The problem is that his ability is very very low because he has no relevant experience leading anything in his life. He also has very dangerous ideas and philosophies that run counter to the American Dream. The way he is running things now, it looks like he won't stop passing spending bills until he reaches into every hardworking, wealthy American's pocket and then hands that money to everyone in line at KFC.
Man, every once in a while, you just have to have a few pieces of original recipe. On a related note, when I was a kid I went to an Astros game and one section over was the real Col. Sanders. He was introduced over the PA, stood up in his resplendent white suit, and waved to the adoring crowd.
Like Krugman, I'm kind of amazed the current iteration of wingnut philosophy would be upset about things like maglev trains (steam is apparently the conservative power of choice... no new-fangled things for them) and... volcano monitoring...
Man you drank that kool-aide quickly. It is always fun to watch the dems squirm and attack somebody they fear. I mean forget about the great job he has done cleaning up the mess left for him In LA by the former democrat governor....
Grass-roots Republicans are blasting his speech too. http://www.thenextright.com/matthew-gagnon/strike-one-bobby Strike One, Bobby Bobby Jindal gave his rebuttal to the President tonight in what was widely being billed as his "coming out party" - unfortunately for him, his debut was extremely underwhelming. Barack Obama is a hard man to follow, no doubt about it. Message aside, he is a gifted orator who is compelling and interesting to listen to on his worst days. Add in the backdrop of a Congressional speech, massive applause and the adulation of the network anchors and you obviously have a rather difficult task. But by all measures, Jindal failed, and he failed for a number of reasons. He Chose Folksy Populism Over A Serious Address Bobby Jindal is a Rhodes Scholar. Among the Republcians left in governmental leadership, he is unquestionably one of its more brilliant minds. He is a policy wonk, and seems extremely interested in policy details, often times rattling off his ideas so quickly his audience gets lost. Tonight was his chance to showcase that brainpower, and that factory of ideas. What did we see instead? Jindal intentionally spoke with more simplistic, provocative language meant to appeal to rural (conservative) America. His accent seemed just a little bit thicker, and his rhetoric focused on what was upsetting voters, rather than why the Republican agenda is a better choice. But worse, after Obama's lofty appeals to big plans, and creative dreams, Jindal talked about... himself, and a Sherriff. Be still my heart. Jindal knows that he will run for president someday, and he has a choice. He can present himself as the intelligent, wonkish conservative technocratic brain, or he can go for the down country, aw shucks, "real America" garbage. Tonight - it appears he has chosen the latter. While this may be acceptable for angry conservatives, for a country embracing the very "adult" attitude of Obama, this simply does not work. And honestly, if Michelle Malkin is right and Jindal would have been beaten up by the media no matter what he did, than doesn't it stand to reason he should just say "screw it" and show off how much of a brain he is? Honestly, with the perception that the GOP lacks any heavy hitting intellectuals, if there was ever a time to show off your "wonkishness", now was the time. He Had A Chance To Counter The Idea Of "The Party Of No" - But Didn't Jindal primarly painted a picture of Democrats being wrong on things. They spend too much money. They tolerate waste. They will have to raise your taxes. They believe in government over individuals. Notice a trend? Me too - Democrats are wrong, and that is where the sentence ends. Republicans need to do more than criticize what is wrong with the Democratic agenda. Not only is it irritating to the undecided voter to hear nothing but negativity, it also fails to offer the American people any hope or vision of what America would look like under your philosophy. This is especially toxic after the Bush years, which have (unfairly) soured the reputation of a limited government agenda. What is required is to briefly express disagreement, but then offer real solutions that are alternatives. This was something Jindal was uniquely positioned to do, being such an intelligent, wonkish Republican. But rather than a New Gingrich style "idea factory" speech - we got nothing but "no". That may work when you playcate to your base, but after Obama's lofty rhetoric it will not win any converts, and it only further entrenches the idea that the GOP is the party of no. His Rhetoric Sounded Childish I have seen it referred to multiple times as "Kenneth the Page" from 30 Rock. Personally I felt more like he was tucking in a child. Everything from his tone of voice, to the vocabulary he used sounded dumbed down, and borderline childish. You do not combat a highly intelligent, loqcuatious president by going after the lowest common denominator of the American voting public. "American's can do ANYTHING!" is a wonderful sentiment, but it sounds more like something I would tell my two year old son as I read him a story book than a serious national address to the country. I don't know if Jindal intentionally talked to me like I was in pre-school or not, but I do know it irritated more than just me, and turned me off to anything he was saying. And I'm a Republican. It Sounded Like A Campaign Commercial For Him It sure was nice to hear the life story of Bobby Jindal - but it was hardly effective as a response to the president. Barack Obama called for investment in education, transportation and infrastructure. He called upon Congress to cut the deficit in half in four years, and reform healthcare. Bobby Jindal told me his mom got pregnant, then moved to America, and gave birth to him, setting in motion a great American story. His story really is fascinating, but I think I'd like to wait until 2010 at least before I start getting this stuff beaten in my head. What was called for tonight was an alternative to the president's agenda, not a personal appeal to Jindal-cult. His Message Was Disjointed and Unclear Do any of us really know anything new about Jindal, or the GOP agenda after hearing him speak? Do we even know what the thesis of his speech was? I recall some generic "big government is bad" comments, but overall I have already forgotten what he said. He jumped around in his points, nothing he said was really flowing naturally from one point to another, and it sounded more like extemporanious thoughts in his head than anything else. Conclusions Bobby Jindal is one of the GOP's "rising stars" - its hard to deny that. But he has already fallen into the trap that so many politicians in this party have fallen into over the last decade. He has become a black hole of ideas who came off as dedicated to little more than opposing the Democratic agenda out of some kind of Hatfield/McCoy type rivalry, and he did it by appealing to the lowest common denominators of both our society, and our culture. Gone were the big ideas. Gone was the serious conversation about this country's future. Gone was communicating like an adult. Things like this are about political instincts. People like Barack Obama smell a vaccuum, realize what is missing in their own party, and then proceed to fill that vaccuum with the force of their personality. Jindal had the chance to do that tonight, but did not. He'll have another chance, but the bar will be set even higher for him next time.
I'll add this little bit of right wing criticism of Jindal as well. http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/1055064.html I guess the GOP, Conservatives and Democrats are all scared of Jindal.
Nobody fears Jindall. Nobody fears Palin. Neither B-Bob nor I are squirming. That is a verb more aptly applied to the current Republican Party. Plus, it's hard for me to take your post seriously given the quotes in your sig. Here's what the Churchill Centre says on their page titled "Quotes Falsely Attributed" about the one you use... Not to mention the fact that the words had different meanings in Churchill's time. It's also interesting that a quick search of this page can't find your Jefferson quote... http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/
It is one thing to fear out of respect... ex. Jindal... a bright guy with a bright future... It is another thing to fear out of pure horror... ex. Palin... an idiot who would let her imaginary friend Jesus run the country... Jindal has a future, Palin does not.
While I admit that Obama is a wonderful speaker, I think he would be well advised to shorten the legnth of his speached. I was able to watch the first 20 minutes or so, but then I had to put my children to bed. I came back and my wife had changed the channel to one of her shows. After the show, we changed the channel to find him still speaking. I thought maybe it was a recap, but sure enough he was about 3/4 of the way through it. I was totally interested in the parts that I saw, and maybe it was just as interesting from start to finish, but he may be overestimating the attention span of his audience. Maybe somenone could fill me in on the rest of the speach and whether anyone else had the same impression I had.
Jindal has a future as a cabinet member. He seems like the kind of guy you can put in charge of something difficult and he'll do a great job. Palin may as well stay in Alaska, but she won't. We'll be treated to a sideshow for the next 4 years or however long it takes her to realize the GOP will not give her nomination.
Agreed. He's a policy guy, and not really a great politician. It'll work for Congress or Governor of a medium-sized state, but not President.
Shouldn't you be working feverishly to validate and authenticate Piyush's birth certificate? Or at least developing a taste for curry?
