Posted on 02/25/2009 9:11:12 AM PST by andrew roman
As disappointing as Governor Bobby Jindal was last evening in his response to President Obama’s non-State of the Union address, I harbor as much disappointment in myself for expecting too much.
From the moment Jindal began speaking, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was sitting on a thumbtack or if someone was applying a nutcracker to his pinky toe – particularly at the beginning of his talk. The lighting and the background were, at best, unflattering, and his delivery was as smooth as large curd cottage cheese. It pains me to say this because I am a huge fan of Governor Jindal. (This past summer, for example, while working at a well-known broadcasting outlet, I was impressed to hear how Jindal handled the hurricanes that battered his area of the Gulf Coast – strong, decisive, unwavering. Unfortunately, that Bobby was MIA last evening). Since his talk, the adjective truck has been heavy with words like “cardboard,” “awful,” “akward” and “wooden” to describe the Governor’s performance. Throw in “lackluster,” “boring,” “unimpressive” and “flat” and we’ve almost got enough for a baseball team.
In a perfect world, “substance over style” would have rendered Barack Obama a poll worker instead of an election winner – but that’s not how it works in the real world, sadly. Indeed, much of what Jindal said last evening was spot on. He is, indeed, a good conservative who normally comes across much better than a slab of gefilte fish on a paper plate. Unfortunately, if opportunities such as this – with the world watching – are squandered, especially following an Obama-teleprompter spectacular as we saw last night, Jindal will quickly see his star begin to lose some of its luster.
First off, it was ...
(Excerpt) Read more at romanaround.net ...
Over time it takes a toll on the public perception and they oft times dismiss a candidate in their own mind because of the belittling.
Remember high school. Subtle and overt attacks oft times works. Sadly.
That’s exactly what I thought.
It the content of the speech was good, and I hope it was received well by those who haven’t heard Bobby Jindal speak before now. But, I was wondering who chose to have him walk to a podium set in front of a staircase and distracting background to speak into a malfunctioning microphone. They need to be replaced for any future addresses, and he needs to ignore the advice of the speech coach who surely must have adviced him. He didn’t sound like himself until he got into the real meat of the speech and seemed more caught up in what he was saying rather than his presentation, then at the close he returned to the ill-chosen presentation mode.
The Bobby Jindal I’ve observed is a good, decent, honest, man. His intelligence and love of state and country is demonstrated in the good things he has done for Louisiana. Imo, just as was said so long ago regarding Ronald Reagan, “Let Reagan be Reagan”. Let Jindal be Jindal.
Unfortunately the general public does take style before substance,and that’s the big problem.
Did not say anything about that!
It has always been thus.
I did not say he did.
I did not hear his speech. From your remark it seems he did not believe in what he was saying. No passion.
A divide between what he believes; and what he was saying. It shows.
A possibility. Just consider it for a moment.
Put 2 and 2 together. Style matters. Of course the substance has to be good and right, but the President, at least in modern times, is in large part chief salesman. That's where the style comes in. All the best positions in the world don't mean squat if you are unable to persuade people to buy in. I don't call it style. I call it salesmanship, and I rate it as being extremely important.
You also need a good marketing plan. Gingrich was the master in that regard. He's not a gifted salesman, but he had a terrific marketing plan--The Contract with America.
Don't underestimate the importance of salesmanship. Or else we'll be stuck talking about who would have been better if only.
Jindal’s response was delivered in a humble, sincere and intelligent manner. Apparently, the 3 traits we all forgot existed since Obama became president.... ;)
Rush Limbaugh is trying to defend Jindal based on the style vs substance argument that since Obama is a flim-flam man we should be less harsh on Jindal.
“All Jindal did was to articulate what we believe and what conservatism is.”
Rush is trying to blame the conservative pundits focusing too much on style.
Rush, you are right 98.6% of the time-admit it Rush— Jindal had a bad night. Rush, you are not stupid. I know why you are defending him-he is a good conservative and he is worth defending.
But Rush I am just an average guy and there are millions of average guys and gals out there who think the same thing regardless of your opinion. Jindal did not live up to the hype of the MSM and was disappointing. Rush, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is what it is.
Oh FGS. Jindal gave a great speech that was right on the mark.
“And one more thing for those who thought Jindal gave a great speech - compare his 20 minute prepared remarks with CNBC’s Santelli.”
I think you’re on to something. There are still alot of conservatives, and more importantly in terms of winning elections, alot of people who don’t agree with 0bama’s big gov’t/soak the rich/reward the water-drinkers policies, even if they may have voted for 0bama. The response to Santelli proves that there is still a capitalist fire.
Last nite Jindal blew the opportunity to put some fuel to that fire. I hope this is the last time we have to acknowledge the ‘historic significance’ of a black president doing something. I thought true equality was putting aside any consideration of a person’s racial make-up.
Finally, stop apologizing for Bush and the past.
Jindal definitely did not help himself at the outset by claiming that by giving his SOTU that the Messiah ‘had completed a redemptive journey’.
It was a good speech, but didn’t seem like Jindal was fired up about it. An Obama practiced speech on a teleprompter is a tough act to follow though, even if you disagree with every word out of his mouth. That probably leads more to the perception of delivery on Jindal’s speech than anything else.
Besides that it was pretty good!
Even though I strongly support Palin, I'm certainly not willing to write Jindal off based on last night. We need good conservatives in the party to be in the spotlight and let the chips fall where they may in 2012.
My main concern about Jindal is whether he will relentlessly fight the big-government types who always push to steal money from hard-working Americans and mortgage the future of our kids. The early fragmentary evidence on that is not encouraging but we'll see.
As for stylistic deficiencies, Bobby has plenty of time to correct that but he must do it. Sadly, it's the reality of America these days when 99% of voters make decisions on fragmentary evidence, including how good a speaker someone is.
I also think it's sad that FR seems to be an armed camp with groups taking shots at both Palin and Jindal. These two are the hope for the party from what I've seen.
I am also a Palin supporter. But I call it like I see it.
For example I am not a Phil Mickelson fan but I think that Phil displayed intestinal fortitude and tremendous resilience in hanging in the tournament last week while he was floundering for the first 15 holes of the last round and then finally coming through and winning by a stroke.
If Bobby had performed (in the generic sense) well I would give him the credit due him. But alas, he did not.
However, this performance does not make Bobby Jindal damaged goods as Sarah Palin’s performance in her interview with Katie Couric does not make her damaged goods either.
I agree completely.
In these austere times, I think the country might find a Bobby Jindal just the right antidote to the Obama culture.
Jindal did an awesome job on the Today Show this morning. I guess he’s good at answering questions but not so good at speeches.
I got the feeling that he'd not seen the speech before, or only got it a few minutes before presentation. Or, only had parts of it in advance.
No doubt that he's running in 2012. He spent the first 3-4 minutes introducing himself to the American people.
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.