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.Â 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.Â 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.Â But, the again, critics of conservatives will use anything to fault an up-and-coming Republican leader.Â 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.Â 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.Â (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.Â 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.”