-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Last night I caught Bobby Jindal speaking at a fundraising dinner for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Overall, Jindal came off better in front of a live audience and less rehearsed than he did on national TV during his response to President Obama's speech to Congress. But the bottom line is that he simply is not an electrifying speaker. While the crowd reacted positively, their applause was much more tepid than I would have expected given that he's still considered one of the rising stars in the party. Public speaking, as far as I can tell, is not one of his political strengths. With time and practice, Jindal could evolve into a good enough speaker to succeed in higher office, especially if in some date in the future Americans become disillusioned with the idea of electing presidents based on their rhetorical prowess. But it’s pretty clear to me that if Jindal ever makes it to the White House, it will be because he's brilliant, has a mastery of policy issues, and an impressive list of accomplishments – not because of his power as an orator.
With that said, I thought the substance of what Jindal had to say was generally on target.
"I honor and respect the Democratic Party's sincerity," Jindal said in an almost Obama-like conciliatory way. "The differences between the two parties are genuine, legitimate differences. This isn’t because of political opportunism, these are essential differences based on opposing world views."
Jindal noted that we were in the midst of the greatest expansion of government in history, with money spent in the early part of the Obama administration having eclipsed the cost of the Iraq War, the Vietnam War and the Louisiana Purchase.
Much of his speech was focused on how Republicans had a different vision on health care, energy and education than Obama and Democrats in Congress. But he really hit his stride toward the end, in which he tackled the question of whether he wanted Obama to fail. He started by challenging the question's premise.
"If you don't want to answer that question with a loud 'no' immediately, if you don't express instant obedience to the question, then they are trying to suggest that you're not really a patriot," Jindal said. "They're essentially saying that you're trying to undermine America."
But Jindal said that the GOP shouldn't back down on challenging President Obama when they disagree with his agenda.
"There's a very important role in our republic for the loyal opposition," Jindal said. "We must be both."
He continued, "We are the party out of power. It is proper and right and healthy for our democracy for us to speak up when we don’t agree with the policies that this president pushes and proposes. I will not be browbeaten… I won't kowtow to the political correctness. We will be the loyal opposition."
In response to the question of whether he wants the president to fail, he said his answer is simple: "It depends on what he is trying to do." Jindal said that he wants Obama to succeed if the president wants to cut taxes, reduce debt, stop the explosion in government spending, and get serious about earmark reform.
"However," Jindal said, "when our president wants to spend our country into debt, into interminable debt, putting this generation and future generations in a position in which the only way out will be massive tax increases, we oppose that policy not because we want the president to fail, but because we want America to succeed."
His speech lasted a little over 20 minutes and the NRCC raised $6 million from the event to support GOP candidates.
View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/25/jindalwe-dont-want-obama-to-fa
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Last in Line
- Handicap the Handicapper
- From ‘Happily Ever After’ to the Fall
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Deborah| 3.25.09 @ 7:14AM
Good for Jindal. Loyal opposition -- loyal to the country as it was established. We oppose all efforts to circumvent the Constitution and change the country into a socialist EUtopia. Don't let anyone browbeat us out of that loyalty to country by saying we must be loyal to Obama's vision rather than the founders'.
A| 3.25.09 @ 8:06AM
Mr. Jindal:
When you have a minute off from world travel talking about the "other" guys, could you please take a look at our state (Louisiana if you forgot) and work on some of our own problems. Have you looked at Medicare lately and the 5 star hospitals for freebees only. Yet you worry about unemployment costing too much. At least those people worked. What a shame we are so quick to condemn everyone else's efforts but don't look at yourself first. Guess that goes with the generation of today. I owe you nothing and you owe me everything!
Becky| 3.25.09 @ 8:07AM
Millions do not want what Obama is offering, and many more millions do not know what Obama is offering, especially, it seems, his hypnotized supporters (Brooks, et. al.). What Jindal is reminding us is that contrary to what the President says, there is never a time in American History when "the time for talking is over." We just came through a war that was continually publicly opposed, even though "the time for talking was over" when the troops were in place. If anything, that dissent helped to win the war, by forcing a surge.
In the discourse concerning whether Obama should succeed or fail, what is lost is that millions do not have sufficient knowledge of what that failure or success means. His failure is not a conviction and imprisonment, just look at former President Carter. He still gets to go around making a fool of himself without fear of punitive retribution.
It is not coincidental that the war crimes crowd is also the strongest defenders of the Obama needs to be supported crowd. As noted elsewhere, dissent is equated with evil, subject to punishment, in leftist minds.
Alice Moore| 3.25.09 @ 8:41AM
There will come a time when Americans will check out accomplishments and abilities rather than smooth script delivery from a teleprompter. People are coming to the realization that oratory skills do not equal executive and mangerial ability. The office of the US Presidency requires this skill set that the present occupant lacks.
In 2012 accomplishment and skills will be of a higher value to the US Electorate. After 4 years "American Idol" type candidates may even be viewed with suspicion.
Siegfried X| 3.25.09 @ 8:53AM
"Jindal said that he wants Obama to succeed if the president wants to cut taxes, reduce debt, stop the explosion in government spending, and get serious about earmark reform. "
Jindal still doesn't get it. That's just a bunch of hot air, things the Republicans haven't even tried to do for 15 years, and which couldn't fix the current problems anyway.
After nominating John McLiberal and 8 years of "compassionate" big-government conservatism, the Republican leadership are now pretending to be libertarians.
Daphne| 3.25.09 @ 10:44AM
I do want that marxist moron to fail--big time. I see he's gotten rid of his teleprompter and is now using a giant screen TV. He's a joke.
Red Phillips| 3.25.09 @ 1:16PM
"loyal to the country as it was established. We oppose all efforts to circumvent the Constitution and change the country into a socialist EUtopia."
So Deborah, can I count on you to join me in supporting a candidate who wants to roll back the New Deal? I am happy when conservatives use the rhetoric of following the Constitution. I agree. They just need to be aware of what that would really mean. (Likely cutting 80-90% of the government, although not necessarily right away.) And that they are not just invoking the Constitution to mean slowing the rate of growth of some socialist unconstitutional program and cutting marginal tax rates.
Siegfried X| 3.25.09 @ 1:47PM
"Likely cutting 80-90% of the government"
That's why small government is a loser at the ballot box, and all Republican politicians do is TALK about cutting, not actually do it. They pretend to be for small government by finding a couple of little "earmarks" which sound funny, then demagoging about them.
It's been 13 years since there was serious talk of real spending cuts, like closing the Department of Education. That all ended with the government shutdown and the fall of Gingrich.
Red Phillips| 3.25.09 @ 2:23PM
"That's why small government is a loser at the ballot box"
Calling for smaller government is a net rhetorical winner, but actually cutting programs is a loser. But the take home point for conservatives of this reality should not be to give in but that they have some persuading to do. It is not enough to just repeat the mantra.
Jack Bauer| 3.25.09 @ 2:46PM
Please don't listen to SiegfriedX-- he's a big government stateist pretending to be something he's not.
It's his schtick so he can then "pretend" to offer reasons why what he"pretends" to support won't work.
It's a bit like Dracula pretending to be Van Hesling telling the villagers, best not to resist getting your blood sucked because there's nothing you can do anyway.
If not, then nothing he writes makes any sense.
BOHICA.
penalcolony| 3.25.09 @ 3:00PM
Think of it as a twin thing: virtuous "Bobby" the "Catholic" wants America to succeed, while evil Piyush the secret Hindu wants Obama to fail.
Heather| 3.25.09 @ 4:05PM
Siegfried is a libtard troll.
Michael| 3.25.09 @ 7:24PM
They want America to succed? Then why did Jindal and the rest of the GOP cheer Bush on for eight years? Sounds like they support failure to me!
Interloper| 3.25.09 @ 9:58PM
You should know, Michael--you are a loser failure.
Jack Bauer| 3.26.09 @ 3:33AM
If you want merica to succedd Michael, then why are you supporting Obama? A straight up Marxisan douche, and the most unqualified man ever to hold the office.
And he ain't that bright either.
Deborah| 3.26.09 @ 7:03AM
Hey Red -- I'd be all for cutting the gov't by 80-90% and rolling back the New Deal. As a boomer who was planning on retirement in the next ten years, I was counting on my savings and investment for that retirement since we all know the pyramid is upside down in the Social Security Ponzi scheme. The thing that gets me the most worked up is thinking that my children and theirs etc. will be paying for crap that we're wasting our money on now...that's why I wanted to be able to opt out of Social Security. Obama seems gleeful that the market is tanking and with it future retirees' savings. He wants us all dependent on government. It's the scariest thing in my lifetime.
This is a huge elephant -- we have to eat it one bite at a time. We first have to get rid of the leftists in the federal government, at least a good enough portion that they can't continue to screw Americans with their visions of sugarplums. The rest will take time. Realism...
Leann| 3.27.09 @ 8:59AM
Jack,
What are you talking about, Bush was in politics for years and still was unqualified for the job. He couldn't speak english very well to say he went to Harvard. Now he was a joke.
Interloper| 3.27.09 @ 4:27PM
Bush had been governor of Texas for 8 years before he ran for president--Obama's done just about nothin'. Wouldn't be much of a speaker, either, without the teleprompter stuck to his face. LOL