Dear Bobby: Shut up! You're looking like part of the problem, not part of the solution

From the WAFB television website:

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. Representative Bobby Jindal has joined a growing number of Republicans calling for the resignation of Idaho Senator Larry Craig.

Craig is finding himself increasingly isolated from his political allies after his arrest in an airport men's room.

Jindal is among a handful of Republican House members calling for Craig to step down. Others include Jeff Miller and Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mark Souder of Indiana, and Ron Lewis of Kentucky.

Jindal is running for governor in Louisiana.

A spokesman for Craig denied widespread speculation in Washington that the three-term senator, who is up for re-election next year, was preparing to quit.

REP. JINDAL JUST NEEDS TO SHUT UP.

Why is that? I'm glad you asked.

Bobby Jindal needs to shut the !@#& up because the more he engages in such rank, self-righteous hypocrisy, the more he looks like a kept man. A party shill. A follower, not a leader.

Louisiana has had enough of followers. It's had enough of grafters, incompetents and lemmings who specialize in following their political patrons right over the cliff -- in turn, leading all their lower-light Louisiana followers over the edge and into the abyss.

I had thought better of Jindal than that . . . despite the disturbing signs of party-line toadyism he has manifested in the U.S. House. Whadda you know? Wrong again.

WHAT'S MORE DISTURBING, however, is that a smart fellow like Jindal apparently is convinced Louisianians are so damned stupid they won't start asking "But what about Vitter?" That Jindal thinks he can get away with such morally inconsistent pandering -- that he needs to engage in such a display of hypocritical moral inconsistency, as opposed to just shutting the !@#& up -- is a disturbing sign Louisianians just might be that damned stupid.

I, however, am not.

So, congressman, what about Sen. David Vitter, R-La.?

Bobby Jindal is a genius. Literally. He certainly knows that the only difference between Vitter and Larry Craig is the statute of limitations . . . and the gender of their booty-call targets. David Vitter is a john who didn't get caught fast enough; Larry Craig is an old poofter who got arrested while looking for a cheap thrill in an airport john.

What's the diff?

Jindal also is an amateur Catholic apologist. Certainly, he ought to be able to answer this: Apart from the fact that Vitter's naughty bits complemented the hooker's quite nicely, what is the difference -- sinwise, that is -- between Diaperman's heterosexual immorality and Craig's apparent homosexual immorality?

THE WAY I SEE IT, Craig is alleged to have committed crimes against God, crimes against his wife and crimes against nature. Vitter has admitted to committing crimes against God and crimes against his marital bond.

So, morally, Jindal is saying rank sexual morality and betrayal of a spouse is tolerable, but that crime against nature thang is the killer?

Homosexual acts aren't the only crimes against nature. And if the congressman is stating "unnatural acts" constitute the straw that breaks a senator's back -- moral wretchedness and legal transgression being the same -- I think he needs to tell teen-age American males, quite clearly, "You're on notice, buckos! Think twice! You may be putting a political career at risk!"

That's just nuts.

And Jindal is engaging in nutty thinking. That, or incredibly cynical thinking.

Louisiana has had enough nuts and cynics on the fourth floor of the state capitol. I had been hoping this election cycle might break the pattern.

Oops! I did it again!