What's odd is that this YouTube clip of Sheriff Lee ("the last of the yellow dog Democrats in Louisiana") places Jindal in the sheriff's office the day after the storm hit. For most people, that counts as "during Katrina." In this clip, Lee is endorsing Jindal for governor:
Hurricane Katrina, the day after, Bobby was in my office, said, "What do you need?" And it wasn't phone calls, he was in my office... I know how involved he was... He was hands-on. I got him everywhere he had to go in my helicopter, and he was there all the time. When the thing was over, he'd got equipment for us.
Why didn't Jindal's speech writer use this anecdote? Why not say "in Katrina's aftermath"? Jindal chief of staff Timmy Teepell says that the incident, as outlined in Jindal's speech, took place "in the week following Katrina."
Here's Jindal's GOP response to President Obama's State of the Union address - the source of the hullabaloo:
During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: 'Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!' I asked him: 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go - when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, "Sheriff, that's ridiculous." And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: "Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!" Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.
I don't understand this any more than I understand Obama's automobile anecdote. You don't give your opposition something this tantalizing to sink their teeth into, at least not in a prepared speech! Gaffes that occur in extemporaneous remarks, those I understand. I made my own Thursday night in a panel on the future of newspapers in Seattle. (But I'm not running for elected office!)
Let's get this bird-dogging energy focused on budget proposals, shall we?

Comments
Slow political news day?
Why not cover some of the huge whoppers coming from the lips of Barry?
No earmarks?
I stopped smoking?
Claims he wants to work with Republicans?
If you make under $250K you won’t pay a dime more in taxes?
The list grows.
C
Thanks for the link to the discussion about the demise of the P-I. Great photo! You look HOT.
What baffles me is that we’ve known for several years that the viability of two newspapers in Seattle was in jeopardy. Why didn’t these folks have this panel then? It’s a little late to start the conversation now IMHO.
While I think bloggers have done some fabulous investigative journalism, the problem with this route is that their audiences are limited at best. Newspapers have kept politicians honest because they’ve had broad circulation.
Our democracy depends on a viable, investiative press. So, I’m a little bit with Chuck today, Kathy. This is something I’d like to see you explore more in-depth.
We all know the problem. What’s the solution?