of appeal. The problems in this country continue to be the fault of Democrats, not Republicans.

I´m also skeptical of newspapers trying to be kingmakers. Few, if any publications that I knew of supported Reagan. He was an effective leader none the less.

I will continue to watch carefully to look for good conservative leadership. I think I´ll know it when I see it. In the mean time, we all need to be careful of publications like this one that seem to elevate Jindal just because he scolded Republicans.

Is he a natural born citizen?

He is a social conservative. One stance -- he wants the Federal Government to control which marriages in which states are declared "legitimate". The GOP should nominate him for the Presidency if they really want the US to remain a Socialist nation.

Krispie Kris? Really!,Salena?

I agree with #4- especially a newspaper from Pennsylvania, where in some areas, NO ONE voted for Romney- or so they told us.

I have been a Jindal fan from the beginning. He lacks the chiseled looks that voters seem to expect from Republicans, but maybe that won´t matter. Mitt Romney had those and still lost.

#4: It now appears that the Fifth Amendment, --(to refuse to answer that question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence), trumps that requirement.

" His executive experience began at 24 when he was appointed to run Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals, an unwieldy bureaucracy."

Now what was Barry doing at 24 , again ?
Obama´s sketchy ethnic background was ( and still is ) given the Manti Te´o treatment by the media.
They will dissect and besmirch and cast aspersions on Jindal´s background,
no doubt implying that he´s Muslim.

I don´t think so. Having good ideas is not enough. There are others who are just as smart, just as conservative, but present themselves better. The competition has gotten stiffer.

Not so sure about an up-and-comer....I still want a statesman, seasoned and wisened.

Oh, and carries a big ol´ conservative stick!

#8: "Chiseled Looks" indeed! This lacking leaves Jindal DOA. And still...Hillary thunders on in all her beauty and charism.

Sorry: CHARISMA...

He is not natural born. When his parents came here from India, his mother was pregnant with Bobby. Bobby was born here, but his parents were not citizens yet. Same thing with Rubio. Parents were not citizens yet. Obama has to be exposed for being an illegal president or we will have more like him in our future. Jindal and Rubio are at least on America´s side; Obama is not.

Jindal is governor of my state. He is not a fiscal conservative.

There´s lots of football left between now and 2016, and not to put too fine a point on it, but Jindahl is still just flexing his muscle in Division III. He has yet to take his first NFL hit. We´ll see if he gets up the first time he gets his bell rung. Talk to me about him then.

Did she really say Cris Hussein Cristie was a Republican up and comer?

I don´t think we´ll see another Caucasian male in the Presidency for some time. Just an opinion.

#5, if the Federal government created an act that imposed recognition of same sex marriage rights on the states, would you still oppose it on principled constitutional conservative grounds? If the answer is "no," then the disagreement with Jindal is about preferred outcomes, not first principles. If you believe, as I do, that the Constitution does not empower the Federal government to decide who can get married, then you are looking to the states to debate and legislate the issue. However, proponents of same sex marriage are pursuing their goals by suing their fellow citizens. This turns a political and social question into a legal decision whereby one state judiciary can create a right that previously did not exist and then leverage the Constitution´s full faith and credit clause to nationalize recognition of that right. Jindal´s position is that the power to create rights (e.g. marriage) carries with it the power to destroy rights (e.g. the 2nd Amendment) and the judiciary does not, and should not, have that power.

Men of good faith can debate the issue of same sex marriage. Jindal´s support of the Defense of Marriage Act was couched in terms of opposing judicial activism at the state level. I´m still waiting to find a proponent of same sex marriage who also opposes judicial activism in support of that goal.

Myself, I don´t want a King. Besides four years is a very long time. I know the past four seem like a lifetime and we still have another four of El O´.

#4: No, Jindal and Rubio and Obama do not meet the Constitutional eligibility requirements. See #15.

And for those interested in the Rule of Law, that closes the matter. Period.

No, #22, your interpretation does not close the matter. There are many credible, informed, legal and constitutional scholars who believe otherwise.This is from the Cornell University Law School: Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen." One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person´s parents.

The vast majority of the country would revolt and never stand for it if a person born in the US was not allowed to run for President. Congress and the courts won´t touch it with a 10 foot pole and most legal scholars agree natural-born means born in the USA OR born of citizen parents if born outside the physical boundaries of the country. To the tiny group who is still fighting the ´both parents must be citizens´ fight, give it up. It´s over.

The GOP doesn´t need a king.

Agree #25. I would consider a Mama Grizzly though.

I remember having such high hopes for him....until he joined the dem bash wagon attacking Pres. Bush after katrina. I swear, you could not tell any difference between what the dems were saying about Pres. Bush and what jindal was saying.....they read from the same script. After that, I didn´t have much regard for him. If he is doing a good job in LA, let him stay there and finish the reformation....don´t let him near the dc crowd again, he can´t keep his head straight.

Jindal just not American enough.

#23, No.s 22 and 15 are not offering their own interpretations but Vattel´s.

Those attempting to redefine this term have yet to explain the difference between citizen (qualification for Representatives and Senators) and natural born citizen (qualification for President) as presented in the Constitution. They are clearly two seperate terms. It should also be noted that the phrase ´...a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...´ seems also to indicate two different types of citizenship.

Words mean something and the consensus of scholars and experts does not change their meaning.

I like him as what he says always makes sense. Too bad he doesn´t have a ´Reagan´ personality! 50% of people vote on personality.

Dunno if anyone will see this, but I must address errors.

#23: I neither make nor offer an "interpretation." My #22 is correct. Post #29 is correct. I [and #29] correctly accept that the Constitution sets the qualification for President. Period. Further, an actual "interpretation" [read: opinion] of some judge, some law school, or some political party did not and does not set the qualifications. That´s clear beyond obviousness.

The only way to have "room" for the subjective opinion quoted in #23 is if we assume the Constitutional Convention was comprised of morons who didn´t understand that they used "natural born citizen" just one time for one office only and used "citizen" elsewhere but did not mean to indicate a difference. But it´s beyond clear that they understood the meaning of "natural born citizen" and used it specifically to impose that well-understood meaning.

I won´t dig into de Vattel yet again [I´ve posted on "The Law of Nations," the deliberations, and the relevant Federalist Paper again and again, and still some people who never even heard of de Vattel ´til they read my post argue with me]. Been there over and over. Thanks.

I think Susana Martinez is one sharp cookie and I´m very impressed with her. None of the men on the list excite me at all. Maybe it´s time for a woman president and I don´t mean Hillary.