Posted on 02/25/2009 2:17:59 PM PST by cdchik123
Jindal was boring. He won’t be able to ignite a crowd during an election...he is a great guy though.
The plot seems to be:
Step 1: Government spends worst than a town full of drunken sailors.
Step 2: "Carteresque" call upon the American people for "sacrifice" and "austerity" for the good of a "balanced budget" (no call for the bloated, drunken government to give up anything, only hard-working Americans, who need instead to kill this bloated governmental beast).
Step 3: Tax our brains out.
Step 4: Liberal Leftist Nirvana: Bona Fide Socialism
OK, I love Alan Keyes ... and many years back, I supported him when he ran for president (I was a delegate for him at the state republican convention), but have you ever listened to the man SPEAK ... OMG, he is an oxy-moron. A phenominal speach writer for others, that has no public speaking skills himself.
Rick Santelli, perhaps?
Heh...One of my first choices!
I listened and watched as he tore Alan Dersowitch a new one a few years ago, does that count?
Agreed. Unfortunately in national politics charisma and delivery many times outweigh what is being said. He might have had fantastic things to say last night, but his delivery distracted me and he lacked any of the ‘it’ factor that shows a sense of authority and makes words impact. If he is going to go into the national game he needs to like an athlete develop his strengths and work hard to be able to compete on that level. I know people will flame, but them’s the facts and them’s the reality. People are more superficial then first meets the eye and easily manipulated. Case and point . . . Obama was elected as our president.
Rush is right about the odd concept of an opposite-party 'response' to a president's State of the Union speech and the disadvantage of the opposite-party responder standing (or sitting) virtually alone in a room with no no applause lines or clap-happy audience and certainly no orchestrated standing ovations. It's a losing game for the 'responder'. I'm surprised Jindal accepted the job, which is basically thankless, but he carried it out decently.
The Democrat criticism is knee-jerk but the Republican criticism is lame and when it's allegedly from 'conservatives', suspect.
If this is supposed to be the way the GOP introduces Governor Bobby Jindal to the nation, it's a poor venue. The man deserves better. Still, Bobby Jindal will do just fine because he is a real political conservative. After being at the tender mercies of the Obama gang and his administration's Leninist policies for a few years, Americans will be open to a conservative message delivered by an effective GOP governor. That will be either Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin - and they will be heard and heeded.
It was definitely an off performance for him.We really do need someone who can come though in these kinds of situations though.
This must be how the Democrats felt in the 80s when Reagan was eating their lunch and they had no one who could match him.
This must be how the Democrats felt in the 80s when Reagan was eating their lunch and they had no one who could match him.
Well, Barack Obama also has the media and pop culture on his side.
As a young kid in the 80s, I was taught that Reagan was "just an actor", an evil rich white guy, and a war monger.
The speech was not meant for you or me but to lay the groundwork for Republicans in 2010. Your type of speech would have turned people off and would have been inappropriate to the setting he was in at that moment.
Plenty of time for red meat speeches — last night was not the time although I agree with you that is what I would like to hear.
Jindal made other GOP contenders happy.
You got that right. Talk about setting him up for failure. I can't remember one of these SOTU rebuttals that wasn't a pitiful sight. In Star Trek terms, it's a job you would send some guy in a red shirt to do, not your best young talent.
Or at least that's how it seems to me. It would be interesting to see if giving one of these responses has ever helped anyone's career.
Of course they were spewing gibberish, but they were aggressive, confrontational and in clear opposition. Dems don't do bipartisanship. Pubbies do. And it hurts them every time.
The gushing about Obama's historical skin color was out of place in Jindal's response to the SOTU. I didn't expect a rah-rah red meat prep speech. But I expected a speech making unmistakenly clear that Republicans don't only have better ideas, but that the Democrat schemes are not only wrong, but dangerous. He had the same pulpit Pelosi and Webb had... the RNC missed the chance.
Some composure here, people...
For what it’s worth, as we learned in November, style is MUCH more important.
If we as conservatives care about the content and ideology, we MUST find someone that can deliver it with style, or they won’t be able to win an election.
Like it or not that’s the case...we can whine and bitch all we want that people value style over substance, or, we can deal with it and work with it.
That said, Jindal made ONE SPEECH. ONE. He has almost 4 years to make his case. One less than perfect speech does not a failure make.
“But I’m sure you were frustrated listening to it. Then Bobby Jindal came on, and everybody trashed Bobby Jindal. “That was the worst response I’ve ever seen. Why, that was horrible! Well, this is embarrassing. Why, get him off! This is rotten. He blew his chance,” and so forth. It’s very mistaken to have that impression of Bobby Jindal.”
I am amazed how Rush manages to get it right when others supposedly smarter than him get it wrong.
I said the same earlier today.
I heard Laura Ingraham and other critique Jindhal’s response so I had to listen to it myself. On substance, Jindhal nailed it. He said the right things. If you care more about style than substance pfffft - you are lost.
The stock market doesnt care about style they care about substance and substantively Obama is BAD for our economy.
“heaping praise on the opposition”
WTF?!? He point blank called the Democrat passed bill “IRRESPONSIBLE”. Just because he said it without foaming at the mouth, or just because he makes a few initial comments about Obama’s path to president, that doesnt equate to ‘heaping praise’ (although I agree it was unneeded.)
I thought the ‘volcano’ item was a stick in the mind item.
In any case, the response is not a speech that matters much so any praise or criticism is overdone.
BINGO we have a winner. Jindhal did ok, but people who want Obama for 8 years or someone else in 2012 have a predisposition. We should all drop the look to 2012 for a while and focus on here and now.
For here and now it was GREAT to hear a Republican foursquare call the $1 trillion spending plan irresponsible and wrong, and point out the superior Republican alternative.
“I can’t remember one of these SOTU rebuttals that wasn’t a pitiful sight. In Star Trek terms, it’s a job you would send some guy in a red shirt to do, not your best young talent.”
Which is precisely why Rush is right and the critics are wrong.
This speech in the end will not help nor hurt Jindhal’s future.
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.