This is Not Good: From Little Green Footballs:

Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, [Bobby] Jindal actually did: he promoted and signed a creationism bill (with help from the Discovery Institute), he took part in an amateur exorcism and claimed it cured a woman of cancer, and possibly worst of all, he pals around with people on the extreme edges of fundamentalist Christianity, and at least one person who has associated with outright neo-Nazis.

You can read the dirty details here. The LGF prediction:

My take: the MSM and the left would love it if Jindal is the GOP nominee in 2012, because he will lose. So they're going to ignore all the damaging issues until then, preemptively sabotaging any effort to find a more viable GOP candidate.

While at it, you can read about GOP Governors Mark Sanford and Tim Pawlenty's creationist sympathies here. Republicans be warned: No demonstrably creationist politician will be elected President of the United States.

Update: Silicon Valley Redneck has a thoughtful reply:

I wouldn't exactly call that a safe bet, especially now.

Those of us in the edumacated classes, with eclectic reading habits and a collection of Stephen Jay Gould books on the shelf, may regard overt creationism (as distinct from mushy unclarity on the subject of evolution) as an unacceptable quality in a candidate.

But what of the masses? The ones whose exposure to biology was one ill-taught required class in high school, and who simply have no interest in the matter?

What if the other candidate subscribes to an even worse philosophy, which has a direct bearing on government?

What if both candidates are creationists?

If the politicians of the world manage to turn the current recession into another great depression, expect a resurgence of old-fashioned hellfire-and-brimstone religion, and people flocking much more to churches than to, say, community-college courses on subjects completely unrelated to landing a job.

Bible-thumping churches offer comfort in hard times; biology doesn't. When predicting which way the electorate will jump, something to believe in is a safer bet than something that's aligned with the facts.

And his concluding shot is well taken too:

And keep in mind: many of those who most vociferously mock religious Republicans harbor creationist beliefs of their own. Listen to some of these people talk about Nature, and how everything in Nature must have some beneficial use to us if only we had the wisdom to find it, or how the answer to every problem lies in turning away from Technology and looking in Nature. Dress up creationism in pseudo-pagan language, and they just eat it up.

Fair enough. But even with this admonition in mind, I will modify my claim only slightly: No avowedly creationist Republican candidate will be elected President of the United States. Not. Gonna. Happen. And if that creationist Republican candidate is far superior with respect to governing philosophy and executive experience and skills, as he or she may well be, it will be so much the worse for the country. Sorry Bobby, Tim & Mark. Republicans: Do NOT try this electoral experiment. Please!

Defining "Creationism" Down: I have received 3 polite emails to the effect that there is a reasonable "creationism" that a Republican candidate like Bobby Jindal could hold. Here are some excerpts:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are Jindal's thoughts on creationism really so dangerous and scary? As a devout Catholic, who presumably adheres to Church teachings on creation, he probably believes in Darwinian evolution (as the Church often is at pains to point out) but regards the process as one planned and put into motion by the divine author. 'Creationism' might be the worst label ever, as it lumps together the earth-is-2000-years-old crowd with those, like Jindal, who acknowledge the scientific evidence of evolution but feel that it's merely a component of something larger (eg God). Jindal would be wise to point out, early and vigorously, where his differences lie.

And this:

Sadly your point implies that no religious republican will be acceptable as the definition of creationist seems to be expanding to include viewpoints that accept the idea that evolution was guided by God's hand. And that means no republican as I don't see a secularist surviving the primary. Years ago, the Catholic Church made its peace with evolution as the process by which God created the world. Now that is considered part of creationist as part of the intelligent design movement. Similarly with Orthodoxy which has said the how isn't a method of faith just the why and who. The belief that creation of the world was purposeful and God directed is a part of most Christian faiths, even the liberal ones, as well as most non-Christian ones.

Of course, a religious Christian would probably oppose a lot of the left's agenda so it all works out.

Now let me be VERY clear about this:

1. If this is all that is meant by "creationism" there would be no electoral issue; but
   
2. There is absolutely no reason why THIS position would be taught in schools at all, much less in science classs; so
   
3. To the extent these 3 Republican governors ARE ON THE PUBLIC RECORD favoring teaching creationism or "intelligent design" in public schools as a "perspective," they are endorsing a position that goes way beyond what these writers are describing; nevertheless
   
4. I believe in giving these politicians the benefit of the doubt on these issues--I am certainly not gunning for them, I am sincerely disappointed to hear that this may be their views, and I hope this is a mischaracterization of their views; however
   
5. Obfuscation will not get this done--they will not receive the benefit of the doubt as presidential candidates; and
   
6. Wishing will not make make the coalition that is the Republican Party hold together, much less get the party past 50% of the electorate; but
   
7. I am not expressing my own preferences--if such a candidate happens to be nominated who is good on enough of the issues I care about and has executive experience and skills *I* may well be hoping he or she wins; but I am nevertheless confident that
   
8. A Republican candidate who is an avowed adherent to creationism will not be elected President of the United States; of course
   
9. I could be wrong about this; but
   
10. PLEASE do NOT put this to the test by running this electoral experiment; so
    
11. If your favorite candidate is on record favoring creationism as science to be taught in government schools, he or she has sunk already himself on the national political scene whether you like it or not. Better find another candidate.