Posted on 02/25/2009 6:43:09 PM PST by trying17 (AKA DrGop0821)
"[T]he people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style. Because if you think — people on our side I’m talking to you — those of you who think Jindal was horrible, you think — in fact, I don’t ever want to hear from you ever again. … I’ve spoken to him numerous times, he’s brilliant. He’s the real deal." --Rush Limbaugh on his radio show today.
Sean Hannity was equally impressed with Gov. Jindal.
With all do respect, Rush and Sean, I politiely disagree. In my unscientific analysis of the blogs today, conservatives seem to be about 50/50 on Jindal's performance.
First, I like Bobby Jindal. I like his policy. I like his politics and I think he will no doubt emerge as one of the many fresh faces of conservatism for years to come.
I admire his life story: the hard-work, discipline and success that his parents and he have earned are truly a great American story and do, in fact, demonstrate that anything can happen in American. And he was much better this morning on "The Today Show".
With that said, he really sh*t the proverbial bed in his Republican Response to President Obama's address to Congress. Frankly, he was not very good at all.
I know, I know, everyone who gives the "Other Party Address" following at State of the Union is at a distinct disadvantage. Whether it's Barack Obama or George Bush; the stage, the backdrop, the drama and Great American Ambience provided by the Chambers of Congress are difficult to match.
But Gov. Jindal was flat out dry, boring and stiff. The speech itself was quite good, full of substance and stayed on message (full transcript below), but the delivery was uninspiring and did little to energize the Republican base and surely many people simply tuned him out or turned him off.
And, as I've learned in the blogs today, many Conservatives could not make it all the way through the speech. So what do you suppose the reaction from independents and moderates was like? I know Republicans are never going to appeal to the Radical Leftist Obamamaniacs, but there still exists a fairly large number of "Independent" voters (myself included) who expected a bit more from Jindal.
Maybe it's not all his fault; obviously the Republican party was part of the planning process. But besides being flat, the atmosphere of Jindal's mansion was gloomy, creepy and empty.
But alas, herein lies a huge problems with Conservatism and Republicans. We live in the era of Bush Derangement Syndrome and Obamamania.
Like it or not, we do live in the "Dot-Com" era of sound bites and snapshots. As much as I would like to believe Americans believe in substance over style, the reality is most Americans in today's video-game, Internet culture cannot focus much on substance for more than a few seconds.
It's sad, but it is the truth.
Rightly or wrongly, this summarizes, in part, the success of Barack Obama. Yes, there was a clear media bias, but can you really blame them?
Compare Obama to his former rival John McCain. Take away the message and the substance and what are you left with?
By no means am I supporting Obama or the media or the Radical Power-Grabbing Socialist philosophy of the Commie Liberals in Congress.
However, I am applauding his campaign strategy and his staff and supporters for their use of modern technology as well as using the slobbering media to their political advantage.
However, as Conservatives -- and the Republican Party Leadership -- we must realize the reality of the world in which we live. Americans do respond to style and image. It's a tough pill to swallow, but something we Conservatives need to stomach if we wish to rise to power again.
As John Ziegler pointed out while he was slamming MS-NBC's Norah O'Donell, the line between entertainment and journalism, and between politics and entertainment are becoming less clear each day.
There are, in fact, many people in this country (some of my own friends and family) who "get their news" from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
And that's scary and yes, most of them are Liberals (no surprise).
It's also worth mentioning, again, that Tina Fey's satire of Sarah Palin became how many Americans perceived the Alaska Governor. Yes, it's wrong, unfortunate and disgusting, but it is the truth.
The Republican party and Conservatives are years behind the world of 21st Century era of information and technology. No, image isn't everything, but as a society we are becoming more image-conscious everyday.
The sooner Republicans learn this lesson, the more hope we have. Perhaps it's a necessary evil -- and we don't have to like it -- but it is reality.
Instead of bashing Liberals and the media and Leftwing blogs for celebrating style over substance, we need to learn we can use the same modern tactics for advancing our own agenda.
The full text of Gov. Jindal's speech:
It’s always nice to hear a critique like this from the John McCain wing of the GOP. That end of the elephant (whose only working organ is the tailpipe) is always more concerned with symbolism over substance.
It’s always been that way. George Washington had a ton of charisma and may have been the greatest leader we’ve ever had. Both style and substance.
The text of Jindal's speech was fine but the staging was awkward at best. While I detest Chrissy Matthew's "Oh, God" comment as Jindal came around the corner to speak, the whole thing did seem somewhat out-of-place.
Let me reiterate. The text was fine. Outstanding even.
Leave the stage-craft to Obama. He's the Present. That stuff comes with winning The White House.
Personally, I think the whole "response" thing is lame. The RATS initiated that crap during Reagan's Presidency (I think) because they needed some way to get their talking points across to their lapdogs in The Media so they could all be on the same page and all present the same opposition to whatever Reagan said (remember, this was back in the day before instant communication like cell phones, texting, e-mail, faxes, etc. was available).
Obviously the lackeys in the media don't give a flying fig what a Republican has to say in response to a RAT.
I'd rather the Republicans just did away with the whole response thing.
Hers was the only face showing sadness regret on the stage during McCain’s concession. The old goat himself looked relieved and oddly happy.
She knew what was coming, and still wanted badly to help her country. McCain knew what was coming, and was relieved to have dodged a bullet.
He was sincere. It throws some people, especially Democrats. He spoke of the people of our country that makes the US great. That definitely upsets the Obama-Commu-crats.
DU? - RINO? Which? Discourage the troops; they’ll just fold up and go away. - Nope. I’m not joining in the usual Republican frenzy to shoot their own. In a while, people are going to get very bored of Obama and a genuine person will then look good to them. Obama’s a good teleprompter reader. That’s about the size of it.
I like his principles, but I thought his performance was sub-par. I kept thinking that Sarah Palin could have knocked the ball out of the court.
“It’s always been that way. George Washington had a ton of charisma and may have been the greatest leader we’ve ever had. Both style and substance.”
You obviously don’t know your history. George Washington gave an absolutely horrible inauguration speech. He was nervous and mumbled and was totally uncomposed. Nevertheless, it didn’t matter, because it is not the style, but the substance that makes someone a leader.
Yes.
Do we have to be entertained before we listen ?
Yes.
Or can we listen to someone in Louisiana, 1400 miles away and allow for differences in style, in culture, in speech patterns . . . while Enjoying the substantive discourse of meaninful conversation about complex subjects, without looking down the clevage of Paris Hilton wanting to be entertained, while missing out “totally’ on being intelectually engaged ?
You used too many words - the Sheep ignored you just now. Although you briefly got them at Paris's clevage.
And when he gave his inauguration speech he was already the president.
The majority voted for ObamaLamaDingDong, didn't they?
Nothing like a lazy society to vote for a man who makes speeches
that nobody can decipher.
Cleavage. :)
“Yep. When the first president was chosen, no one told Washington to wear his military uniform but his leadership could not be overlooked when he did.”
Where in the heck are you people learning your history from? This is embarassing. Washington never wore his uniform as president.
“And when he gave his inauguration speech he was already the president.”
Which really upset those who elected him. The common thought was that they had made a huge mistake. Fortunately that turned out not to be the case, but it shook many people.
I saw the same observation on Karl Denninger’s TickerForum.org, so you weren’t the only one who noticed this. Maybe first out of the gate with it, though. You can bet SNL is cooking up a skit as we speak.
I’m a lot more conserned about where you’re getting your reading comprehension from since you obviously have serious problems with it.
I never said washington wore his uniform as president. I said he showed up wearing it when our founders were choosing a president.
If you’re going to pretend to be some kind of history scholar, you should at least have a clue of what you’re talking about.
Yeah, in fact Reagan blew one of his debate performances badly when he was running for President. And Obama has had his moments where he’s been nothing but a pile of uh’s and ums. Ain’t nobody perfect but you do have to be able to make a winning performance when the pressure is on more often than not, as Reagan and Obama have done. Hopefully Jindal can learn from this like you say and make sure he’s sharper next time.
He was sing-songy...like he was talking to kindergartners. Maybe he thought a lot of Democrats would be listening.
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.