Like Bruce, I did not see Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s response to the president’s address to Congress on Tuesday night, so won’t comment on it, save to note that the reviews I have read have been mostly bad. What amuses me in reading some of those reviews is how many have branded him a failure merely because he did not come across well. As if poor presentation for one speech scuttles any chance he had of success on the national stage.
As if that matters more than his very real accomplishments. But, the again, critics of conservatives will use anything to fault an up-and-coming Republican leader. As Mary Katharine Ham put it, “Liberals who thought Sarah Palin’s brilliant RNC speech performance meant absolutely nothing are sure that Jindal’s off night means everything.”
To such liberals, it seems, a polished performance (save those by charismatic women) matters more than accomplishment, more than substance. Look how quickly they flocked to Barack Obama when all the man had done was show that he could wow audiences with his formidable presence and elevating oratory. (If Palin’s RNC speech mean nothing, how come Obama’s DNC speech four years previously meant everything?)
At this point in his career, Governor Jindal has accomplished far more that had then-Senator Obama when he made his debut on the national stage. So, now we know that for Obama fans, presence is all, substance doesn’t matter.
And they accuse us of being shallow.
UPDATE: In a similar vein, Jim Treacher tried to watch Jindal’s speech “but it was too awkward. He seems to be the inverse of Obama, in that he’s much better at speaking extemporaneously than reading from a teleprompter. Which seems like a good thing, to me anyway.”
Of course they love Chairman Obama. He lies better than Slick Willie and says nothing better than Sheila J. Lee.
Not to mention he’s not above playing class warfare and scaring the bejeezus out of the American public.
Nice post, but it’s not charismatic women that don’t count, just Republican women.
Also, reply to That Gay Conservative, Obama really doesn’t lie too much (except about pulling out from Iraq, maybe). He said he was going to “skyrocket energy prices,” and now he has proposed his plan to skyrocket energy prices with carbon tax trade.
With respect, Mitch, I’ll believe he’ll close Club Gitmo when he does it.
He’s lied about “change”.
He’s lied about “bipartisanship”.
He’s lied about pork.
He’s lied about the economy.
He’s lied about raising taxes.
He’s lied about America.
He’s lied about Iraq.
He’s lied about Pock-EEEE-stahn.
He’s lied about “transparency”.
I can go on, if you like.
That encapsulates everything wrong with our society today. In Barack Obama, we have
(1) the triumph of style over substance – that is, of empty style over dealing with reality; and
(2) a triumph of hypocrisy, including but not limited to sexist hypocrisy. (Remember him flipping Hillary off and the rest of his 8th-grader sexisms against both Hillary and Palin?)
Why do hypocrisy and style-with-zero-substance triumph? Because we, as a society and culture, have officially degenerated.
I say “we” but I especially mean left-liberals. Although, to a lesser extent, Republicans have also failed the country. They held power all those years and engaged in costly, theatrical violations of federalism (the Schiavo case) while being on the wrong side of pork spending, deficits, border insecurity, etc.
(i.e. politically costly, or costly in terms of dragging the country into a debate both painful and unnecessary)
I’ll have to give the supporters here one thing….the absolutely dead certain way y’all support whatever the Republicans throw out there.
Just like the amusing way you continue to support the disaster that is Sarah Palin, you’ve given the thumbs up to Bobby (why won’t he use his real first name?) Jindal. In the last few days, he has been trounced by just about everyone, conservatives/liberals alike, for his horrible response to the President’s speech. He insulted people’s intelligence by speaking as if he was talking to a bunch of 8 year olds and continued to repeat the failed ideas which saw Republicans taken out of power. And, in a supreme touch of obliviousness and arrogance, he decided to bring up Hurricane Katrina (the single biggest political failure of the Republicans in recent years). Not only that, but he centered on an incident which he attempted to tout as a bi-partisan moment, yet involved a person who is now dead and can be neither confirmed or denied.
Ya just don’t get it, do ya?
Um, Kevin, I didn’t praise the speech and noted that that it was poorly reviewed. (Did you fail to note that?) Those poor reviews notwithstanding, he still has some formidable accomplishments. But, I guess you’re too obsessed with showmanship to see that.
So, if he repeated the failed ideas which saw Republicans “taken out of power” (as you put it), did he favor a larger role for the federal government in the domestic arena and more earmarks in the federal budget? Did he champion congressional corruption?
The issue of this post is not the speech, but the fact that we shouldn’t let one poor performance us blind us to this man’s real record, just as you Democrats shouldn’t let Obama’s many impressive performances blind you to his absence thereof?
So, please give Kevin, address the points of my post and please understand when I acknowledge a mistake on my side of the political aisle.
If there are more Democrats like you, well, then, in 2010, it won’t be just the House Republicans’ll be winning back.
What amuses me in reading some of those reviews is how many have branded him a failure merely because he did not come across well. As if poor presentation for one speech scuttles any chance he had of success on the national stage.
When Kevin asks “Ya just don’t get it, do ya?“, he’s asking a very good question in response to GPW’s statements and others. With all that’s happened during the campaign, with all the justified horror in response to the absolute fiscal irresponsibility being passed in Congress, this (the GOP’s first official response to Obama via Jindal) was a crucial moment and a first impression for many Americans that will set the tone for quite some time. What Jindal’s speech accomplished is an invitation to the Obama administration to future arrogance.
I didn’t watch Jindal — I listened to him. He wasn’t terrible, he wasn’t great. To address GPW’s point about substance, there wasn’t much there except pointing out some surface differences in Democratic and Republican approaches. (There was much more substance in Obama’s 52-minute speech, but it’s substance we don’t like.)
Jindal’s response illustrates the GOP’s single biggest problem: Marketing. Republicans simply cannot sell their brand. GPW’s reaction illustrates the problem in that it isn’t that we don’t know we’re right, it isn’t that we don’t know we have an image problem — it’s that at the same time we’re so in love with our substance, we tell ourselves that style isn’t important at all. This is partially understandable because we know that substance is, in the end, what ultimately accomplishes anything in politics. But we live in a consumer culture and until we “get it”, Republicans will never be able to enact their lauded substance. I understand GPW’s defending Jindal, but let’s not let “Image isn’t all we need” be replaced with “Substance is all we need”. We’ve had eight long years of poor spokesmanship and frankly, I’m relieved we have a president that can communicate effectively. Yeah, by itself it’s shallow and dangerous and look how much damage he’s already done, but perhaps instead of demonizing those who value style over all else we could learn a bit from them. Instead of demonizing those who voted for Obama for all his pretty talk, let’s learn some. Heck, it worked for Reagan.
I might agree with your comment, Mitchell, that “it’s not charismatic women that don’t count, just Republican women,” but I’ve been searching my memory banks and can’t bring up one charismatic Democrat woman. I’m sure there must be one but all the Dem women I can think of are arrogant and/or ugly and/or caustic and offensive–and, pretty much to a woman, really, REALLY liberal.
If you can’t name one charismatic Democrat woman, your hypothesis is still to be tested.
Good points, Ignatius, but what do we do about it? Try to cajole Newt Gingrich into coming back?
polly, thank you. Newt is an excellent thinker and should be one of the architects of the future. Whether the GOP’s thinking is excellent enough to recognize that our current dilemma is tailor-made for him remains to be seen. 1994 was either watershed or Waterloo, depending upon your point of view, but Newt’s Contract was unsustainable. We need fundamental changes, primarily in the attitude toward image as exemplified by this thread.
I recommend several things. As you’ve implied, catch rising stars and promote them. Governor Pawlenty, Congressman Ryan, Senator DeMint come to mind. Engage in the constant refinement of our party platform, meaning keep our core principles intact but massage the message by keeping an ear to ground zero of popular culture. Conduct media training seminars for current and future candidates, preparing them with mock interviews and complete with gotcha questions and grooming tips. (And yes, Republican women are babes.) Distribute talking points proudly and unashamedly. In fact, if the media and Democrats get hold of them, write them so that in their criticism and analyses, those media figures do our advertising for us. (But strategy should be relatively secret.) Work to build the party at the state level, tapping the executive experiences of our fine Republican governors together with conservative/libertarian think tanks. Start an advertising campaign that emphasizes common sense and uses positive but pointed criticism; make time work in our favor such as the end of the Obama honeymoon, the first 100 days, the 2-year “Do Everything” Congress led by Pelosi and Reid, etc. Start building bridges to communities poorly served by the GOP in the past. I dimly recall a candidate for mayor of Oakland, California — an African-American who really had a good message. The GOP didn’t give him a dime because they needed the money for “more important races elsewhere”. We’ll never build a future party with that kind of attitude.
There are lots of things we can do to improve. Let’s channel our collective outrage, clear out the cobwebs in our thinking, and seize the day.
Comment filtered.
“Not to mention he’s not above playing class warfare and scaring the bejeezus out of the American public.”
i get a real kick out of republicans screaming about dems playing “class warfare.” first off, obama won voters making over $250k by a five-point margin. he won people with post-graduate degrees by 18 percent. whenever he talks about raising taxes on the highest-income groups, he usually prefaces this by saying something like “most of them didn’t ask for those tax cuts from george bush.”
but more importantly, the republicans are the ones pitting classes against each other. they’re the ones talking about the “real” america. they’re the ones calling northern virginia “communist country.” they’re the ones talking about “small town values” and railing against “big city values.” last i checked, we’re all americans, and there are people of all political persuasions in both rural and urban settings.
i get a real kick out of republicans screaming about dems playing “class warfare.†first off, obama won voters making over $250k by a five-point margin.
Of course — because there were plenty of people like Warren Buffett, George Soros, Tom Daschle, Solis, Geithner, Rangel, and others who know that, if you support Obama and the Obama Party, you don’t have to pay taxes, no matter what your income is.
Leftists like boob are hilarious to watch as they defend their massas. You would think that boob would be smart enough to realize that it’s hypocritical for Obama to scream and wet himself about the need to raise taxes when he’s goofily grinning as he endorses and supports outright tax cheats for governmental positions.
NDT, exactly. The Democrats are truly the party of billionaires – who want to stay that way by keeping others from rising up. Their tax policies are designed to make it difficult for people who don’t have capital to accumulate it. But the people who have it? They can afford the lawyers and accountants and lobbyists needed to keep themselves on top.
ILC — go pull up some data to see how the top 1% did versus everyone else under bush. now compare that to how those groups did under clinton. go ahead. i’ll wait.
NDT — you’re hardly worth responding to anymore. so because something like < 1% of obama’s cabinet had a tax issue, suddenly all democrats are rich elites who don’t pay their taxes.
puhh–leazzze
Bob – go pull up a list of Democratic billionaire donors. And what taxes they pay (or rather, don’t). NDT and I will wait.
um i’m pretty sure that is not public information.
ILC — go pull up some data to see how the top 1% did versus everyone else under bush. now compare that to how those groups did under clinton. go ahead. i’ll wait.
If your point is that the top 1% did better under Bush and worse under Clinton, you just proved ILC’s point; the Obama Party’s policy is to keep other people from rising to the level of the Kennedys, Kerrys, Pelosis, Obamas, Soroses, and Buffetts by punishing those who work and save and earn money — while not paying any taxes themselves.
So glad I don’t watch American Idol.
He was speaking to the people who still think Republicans control congress, don’t have any idea who Joe Biden is, nor can offer a reason why they voted for Chairman Obama, other than “Changeâ„¢”.
Fixed it for ya!
Ya just don’t get it, do ya! If it ain’t on a bumper sticker, you have no fucking clue how to deal with it.
Curses! Filtered again!
After watching Jindal’s “performance”, I turned it to FOX NEWS to hear them praise that performance. To my utter shock, they panned it as well.
Speaking of Jindal, did anyone catch the racist parody that libtard talk radio host Mike Malloy did which portrayed Jindal as a computer tech in India? Here it is: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/02/27/lib-talker-malloy-racist-spoof-jindal-computer-tech-india
So now we have at least three liberals (Hillary, Biden and this schmuck) who have made racist stereotypical comments about Indian-Americans in the recent past. Hypocrisy, anyone?
Regards,
Peter H.
by refusing the bailout money, Jindal will be remembered as one who put partisan politics over the welfare of his state. Tick, tock, tick, tock. His 15 minutes are quickly coming to an end.
The funny part is watching leftists like buckeyenutlover who praised the states for refusing Federal funds for sex education because it would require them to teach abstinence now whining about states refusing funds because it would require them to commit to ridiculous spending requirements down the road.
What the Obama Party is doing is no different than handing out crack to children; the idea is to get them addicted and make them dependent. Obama knows he can control his puppets like buckeyenutlover because they’re dependent on the welfare checks he sends them and have no other choice. He wants the states exactly the same way — helpless and dependent on the Federal government for everything.
#24 – And how many times have Dhimmicrats put their party over their country’s needs?
Every damn time, that’s how many.
Let’s face it – if it’s good for the Dhimmicrats, it’s bad for America. Or are you too blind to see that, Nutso?
Regards,
Peter H.
just the reverse, NDT. the middle class (and the upper middle class) did much better under clinton than bush. the only people who did better under bush than clinton were the super rich. wages for virtually everyone else were stagnant w/r/t inflation.
Excellent point. The Democrats’ super-rich, limousine-socialist donors – which include Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford, btw – aren’t the top 1%, and therefore *didn’t* necessarily do better under Bush. They’re maybe the top 0.0001%. The top 1% would be 3 million Americans! For the top *3 million* Americans to do better under Bush is, comparatively speaking, a sign of improved economic opportunity for the masses.
It’s not hypocrisy because it’s common knowledge that liberals are racist bigots.
Jindal will be remembered as the one who didn’t add thousands to the welfare rolls only to have to come up with ass loads of cash or cut those folks off when the federal money runs out in 2-3 years.
He’ll also be rememberred as being mocked by those racist bastards on the liberal left.
Tick tock, tick tock. Chairman Obama couldn’t make it 30 days (let alone 100) without taking the crown for Fuck-up in Chief. His approval numbers are in a free-fall and only 33% of the country believe we are headed in the right direction, while 73% of the American people trust Americans over the government.
Ain’t looking so hot, is it buckeyedspoogelover?
We’re talking about reality, not your wildest wet dream.