Can Bobby Jindal make a second first impression?

The 43-year-old, second-term Jindal who showed up in South Carolina in May for the unofficial kick-off of the presidential campaign in this key early primary state probably would have satisfied those long-ago hopes.

In 20 minutes on stage before 2,200 conservative activists, Jindal was engaging and confident. He filled the room — and the shoes of a likely 2016 candidate — as he paced back and forth, sans podium, mixing personal stories about his family with his pitch for their support in the upcoming campaign. For Jindal, it turned out to be a rare second chance to make a first impression.

“I’d seen him on the news once or twice, and I thought he had the same values. But now that I’ve seen him, he may be one of my top picks,” said Nancy Thomas, a 50-something homemaker and socially conservative GOP primary voter from nearby Clinton, S.C.

The Washington Examiner sat down with Jindal just prior to his speech to talk about his agenda as president. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

Examiner: If you decide to run for president, you don’t begin with very much support.

Jindal: The first time I ran I began with less than 2 percent, I was within the margin of error. So, the reality is this: I think this election — I think voters are looking for somebody who’s going to make big changes to fix the big problems President Obama’s leaving behind. I’m the only potential candidate that’s offered detailed solutions, on health care, on energy, on education, on foreign policy. The only potential candidate that’s actually said, specifically, how do we get rid of Obamacare, for example. And I’m amazed others aren’t doing that.

I also think voters are hungry for someone to tell them the truth. I think they’re looking around, and what they hear are politicians from D.C. telling them, we can’t reduce the size of government. That’s ridiculous. The reality is, if we don’t reduce the size of government, it’s going to swallow our economy, the American Dream becomes the European Nightmare. You’ve got a bunch of math deniers in Washington, D.C. Not only do we have specific plans, we’ve got a proven track record. In Louisiana we’ve cut our budget 26 percent, we’ve got 30,000 fewer state government employees than the day I took office. So, not only do we have specific plans, we’ve got a track record. If I were to be a candidate, I think that would be an attractive combination to a lot of Republican voters and general election voters.

Examiner: What do you do on Day One if you’re elected president and take office in January of 2017?

Jindal: The very first thing the president’s got to do, domestically, is repeal and replace Obamacare.

Examiner: You’re not going to have 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster, so what do you do?

Jindal: First of all, I think the reality is, after the next president wins, I think you may find a lot of Democrats wanting to get away from Obamacare as well. It continues to be unpopular in blue states, purple states and red states. I don’t think Republicans should start off assuming that Democrats won’t help them to get rid of Obamacare. We won elections in a lot of states the president carried, in 2014 , [by running] on Obamacare.

Examiner: What could you do through your executive authority and what would require the approval of Congress?

Jindal: This president’s done a lot through executive orders that [skirted] the Congress that can be undone by the next president. But I also think it needs to be taken out by its root, congressionally as well. The next president needs to make that a priority, but to also replace it. And the reason I start with Obamacare, is that domestically we need to get our economy growing again. I’m not talking about 0.2 percent growth, I’m not taking about low participation rates in the work force. And I think there are a series of steps the next president can do. Increasing access to affordable energy, for example, reversing the decline of access to federal lands and waters for domestic energy production — the Keystone [XL] pipeline — reining in the EPA. I think we need a lower, flatter tax code as well.

Examiner: Would you be willing to repeal Obamacare piecemeal if that’s what it took to get the votes you need in Congress. Or is it full repeal and replace or nothing?

Jindal: You have to repeal the whole thing. So I’d go to Congress with a comprehensive plan. Now, obviously, immediately, you’re going to want the federal government to obey the law. This president hasn’t been doing that. I’m not saying you’d continue to implement his unlawful executive orders and the things that he’s done to circumvent the law. I think it’s important to have a comprehensive repeal and replace plan. I think it’s important to go to Congress and get them to repeal the entire law and to replace it with one that actually does what the president said he was going to do, which is to lower costs and empower patients. His law doesn’t do that. Here’s my concern about Obamacare, for those who just want to tinker around the edges with it, at its core, the two fundamental mistakes that it makes, is one, it puts government bureaucrats between their patients and their doctors, and you have to get rid of that. You have to undo that. The second fundamental mistake it makes is, under the guise of using the private insurance marketplace, it actually tries to turn those private companies into public utilities… Third, it also is encouraging more and more government dependence. None of this sustainable and you can’t fix that with tinkering.

Examiner: What’s your biggest foreign policy challenge the day you take office?

Jindal: One of this president’s worst legacies is the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. We need a president who’s going to stand with Israel, who’s going to send a message to our friends and to our enemies: Our friends can trust us, our enemies should respect and fear us. What that means is, making it very clear to Iran that we are not going to allow them to become a nuclear power. What that means is — I signed onto the Cotton letter — making it clear that if this president signs a bad deal and it doesn’t look like he’s going to submit this to a two-thirds vote the way a treaty should be, then I don’t consider it binding.

Examiner: The U.S. can pull itself out of the deal, but the other world powers might not go along. How do you deal with that?

Jindal: When you look at the damage this president has done, one of the greatest steps backward that he has taken is by weakening this international consensus and coalition. He talks about these sanctions being able to be ratcheted back, and the reality is, once he gives up that international consensus it will be much tougher to get these counties back on board, including Russia and China and others that will be doing business with Iran.

Examiner: What are your conditions for a deal with Iran?

Jindal: As president I would insist that any deal with Iran would have to include these components, and if we have to go it alone or with a coalition of the willing, we’d be willing to do that. It has to include these components: No. 1, Iran has to give up its pathway to a plutonium device. Secondly, it has to give up its enrichment capacity. Third, it has to export its enriched uranium. Fourth, it has to [allow] anytime, anywhere inspections, including military sites. Fifth, it has to renounce and cut off its ties to terrorism. Sixth, it has to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Seventh, it has to release American prisoners. And then and only then should sanctions be gradually eased after these conditions are met. This president has it backwards. He seems to want to be easing sanctions before Iran — he’s not even insisting they meet all these items. I don’t think we’d have to go alone. I think there are countries out there that are as worried. The Sunnis are very, very concerned about this, and one of my concerns is, this president could be starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with the Saudis buying a weapon from the Pakistanis and then you’ll have Turkey behind them and Egypt behind them. We have potential allies in the Middle East, we have Israel, even France has been tougher than this president on Iran. So there are allies out there that are very worried about a nuclear-armed Iran that I think would work with us.

Examiner: Would you order the immediate move of the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

Jindal: Sure. I recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The reason this is so important, even more important than it has been historically, is this president has done so much to antagonize our Israeli allies. When you look at the relationship, he has not only taken so much for granted but time and time again he has refused to stand with them unequivocally. Many times his rhetoric suggests some kind of equivalence — moral equivalence — between them and the terrorist groups they’re facing, when we know that’s not true. Given the strain on the relationship, I think it’s important for the next administration to do everything we can to repair that damage. This is something that — it’s not the only step — but I think it would be an important step along with other steps to show the Israeli people, the Israeli government, that we do value their friendship, their loyal support.

Examiner: How do you combat Vladimir Putin and Russian expansionism?

Jindal: I think Putin respects strong leaders. I think part of the reason he’s in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is the failed Russian reset, is the withdrawal of the interceptors from Poland and Czech Republic back in 2009. I think he looked at this White House, realized that this White House wasn’t going to have the resolve or the backbone to stand up to him. Ideally, we should have, under NATO, brigades in Eastern Europe. Now what I worry about is, we don’t have those forces [available] under the hollowing out of our military.

Examiner: Would you try and reconstitute the deal with Poland and Czech Republic to place missile defense installations in those countries that was negotiated by President George W. Bush before being canceled by Obama?

Jindal: Absolutely. But I think you have to go beyond that.

Examiner: How?

Jindal: We have to have the troops, the training and the equipment so it is credible for us to have those brigades in Eastern Europe. The reality is, the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. By deploying those brigades in Eastern Europe, by having the military resources to back it up, it makes it less likely we actually engage in a conflict.

Examiner: What is your immigration policy be as president, and specifically how would you address the 11-12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States?

Jindal: I’m opposed to a comprehensive bill — a 1,000-page bill, whatever, coming out of the Senate. We need to secure the border, period. That needs to be done. What needs to be done, I believe, is we have got, today, a low wall and a narrow gate. I think we need a high wall and a broad gate. What I mean by that is, it’s too easy to come into this country illegally and yet, it’s too hard for those that do want to come legally. Too often we educate folks, kick them out of our country to compete against us. We need to change that. But it starts, first, foremost, separately by itself. The government, right now, the only thing they need to do is secure the border before we even begin to have any other discussions.