Posted on 02/25/2009 9:07:20 AM PST by jwb0581
I may be alone on this, but as a lifelong independent conservative I don't know how anyone can compare Palin to Jindal. Don't get me wrong - I love Palin as a person and I love her positions on the issues. But some of the interviews were just embarrasing. I dislike Gibson and Couric more than anyone, but at times she was non-sensical or just plain empty in her answers and that can't be blamed on anyone but Palin.
I have seen others have their conservatism questioned because they have reservations about Palin. Just because someone has conservative positions that I agree with, doesn't mean they are presidential material. My grandmother has great positions on the issues but she would not make a good president.
Jindal may come off as a geek, and maybe he's too young to run in 2012. But this guy is the most brilliant, capable conservative I've seen in years. I live in Louisiana so I have watched him up close. He is the real deal.
And another ridiculous post. First I read the posts savaging Jindal. Now this. Exactly why Republicans lost the last election. Plants trying to pull off another 2008 primary and getting started early?
Incorrect. If anything, Palin is the "rockstar" candidate. She draws big crowds. Gets em all riled up.
No, what I am looking for is a top drawer salesman, because I think it is a vital element of the modern presidency, especially given the amount of idiots that make up the electorate.
I honestly have no idea. I think perhaps someone outside of politics would be a good place to start looking, if such a thing is even possible anymore. The other day I was reading up on Frederick Smith, founder and CEO of FEDEX. I don't know what all his policies are, but the man is impressive. He's a good old southern boy who graduated from Yale, served in the Marines in Vietnam, came home and founded FedEx from the ground up. Apparantly he was involved in the McCain campaign in some way. Don't know all his views, or if he'd consider running. And if you want to say now is a bad time to be a CEO running, that could be true. I guess you could say I'm trying to look elsewhere, because the usual suspects don't cut it.
Try comparing her convention speech to Jindal’s last night. Jindal reminded me of the kid in High School who had to cough up his lunch money. I’ll take Palin, any day.
Rush just finished up the last segment defending Jindal. He’s 37 and showed up, first time on the national scene and articulated what we believe, told us what conservatism is using his own life story. Democrats will trash him just as they trashed Sarah Palin. But (quoting Rush) we are making a mistake if we trash him on style. Rush knows him, has met with him and Jindal is the real deal; his conservatism and history are true. To bash him because of style overlooks that and he doesn’t want to hear that from his listeners.
My comment: Jindal needs more pizazz, must be more dynamic. And to be fair to Sarah, she too has time to become more educated on national issues so she too can confront the press. Both have a great future in our party.
Rush back on for second hour saying someone advised Jindal to talk to first graders last night. They need to be thrown overboard, not Jindal.
One heavily edited interview and one subpar performance does not define any politician including Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal.
I have never claimed that Jindal was damaged irreparably by his subpar performance last night. He will bounce back.
But so has Sarah Palin. From October 2 and her winning performance in her debate with Biden until November 4th Sarah was on fire playing before SRO crowds getting under Obama’s skin. Unfortunately for every punch that Sarah connected the impact was neutralized by McCain’s constant legitimization of Obama as not a socialist and that he would do no harm to America and Americans had nothing to fear from the Messiah.
Sarah performed remarkably under great pressure while McCain mentally left the field of battle during the last month of the campaign.
Who isn’t a lightweight?
Add in McCain's wholehearted support of the bank bailout.
Amen!
What a crock. You are making the very mistake of buying the media line that I warn yet again against.
The "Thompson is too tired" canard was belied by facts. A review of the facts show that only one candidate on the GOP side was doing more appearances than Thompson; ironically, it was the older John McCain. Thompson was beaten because he was indeed too late -- South Carolina should have gone strongly for him, but all of the "ground support" had been locked up before Thompson got into the race.
If we're so paranoid that we can't vet our candidates and debate them passionately on our own forum, then we deserve the crap we get. Say one critical thing and out come the moronic troll comments. It's a dysfunctional situation.
Again, factual discussions are fine. Repeating media creations like "damaged goods" (or "too old and tired") is what's dysfunctional. I'm not trying to cheer lead anyone here; I am just warning against dismissal of potentially good candidates because of flawed perceptions created by the liberals and their lapdog media allies.
Again, you're misunderstanding, or purposefully misrepresenting, what I am saying. It's not either/or. It's not flash OR content. And it's not "flash" I'm talking about. It's salesmanship.
I'd say Palin clearly has gifts when it comes to salesmanship. And I call them gifts because they have nothing to do with skill or knowledge. She's good looking, young, and she "connects", just as you say. Those are all traits that you would denigrate as "flash", but I would call them assets. To be sure, it's not enough. But it's welcome.
So, we agree flash alone is not enough. But we both recognize the power that flash--the ability to draw crowds, connect with people, relate to people--is a noteworthy component of an executive.
The content has to be there as well. The right ideas. We agree on that. A record of accomplishment. We agree on that.
So you see, we actually agree on the qualities we see as important. We simply disagree on our assessment of Palin (and Fred) as to how well they demonstrate or embody those qualities.
I’m not buying into any media line.
Our new president has been in office for a month, we really don’t need to make our final 2012 or 2016 decisions right now.
Let’s just relax and let the new candidates find their own levels of acceptance in the next couple of years.
Great post. I'm not sure why our bench is so incredibly weak. Brother, you are going to get crucified. I feel for you.
I had such high hopes for Jindal. Although, I think he can still recover because of his resume and his track record, at commerce, in the Congress and in LA. One speech doesn't make or break a career (except in Obama's case). But, a few more outing like this for Jindal, and it's over.
Sanford is really starting to impress me with his appearances on the Sunday morning chat shows. Keep an eye on him. He's got a great economic background which could be very useful in 2012.
She gave him a temporary boost in the general electorate. But once the shine had worn off (about a week after the Convention), she was toxic to McCain.
She completely energized the base, but also alienated the people in the middle, ensuring victory for Obama. Aside from a few pissed off Hilary supporters, Palin didn't bring over any Democrats.
I've heard so many people compare Palin to Reagan. Which is absolutely laughable. Reagan consolidated his support amongst the base while at the same time building a bridge to Democrats (Reagan Democrats anyone?) and independents. This is something that Palin hasn't shown ANY ability to do thus far.
As proof that Rush does not ‘give his dittoheads marching orders’ I get the impression most of Rush’s listeners disagree with Rush regarding his praise of Jindal’s rebuttal performance.
How about just wanting someone who can win? Is that too much to ask?
The GOP hasn't picked a nominee who won the popular vote but once since 1988. Why do we continue to pick such incredibly dysfunctional candidates?
Here's biggest problem with your "Rockstar" comment. Rockstars are popular. In a democracy it is POPULARITY that wins elections, not unpopularity.
As sad as it may be, we now have such a tiny, tiny minority of the electorate that actually do their homework and understand the candidate's positions on critical issues, that it ONLY comes down to the "star" quality of the candidate. It may be an uncomfortable fact, but it's still a fact.
I'm praying it won't be 20 years before President-for-life Obama permits the next election. I don't recall the last national socialist to take power in a major country being eager to face the voters after his 1933 victory in Berlin.
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.