Personally, I like Jindal as 2012's answer to 2008's Mitch Daniels, the guy who Republican insiders know will never become the nominee, and thus can come out and speak some semi-unpalatable truth ("social issues on the back burner!") designed to convince Beltway insiders (yet again!) that the Rockefeller-ish Republicans have some room to maneuver, at least electorally. With--and this is equally important--absolutely no intention to really do so, and no chance they could if they did.
I do hope the Reader appreciates as much as I Jindal's pledge that his party wants to make it possible for all Americans to join the middle class.
By the way, thanks to David Weigel for breaking away from the fast-breaking Benghazi news long enough to cover Romney's comments. But:
Romney understood, and understands, that these people want to believe that poor voters are being exploited by Democrats and forced to vote themselves more benefits. It's a theory that undergirds a lot of conservative election analysis. Let's not just write off Romney as some gormless dweeb.
1) Is it not time to admit that "conservative election analysis" is not much of a cover? And 2) isn't "gormless dweeb", like, a contradiction in terms? Though it might actually describe Romney.