Posted on 02/25/2009 8:28:45 AM PST by PhilosopherStones
Jindal didn't have a chance. He follows Obama, who in making speeches is in a league of his own. He is in the Reagan-esqe league. And there is nobody like him, and he had, as Brit indicated, a wonderful, glorious backdrop behind him, and a setting that was as grand a setting.
What I remember about the "backdrop" was Biden who looked like he was either texting or playing with his NintendoDS, and GrammaBotox (who looked like Heath Ledger in "Dark Night" without the lipstick in a puke green costume that looked like something an alien would wear in the original Star Trek series) looking bored and continually checking the text of the prepared speech - undoubtedly highlighted at the points where she was supposed to stand up and applaud.
I thought everything about Jindal’s speech was right on, except the lighting, which was too dim. It was awkward for him to walk to a “spot” and then start talking, which normally would set the tone for a more casual talk, instead of a strong response to the wrongmindedness of the administration. Choreograph it better next time, please.
I did walk through a room with the speech on the radio a couple of times and found his tone irritating.
“I found a show on Food Network about cheese mold.”
Well you were right. Watching Obambi was about as exciting as wathing mold grow on cheese.
Obama is a hand puppet and does not have core. Further, he outsources most of the agenda and in case no one has figured it out yet, The Chump is a salesman.
That's right, he is a salesman hired by the Democrats to promote their agenda. That's all, just a pitchman hired in much the same way you would hire an actor for commercials to promote your product.
While everyone is poised to jump on this guy he is not the real problem.
He is a distraction whose sole purpose is take what ever invective you have. Doesn't matter to him.
The real problem is the Congress and Senate. You see Constitutionally, they are the only ones who have the authority to spend your money.
They have responsibility of oversight, for legislation, and the fiduciary responsibility for dispersal of funds. The President can say whatever he wants but his power to act alone is limited and cannot happen without a complicit partnership of the Congress and Senate.
George Bush, same thing. All the spending that took place under his watch was done through the partnership of the Congress and Senate. He didn't do it alone and in fact he went along with the spending to get his other agenda items accomplished. Namely Justice, taxes, Middle East and foreign policy.
We need to look at the items proposed, see where their provenance is and expose the Congress and Senate for who they are.
BTW, Barry needs to get a job in the private sector or go to jail if he committed fraud in his identity. I don't care either way but this guy needs to go so we can have an impotent executive and legislative body for the next 4 years.
“people are generally honest”
Agree with you to an extent, because people with access to power and wealth are generally tempted to be dishonest. Their drive to make money is also their weakness. Countries who regulated their banks, prevent loans for speculations, limited the ratio for leveraging escaped the current global financial meltdown. Their government regulators have one common theme “if bankers are givened a chance to sin, they will sin”. Countries who assumed that out of self interest, bankers will not do risky things to hurt themselves, are finding out that such notions are simple and dangerous, and today they are facing a crisis that threatens their national survival.
Pelosi served as the human “applause” sign.
PS, thanks for an expert opinion. I have never thought Obama was even a good speaker, possibly because I listened to what was/was not said while he intoned. I’ve watched him rarely since last summer and he is the same shapeshifty speaker. My guess this communication style will start to drag down his polling very soon, I think the biggest danger from Obama will be when he becomes very disliked by the majority...I think he will be vindictive and impulsive when he falls from the perch.
I also did not watch either the Annointed One’s speech or Jindal’s response but I did catch him this morning on the Today Show. The points he made in that interview were absolutely right on but I was distracted by a reference I had read on FR earlier that watching Jindal reminded the poster of Richard Pryor “talking white”.
For a generation raised on television and at least cognizant of the black-church testifying style of speaking, Obama’s style is taken as “good speech making”. But none of his lines are ever memorable the way Kennedy’s or Reagan’s were. There is no substance there.
I do think that people will tire of the “teleprompter-switching” after a while and start wondering why DumbO never looks the TV view in the eye when he speaks.
Here are some thoughts I has regarding Mark Steyn:
We need a lot more Mark Steyns to do semantic battle in the war against the anti-kulture, the Collectivist borg.
One definition of semantics: the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially: connotative meaning b: the language used (as in advertising or POLITICAL PROPAGANDA) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings (Hopen’Change). There are almost 13,000,000 hits in response to Googling ‘semantics’.
Maybe the lazy RNC should hire an expert in semantics, sure seems like an area that they could get a lot of ROI....witness GWB, Dole, McCain, Boehner...etc.
Unfortunately, at least since Chomsky and Fish, the linguists are all on the other side. And of course they churn out students who are on the other side as well.
Again, you can’t raise generations of school kids on the notion that “nobody can really know right from wrong, it’s all opinion” and expect them to make the effort to learn any critial thinking skills. Why bother. Let’s just emote.
And Dumbo (much like Clinton before him) is the Emoter-in-Chief.
to suggest that Jindal is in the same universe, much less the same league as Obama for speech delivery is crazy.
Obama (the commie punk) is the best orator since the advent of radio.
The first thing a good communicator can do is accurately convey his ideas and the points of his speech in such a way that those hearing understand what he is saying. This never happens in an Obama speech. He talks, but he doesn't even come close to communicating what is in his heart and mind. His speeches are all gobbeldy gook and obfuscating his real plans and intents.
If you want to buy into the idea that an average black preacher is a better orator than John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, then I’m sorry that your idea of oratory has been so corrupted by modern television.
It’s like the academy awards - Best actor, actress always goes to the actor who most looks like she/he is acting, rather than to the actor/actress who appears the most natural.
A judgment about the state of our educational system rather than the relative merits of DumbO and Jindal.
Go back and read Demosthene’s “On the Crown” for what real oratory is like.
As a PhD and conservative I completely disagree with that assessment that Republicans ‘rebuff science’.
We rebuff pseudo-junk science like Globaloney Warming. We reject politicization of science or the abuse of science by liberals. When you have putzes like Gore and Waxman claim to ‘defend’ science, you know something is hosed.
There is the PERCEPTION that the GOP does this, I admit. But its an unfair perception fed by liberal media trolls engaging in phony stereotyping. JMHO.
Also, technology is one element to prosperity, but the other keys are - freedom - and a culture of trust, which is built on moral values. “Jesus or conservatives principles” are indeed key to a good economy.
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.