Skip to comments.Republican Response to The One- - Jindal - LIVE THREAD
Posted on 02/24/2009 7:14:01 PM PST by Jean S
He has massive charisma. That is how he smoked the field in the debates while only getting a fraction of the face time. He has a deep baritone voice, he looks the part, and he doesn’t need cheat notes to debate or speechify. The way he handles a libtard like Chrissy Matthews in an interview is the way a man does it.
Bobby, I remember that press conference you gave when there was a hurricane approaching around the time of the GOP convention, I think it was. Serious business was immediately at hand and I was mightily impressed by your presence and your command of the details when it really counted. Tonight was all about “showbiz”, so be sure to nurture that showbiz gene! Or not. Talk about being under a microscope, oy. Public life looks like a big pain in the arse.
Clinton had the press on his side. We don’t.
Reagan was different — he was a good candidate that barely lost. It was also a different way of electing our candidate during those years. If Reagan ran against Ford say in 2000 instead of 1976, he would have won IMHO because everything is different today.
I don’t think we had one candidate that stood out in the field. Not to say they didn’t mean well but none of them hit it out of the park and I worked for one of them here in OK but I can admit he didn’t run a very good race.
I like Sarah but the jury is still out on whether she will even want to run in 2012.
The GOP debates were horrible IMHO. I want someone to energize the Party. I don’t want a candidate that chooses who asked questions at his Town Halls for starters.
I want someone who makes me want to work 24/7 to help elect them. I worked a lot of hours for McCain but my heart wasn’t in it.
Before anybody accuses me of being a troll those who have read my postings over the last few months know that I am a strong Sarah Palin supporter and that I am committed to not trashing any other 2012 Presidential contender.
Having said that Bobby Jindal was OK-he wasn’t awful, but he didn’t hit it out of the ballpark either.
If he has charisma, he definitely didn’t show that tonight. If he has gravitas he did not show it tonight. If you wanted some red meat he did not give that to you tonight.
Bobby gave a milquetoast rebuttal and it was not memorable.And that is the key for somebody thinking about running for President-you have to perform when you get a chance.
Bobby is not finished in national politics, but like Tiger Woods occasionally does, he had an off day. For the sake of the GOP I hope he does improve.
George Allen will always be one of my favorites. He knew how to get a room energized. That ‘macaca’ deal was so overblown and now we know that ACORN was already in VA. They had to take him out before 2008 IMHO. Sad he was replaced by a Clymer.
ZERO looks like a skinny teenager — someone who never grew up with a wife that is too big boned for him IMHO. Now I am being tacky! :)
I had a running battle with him earlier in the thread, but I couldn’t think of what to call him or than an idiot! Troll, I’ll have to remember that next time I run into someone like Melas. Thanks :)
While I agree that it’s far too early to nominate a candidate for ‘12, there are a couple thing that need to be addressed.
“I have yet to have seen a ring on her single-parent daughter’s hand”
-I could not care less if Bristol Palin ever gets married. That’s her business.
“She bombed on during Gibson’s interview”
-Gibson misquoted her words. Also Gibson proved HIS ignorance about stem cell research when he failed to recognize that Palin was referring to pluripotent stem cells when she was talking about skin cells, which IS the most promising area of stem cell research. Contrary to Gibson, the cutting edge researchers in this area are moving away from embryonic stem cell research.
Would be willing to bet he is going to run. In fact, there were rumblings he was going to run for NY Governor even if McCain got elected. He could start to rebuild the Party in NY which is pretty much in shambles. My sister-in-law was telling me that Rudy will do very well in Upstate even among the Democrats.
Don’t see the appointed Senator winning in 2012 either. That would be something — RG in the Governor’s office and Pataki as a Senator.
I can’t understand the criticism of Jindal not coming out like gangbusters against zero in this particular speech. His goal was only to raise questions in the mind of the public about the wisdom of the big government direction that the dems in congress are taking us.
His aims were at least threefold:
1. Set the stage for making gains in the 2010 congressional elections, not trying to take down zero in one fell swoop tonight.
2. Be inspiring and non-threatening to particular voter blocks, i.e., women and seniors.
3. Not say anything stupid or incendiary that would focus attention on himself, and end up having the press latch on to and run with.
I think he actually was quite sneakily effective with the subtle gauntlet he laid down.
We agree and it's called REALISM, baby! : ) That's why we have to get majorities in the house and Senate in 2010.
I'm not sure I agree about McCain's overlords (though I'll give it some thought). It's also his tendency to be overly fair (i.e. bend over backwards for), too polite and wimpy towards his opponents. And he definitely didn't want the racist tag.
McCain orchestrated a get together with Huck, Fred, and Rudy to get Romney out.
“That [game rigged] I blame on McCain.”
I wish it were that simple. McCain was merely a patsy. He (or rather his overlords) ordered his entire campaign NOT to lay a glove on 0bama.
“Palin is not too conservative for the GOP. Last I read she had a 90% approval rating among the R’s....”
Oh, I agree with you; It’s the vibe the GOP is putting out there as they and McCain hung her out to dry. She became an unexpected “accidental” star - much to the GOP’s chagrin.
Who do you think are the “overlords?”—not challenging you, just trying to educate myself.
Jindal’s accent reminded me of Huell Howser. This is really too bad b/c he gave a virtuoso performance during Ike. Had he been gov. during Katrina, there is no doubt that the immediate aftermath/rescue efforts would have been 1,000 times better.
A/P factcheck rebuttal on Obama.
They titled the Jindal fact check as if they’d found a flaw, but when you read the text, it doesn’t support the comparison - Jindal didn’t make an error.
Obama, however, farted in the wind - if AP is factchecking him, something is beginning to tilt...
“Mitts home here is next to one of his money men”
Why do you think he did that?
You're right that no one measures up to him, and so many of our candidates seem to fall short because of the comparison. For that reason, a while ago, I stated his legend, in addition to being inspirational has also become our curse. To me, it's a good idea to look for candidates who are both substantive with a winning style all their own.
I agree, it wasn’t that great, but I don’t think anyone wzs expecting him to give a 10 minute response and then all of a sudden the heavens would open up and the trumpets would blare.
I think a lot has to do with the setting. A response like this isn’t really the forum to demonstrate one’s skills. I think we’d all agree Obama is a great speaker, but I don’t think he’d do much better in this format giving a 10 minute speech in response to a state of the union with no audience or crowd, no feedback, by himself in an empty room. It’s just really not the best setting to come off well. Someone mentioned how Christie Whitman in NJ once gave a response and she had the whole GOP caucus in the room with her appalauding and making it look exciting...that might me a good idea.
Also, just about anyone giving a speech right after Obama isn’t exactly gonna come off well. He’s a tough act to follow.
I suggest you all buy Sarah! stock in the morning because the Bobby market just crashed.
“Maglev to Disneyland?” It’s always nice to start a nationally televised speech with a blatent untruth.
“Do you notice he never has a real conservative come on his program - someone to his right? That wouldnt be hard to do.”
he had ann coulter on his show. She wasn’t afraid to criticize him severely.
I've never met anyone, ever, who enthused about a response to a SOTU.
I didn't see Jindal tonight, but I don't think he'd have done much good to anyone but, well, folks like us even if he had a stunning speech.
The media have their shining star right now, anyone else will be ignored.
Yes you are. You and all of your fellow Ron Paul followers are disrupters. This is why you campaigned for Obama during the election. Given a choice between McCain and Obama, you and the other Paulistinians favored Obama, because he subscribes to the blame-America-first foreign policy of Ron Paul. Your beloved Obama won, and yet your still campaigning against the GOP.
“We need BOTH style AND substance, like Reagan had. It was Reagan who convinced me BOTH are important. Two of the reasons he was so effective.”
I don’t think Reagan would have the requisite style for this American idol generation. He’d be too old and ‘classical.’
Did you even read the original posts that prompted my reply? I was talking about and attacking the RINO McCain.
No, you're just whining out of anger and spite because I wouldn't drink the McCain Kool-Aid during the election.
Given a choice between McCain and Obama, you and the other Paulistinians favored Obama, because he subscribes to the blame-America-first foreign policy of Ron Paul.
If you are so in favor of interventionist foreign policy, then you are a hypocrite if you dare to speak up against interventionist foreign policy, including bailouts and porkulus bills.
Who is the “he” you are referring to?
Jindal supporters are DUmmies now? Cmon, even you cant believe that.
No, you misunderstood. I meant the one you replied to was a DUmmie troll.
Now I admit Jindal speech was kind of flat, but it had far more substance and coherence than anything Obama could put out, and Jindal delivered his speech without a teleprompter. Try that Obama! I will also admit Sarah Palin's interview with Katie was less than stellar, that's if you only watched the chopped up version the media showed. If you listened to, or watched the WHOLE interview Sarah did great. For all those FReepers who are ready give up on Pain and Jindal and think they're not ready for prime time because of one interview or speech, just remember Ronald Reagan's first debate with Walter Mondale. Reagan bombed it big time. But he also came back and wiped the floor with Mondale in the second debate. Aren't we glad we didn't give up on Reagan because he under performed in one debate?
Understand I'm not trying to demean or attack anyone here but I'm just so tired of the conservative base having these stupid hissy fits, and carrying on with this constant whining and pouting because some elections don't go our way or we find out a candidate or leader we thought was our "perfect saviour", like Palin and Jindal, turn out to be imperfect and HUMAN as even the great Ronald Reagan was.
It's time for us conservatives to start ACTING like Reagan instead of just talking about him. I understand things are bad under Obama, but things were bad under Carter and I don't ever remember hearing Reagan whine and complain about how bad things were and that things were hopeless. If I remember right Reagan said America's best days were ahead of her. And he said this at the time when most people thought our economy, culture, and military were on a permanent decline never to come back. Reagan always had an unquenchable optimism in America and it's greatness regardless of the difficulties and challenges he faced.
While Palin and Jindal may not be carbon copies of Reagan, they have his conservative values and have the same love for this country that he had, which is more than good enough for me. So I say this to my fellow conservatives. Stop the with the pouting and the pessimism and start expressing some of the real hope and optimism of great leaders like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal. Our party and our country will be much better because of it.
No, they do a goodbye chat from the Oval Office, in some cases. Bush 41 didn't give one if I recall, but Reagan did.
It's not a SOTU and isn't required, but some presidents do it as a so-long gesture.
You said that you would never vote for Palin, so if she is the GOP candidate against Obama you would be supporting Obama, directly or indirectly. As for who I support for President it is much too early to decide. Right now our best speechmaker is Gov, Palin, the best at Q and A seems to be Gov. Jindal, and Gov. Sanford seems a good possibility also. Unlike you, there are virtually none of the mentioned candidates I wouldn’t support against Obama.
We were being honest. Jindal can do much, much better, but tonight he embarassed the GOP with this flat delivery of what reads as a decently written speech. Conservatives had better get their head out of the sand and honestly assess our candidates instead of being cheerleaders for this person or that person... tonight was an audition and Jindal didn’t get the job.
That's dandy, but I'm talking about you being a disrupter who wanted Obama to defeat McCain.
No, you're just whining out of anger and spite because I wouldn't drink...
Your strawman arguments have no value. I would never expect a Paulistinain to favor the GOP over the DNC, particularly when the DNC has been taken over by Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the rest of the far left, who just happen to share the same blame-America-first mindset of your surrender-monkey hero, Ron Paul. Your accusations against me have no basis in fact. I'm not whining and I'm not angry. I just like debating with the left. Since you and your Paulistinain friends share the same foreign policy veiws as the far left, you are the same in my eyes. You even favored Obama over McCain, just like the far left.
If you are so in favor of interventionist foreign policy, then you are a hypocrite if you dare to speak up against interventionist foreign policy, including bailouts and porkulus bills.
You're not even good at using non seqiuturs. The disconnected, incoherent babbling above doesn't even come close to making any sense.
Aren’t you a Chuck Baldwin troofer?
Try reading post 731, immediately below the one you replied to.
Then, maybe you will stop babbling.
I voted for Baldwin, but I never supported any 9/11 "truth" initiatives.
Of course, saying that anyone who voted for Baldwin is a "truther" is about as valid as saying that anyone who voted for McCain is a supporter of amnesty for illegals or of the financial services bailout.
Even with your correction, the argument is a non sequitur that makes no sense. I’m talking about you being a Paulistinian disrupter who favored Obama over McCain. You’re claiming I’m a hypocrite because I speak out against bailouts and pork while favoring an interventionist foreign policy? This is a nonsensical non sequitur.
I know John did interview's of Governor Palin and is a fan of hers. He was on Philly talk radio, was supportive of our case against the Teamster's, and became friendly with my brother though I met him just once. Nice guy. VERY tall. : ) I'm sure he wouldn't steer the Governor wrong.
This is not true, technically. The Constitution forbids the Electors from voting for a President and Vice President from the Elector's state. In the case of the Hunters it would mean that the California Electors could not vote for both of them. Obvious political suicide.
If you are talking about Harry Reid's maglev train between Las Vegas and Anaheim (home of Disneyland), what untruth are you talking about?
The elitist media attack dogs have you convinced that I'm the one drinking the Kool-Aid???
That "book-learned" POTUS we have is sure turning out to be a champ, isn't he? He sure looks good during his interviews. Why do you suppose that is? Because he's brilliant?
Do you honestly believe there is ANYONE who has EVER been in the government that you or I or ANY interviewer could not stump with carefully selected geography, world affairs or world government questions?
Nobody knows everything, and the fact that there were questions Sarah either couldn't answer, or wasn't ALLOWED to answer (Remember the very real fact of Palin's campaign handlers?) means precisely DIDDLY to the SQUAT power.
What we saw on TV was just what the Leftist media wanted us to see. What we see of Mr. Obama is exactly what they want us to see. It was no different when Reagan was president when they were able to edit together "interviews" that made him look bad.
Guess what? THE TV NEWS IS BIASED.
Sarah Palin is just fine.
Sarah can pick up what she needs to know. But what Jindal needs, can't be learned.
A lot may depend on the country's mood at the time. It shouldn't, but it will because the independents will swing with the wind. If the country is still in trouble (very likely!) the "swing voters" may prefer Jindal to Palin. Jindal is extremely bright with pretty broad experience. Sarah may be bright, but the independent's impression of her wasn't very good, fair or not.
Jindal has a chance to improve the impression he makes on independents, which we need to win. He may have come across as a bit dull tonight, but that's very easy to change. It's harder for Palin to change the negative impression that came from the Couric and Gibson interviews.
I never campaigned for Obama. Opposing McCain is not equivalent to supporting Obama.
Given a choice between McCain and Obama, you and the other Paulistinians favored Obama
Given a choice between McCain and Obama, I choose "none of the above."
because he subscribes to the blame-America-first foreign policy of Ron Paul.
Of the Republican candidates left standing, after Thompson fizzled out and Hunter failed to lift off in Virginia, Paul with his pro-Constitution voting record and his domestic policy was the only palatable candidate.
I could support neither McCain nor Huckabee because they favor the expansion of Big Government as a means to their own ends.
And Romney...sorry, the infamous picture of him laughing as he signed the Socialist health care bill into law in Massachusetts...that just doesn't cut it here.
As for the Iraq intervention, it's on the same level as Kosovo. You can either support both or support neither.
Your beloved Obama won, and yet your still campaigning against the GOP.
Obama is not my "beloved."
As for campaigning against the GOP, I campaign against anyone who openly claims to be conservative and yet in reality is not. That includes RINOs like McCain, Graham, and others.
. . . . .
As an aside, go ahead and continue your strategy of blaming the voter for your own party's epic and spectacular failure to actually lead in accordance with its stated principles and, in doing so, to actually defend the Constitution.
The Republican Party held the presidency for eight years, and in six of those, the Congress too; the Supreme Court was teetering on its center. And yet, the Party did nothing but spend and spend: most notably, in the guise of expanding Medicare prescription drugs, a program that in its lifetime will cost trillions. But, of course, you and others will be quick to point out that it's not as bad as what the Democrats are doing.
The fact of the matter is that the Republicans, by and large, allowed the size of Government to increase under their watch and squandered the best opportunity to finally deliver on their promises.
And, still, the best they can do is to claim that the they're not as bad as the Democrats and to publicly and pitifully beg the electorate for another chance. And yet, the best they can do is give in to the Democrats' political machinations of Balkanizing the electorate by claiming that we need a man of color, or a woman, to win in 2012. Well, guess what: the United States isn't asking for more political correctness; it's asking for a real leader who actually gives a crap, regardless of that leader's skin color or sex.
I thought Jindal came across as almost too young looking. I was almost reminded of Quayle in a way.
Quayle came across as "deer in the headlights" and made a few misstatements that led some to conclude he wasn't very bright. (not true, but it looked that way to many.)
I don't see that for Jindal. He didn't speak well, but it's very clear he's extremely bright. He can improve his speaking, and he will look older in 2012 or 2016.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.