Trying to save the GOP, Gov. Bobby Jindal?

You're doing it wrong.

It's kind of adorable the way the Republican Party is still trying to undo the damage done by some of the more, shall we say, creative ways certain candidates expressed what the whole party believes about rape, abortion, and women's rights. (Oh, they're all against women's rights. That's officially in the party platform. Some were just more honest about saying so.)

And it's even more adorable the way they're still doing it wrong.

Take Gov. Bobby Jindal, for example, who appeared on Fox News Sunday. When Chris Wallace asked Jindal how to "convince unmarried women that you are looking out for them," after the party got "hammered" for its non-stop assault on women's rights, Jindal tried super hard to give the right answer. Tried and failed:



Well, Chris, a couple of things. One, I think we can still be true to our principles -- I'm pro-life. I follow the teachings of my church and my faith. But at the same time, I think we can respect of those that we disagree with us. We don't need to demonize those who disagree with us. We need to respect the fact that others have come to different conclusions based on their own sincerely held beliefs and have a civil debate. We don't need to demonize -- and we also don't need to be saying stupid things. Look, we had candidates in Indiana and Missouri that said offensive things that only hurt themselves and lost those Senate seats, but also have hurt the Republican Party across the board. So, I think we can be true to our principles. We don't need to pander or change our principles, but at the same time, we can be respectful.

Listen up, Gov. Howdy Doody. The problem with Todd Akin's theory that women have magic lady parts that detect and deflect rape sperm to prevent pregnancy, or Richard Mourdock's heartfelt sentiment that rape babies are God's gift to women, isn't that either candidate was demonizing anyone. It's not as if those two candidates lost because they expressed popular opinions in a less-than-respectful way. And finding a nicer, friendlier way of saying "Hey, ladies, we're going to take your rights away from you 'cause science and God!" isn't the way for Republicans to redeem themselves with all those women who voted against them.

No, the problem is right there in the very beginning of Jindal's response. It's the party's principles that voters rejected. It's the absurd idea that voters want their elected officials to inject more church and faith into our laws. It's the notion that the Republicans can run on a platform of denying basic health care to women as long as they say it the right way.

The so-called principles are the problem. And as long as Republicans continue to insist that their anti-woman principles are just fine as long as they're expressed in a "respectful" way, they'll continue to find themselves "shellshocked" when voters disagree.

