Skip to comments.Republican Response to The One- - Jindal - LIVE THREAD
Posted on 02/24/2009 7:14:01 PM PST by Jean S
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.
Jindal hasn't got it. I don't see him appealing to independents in numbers needed to win, at any time and we cannot afford to take the risk. 2012 is too important. We need a strong candidate with style, substance and gravitas and that's not Jindal.
The damage to Palin may not be undone in four years enough to appeal to independents and other average voters, but certainly she should be able to repair her image in eight. Jindal hasn't got it. I don't see him appealing to independents in numbers needed to win, at any time and we cannot afford to take the risk. 2012 is too important. We need a strong candidate with style, substance and gravitas and that's not Jindal.
I think it's going to be harder to undo the kind of image that was pinned on Palin then to improve a blah delivery style. Palin clearly has it on style, but I think Jindal has it on substance and will have it on gravitas. But too early to tell, really, and no one knows what other conservatives with all three could emerge.
Palin is such a natural and so likeable, there isn't a doubt in my mind she'll be ready to run and win in 2016. We won't have to work hard to undo any of it. She'll do most of it on her own.
I agree 100% !!! Sarah Palin is the best, the most articulate, the most natural, the most energizing Republican there is today. 99% of the things that she was criticized for (primarily the hit jobs with Charlie Gibson & Katie Couric) would have been avoided or negated if Sarah had not been set up to fail by McLame's handlers. Let Sarah be Sarah, and she will kick @$$ in 2012. She's the best candidate we got!!!
John’s instincts are so bad, he needs a handler, and a quick retirement provided by his constituents.
Wow! How long has it been since we heard that kind of a delivery out of a Republican? Amazing! Very craftily presented.
Kudos to Jindal.
We don’t ‘cheer on our dear leader.’ Our job isn’t to support anyone with an R after his name. We need to be critical and honest at this stage. It appears that Jindal crashed and burned - some of it probably due to the setting of talking in a room to a camera. They should have done this in front of a live audience of Republicans.
That's the problem - this ISNT a tough crowd. This is a crowd that is the most favorable and forgiving one he is going to find.
It doesn’t have to be that way. He could have given the speech from a podium in front of an audience.
You being a young Republican, I welcome you here. You’re not arguing for leftist views. You are complaining that our so-called Republicans(D) don’t express them, are not well grounded, and stab us in the back at every opportunity. For the life of me, I don’t see the problem with that.
As a 57 year old Republican, I do the same thing, and I will continue to do the same thing until I’m toes up.
Folks, if you’re having a problem with a guy who is advocating we return to true Conservative ideals, I’d suggest you re-evaluate your beliefs.
We have primaries coming up a little more than a year away from now, and this is precisely the time we need to be kicking the tires and checking under the hood for the proper candidate to replace McCain and the other RINOs.
I suggest we spend our time doing that and spend a little less time attacking those who share our desire for a return to bedrock Conservatism.
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.