The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : They Don't Make 'Em Like the Gipper

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

They Don't Make 'Em Like the Gipper

By W. James Antle, III on 2.25.09 @ 12:02PM

The generally negative reaction to Bobby Jindal's response to Barack Obama reminds us that Ronald Reagan was a rare spokesman for the right who could compete with the Obamas and the Kennedys in the personality department. Jindal and Mark Sanford are two of the most intelligent, competent, philosophically sound, and politically accomplished Republican executives in the country. (I personally like Sanford even better than Jindal.) But between the two of them, they have all the charisma of a wet paper bag.

UPDATE: Jindal is a lot better in this Today appearance (via The Corner):

View all comments (20) | Leave a comment

Red Phillips| 2.25.09 @ 2:02PM

Jim, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just don't get all the Jindal love. How is Jindal particularly "philosophically sound?" How is he anything other than a cookie-cutter movement conservative type? Sanford may be not quite cookie-cutter. Sanford reportedly has a libertarian streak, and rumor has it he was skeptical of the War. How is Jindal unique? And last I heard he was flawed on immigration. Does he have Constitutionalist leanings? What am I missing?

Roy| 2.25.09 @ 2:22PM

"Movement conservative type" is a good thing, and pretty much what "philosophically sound" means - to other "movement conservatives" such as the writers and readers of the American Spectator. "Cookie cutter" is just meaningless abuse.

Jindal adds to that exceptional administrative ability - which is a world where the media has successfully indoctrinated tons of people to think that liberals are somehow inherently smarter, is not just a governing quality but a political one as well.

Admr. U. S. S. Buniontow VI| 2.25.09 @ 2:35PM

Kind sir, Jindal-Pawlenty-Romney have the collective personalities of a sofa. They are men of wonkland.

I know a lady who will shoot, field dress, and cook wild game. She has charisma that the men of wonkland can only dream of: Palin 2012.

R. Trotter| 2.25.09 @ 2:38PM

Contributing to Reagan's skills was the fact that he didn't apologize for his beliefs or try to cater to the liberal media. He knew his positions were correct so he would state them clearly and succinctly and, when necessary, educate the listener as to why the position was indeed correct.

Red Phillips| 2.25.09 @ 3:03PM

""Movement conservative type" is a good thing, and pretty much what "philosophically sound" means - to other "movement conservatives" such as the writers and readers of the American Spectator."

Roy, the problem is that movement "conservatives" types haven't been particularly … oh I don't know ... what's the word ... tip of my tongue ... oh yeah, got it ... conservative. What, pray tell, have movement conservatives conserved?

There is nothing conservative about crusading around the world spreading democracy. There is nothing conservative about me to social democracy light. There is nothing conservative about shameless political pragmatism and carrying water for the GOP. There is nothing conservative about cowering in fear that some PC goon might call you a bad name. And there is nothing conservative about demonizing and calling bad names (extremists, wing-nuts, moon bat, etc.) those who actually are trying to genuinely conserve something. Need I go on?

My assumption is that not all the writers or readers of AmSpec are movement types as at least some of them are paleo-sympathetic.

W. James Antle III| 2.25.09 @ 3:15PM

Red, I'm grading on a curve. In today's GOP, you can find plenty of officeholders who aren't even sound on taxes, spending, guns, or life. Jindal is bright, he knows public policy, and he has an A-minus grade from Numbers USA/Americans for Better Immigration. Now, I agree he's no constitutionalist and has wavered on some important issues (most notably voting for SCHIP expansion). There's a reason I said I preferred Sanford.

W. James Antle III| 2.25.09 @ 3:41PM

Or let me put it to you another way: I would take a standard-issue fusionist conservative, even if they were a little less consistent and more hawkish than I'd prefer (provided they're not completely off the rails), over either major-party choice in the last election. In fact, I'd take them over President Obama, President Clinton, and both Presidents Bush.

Roy| 2.25.09 @ 5:07PM

Evidence, please, that Jindal is "no constitutionalist".

As a religious wingnut like myself, Jindal likely believes that taking an oath to something and then flagrantly violating it endangers his immortal soul.

Jindal would like to conserve the lives of the unborn, who can currently be vivisected for the sexual convenience of their parents. Agreed, that "movement conservatives" haven't done this, why, because they aren't in control. Movement liberals are and have been all along.

As far as "crusading around the world spreading democracy" that requires a much longer discussion or none.

I fully agree that "wingnut" is perfectly meaningless libomedia spinny blather. It conveys no information except that you want to rule out the other person's position without having to debate it. That said using it is unfortunately something that pretty much everybody does.

W. James Antle III| 2.25.09 @ 6:33PM

Well, I'm not sure where SCHIP, much less SCHIP expansion, can be found in the Constitution, for example. But I certainly agree with you regarding the unborn.

Alan Brooks| 2.25.09 @ 7:15PM

Reagan was the last truly great American.
Coolidge, Robert Taft, Ike, Reagan.

game over.

Alan Brooks| 2.25.09 @ 7:16PM

...and the master, HL, the sage of Baltimore.

Jeremiah| 2.25.09 @ 7:55PM

As the presiding and unrepentant liberal around here, I am entitled every now and then to confer special blessings on a reactionary poster of true talent.

Tonight's award for funniest post goes to Roy, who writes:

"I fully agree that 'wingnut' is perfectly meaningless libomedia spinny blather. It conveys no information except that you want to rule out the other person's position without having to debate it."

At first I thought he was going to make a reasonable plea for a more dignified discourse than is offered by terms like "wingnut," but then he goes on to make that terms sound almost stodgy.

Keep the aspidistra flying, comrades.

Roy| 2.25.09 @ 9:50PM

Jeremiah:

You are not "presiding" over anything and I don't really care about your opinion. "Token" might be better.

The word "wingnut" is exactly what I called it. The point is not "elevating discourse", but conveying substance. If in a substance filled argument somebody wants to throw in that he thinks I am ugly and my mama dresses me funny, fine, it conveys no information and advances his argument not a whit but fine. The problem is people use words like "wingnut" imagining themselves to have said something substantive.

Roy| 2.25.09 @ 10:20PM

Antle: I guess he probably did that out of pure expediency. Too bad, but it happens. I still doubt he uses the Constitution for toilet paper like Justice Ginsberg.

Alan Brooks| 2.25.09 @ 10:42PM

Jeremiah sez he is "entitled" here?
AS is an entitlement now??

Gosh what is this country coming to?

ruth| 2.26.09 @ 1:02AM

Admr. S. S. S. Buniontow VI: Sir, you are my newest hero and I must say you have great taste in women! PALIN 2012!!

ruth| 2.26.09 @ 1:06AM

Alan, you silly boy, Jeremy is a liberal, of course he feels entitled; to everyone elses' hard earned money. Obama told him so.

Mike | 2.26.09 @ 9:16AM

Which Gipper? The one of myth or the real Reagan? Oh sure, he cut income tax, primarily for the very wealthy, in his first year but raised taxes in the other years of his presidency. Don't blame Democrats; he signed the legislation. He understood the exploding debt facing the government. Are we talking about the "tear down this wall" Reagan or the one who talked with Gorbachev about reducing nuclear weapons? In short, which Gipper? Conservative fantasy Reagan or the far more pragmatic, compromising Reagan? Just wondering.