Jindal had his moment, and he blew it
If you had asked me about the worst high-profile political speech I’d ever seen, I would have said it was John McCain’s effort last June, the one with the green backdrop, cringing smile, strangely awkward crowd and the whining “my friends, that’s not change we can believe in.”
Bobby Jindal’s effort last night approached McCain. I had never heard Jindal speak on a formal occasion, and he was bad. Bad message, worse delivery. Some of the harshest reaction came from conservatives who had hopes Jindal could be the party’s standard bearer. David Brooks put it bluntly:
“To come up at this moment in history with a stale ‘government is the problem,’ ‘we can’t trust the federal government’ – it’s just a disaster for the Republican Party…. It’s just not where the country is, it’s not where the future of the country is. There’s an intra-Republican debate. Some people say the Republican Party lost its way because they got too moderate. Some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate, and so he’s making that case. I think it’s insane, and I just think it’s a disaster for the party. I just think it’s unfortunate right now.”
At the Corner at the National Review, they post an email from a longtime reader:
“Jindal’s delivery was weak in this sense: he did not look like someone who could lead this country. He did not instill in me any confidence that he would or could be the standard-bearer in four or eight years, which I was looking for. I wanted him to do well. But he didn’t. … He came across as the guy you’d want to have your daughter bring home, but not the guy you’d want leading your company during tough times.
Even the far-right folks at Free Republic panned it badly:
- “After just two or three words, all I could see and hear for the remainder of Jindle’s speech was … Richard Pryor. Richard Pryor doing his white man’s voice.”
- “Face it, it was a poor performance. He may be a nice enough guy but he had a shot and he blew it.”
- “Nobody here is trying to tear Jindal down, but to deny that he dropped the ball last night is just burying our heads in the sand. Jindal needed to come out with fire in his bellow. Instead, all we got was some smoke and a few sizzles.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
330 comments Add your comment
AJC/DNC Management
February 25th, 2009
7:43 am
Geez-
Some of the harshest reaction came from conservatives who had hopes Jindal could be the party’s standard bearer. David Brooks put it bluntly:
I quit reading your column right there.
David Brooks approved of John McCain.
Need I say more?
G
February 25th, 2009
7:48 am
There was a Rushpub named Jindal
Who spun just like a spindle
The words came out wrong
Like he’d puffed on a bong
To President Obama, he can’t hold a kindle.
G. Blanston
February 25th, 2009
7:48 am
With Jindal and Palin as the primary faces and voices of the GOP, the democrats are ensured a long term at the helm. Even for democrat loyalist, it has to be a concern that the GOP cannot do any better in putting forward a good opponent. Strong leaders from both parties is good for the country. The GOP continues to fail America and their party.
For Jindal to have the termerity to turn down any money, regardless of where it comes from, for Louisiana, a despetrately poor, uneducated, under-employed and backward state, shows no compassion or sense for his constituancy.
AJC/DNC Management
February 25th, 2009
7:51 am
I think I have an idea of what the libs didn’t like about Jindal-
Jindal tried to give us a return to common sense:
“Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It’s irresponsible. And it’s no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.…”_AmSpec
Duh message.
Observer
February 25th, 2009
7:53 am
Jay says, “Bad message. Worse delivery.”
I agree that that Jindal’s delivery was bad. He looked like he was trying to talk to a classroom full of fifth graders. The only saving grace is that compared to the “bad message” our idiot-in-chief delivered, Jindal came off looking like a genius.
Taxpayer
February 25th, 2009
7:55 am
I think Jindal and Palin are most excellent choices for the right-wing fringe to rally around. Really, I do.
Road Scholar
February 25th, 2009
8:06 am
Wasn’t it interesting that Gov Jindal was selected to give the speech? Is the GOP closet empty at the Federal level since no Senator or Congressman was selected to give the “Federal” response? Maybe that’s poor wording since I believe Senator Craig’s trial has begun.
I watched the beginning of his speech, but could not watch more. He came out with the “Howdy Doody” smile and said virtually nothing! His tone and content was condescending to me.
I was a supporter of Gov Jindal, but he disappointed me last night.
Road Scholar
February 25th, 2009
8:08 am
Wooten must still be in bed. I wish AJC/DNC had stayed there!
AJC/DNC Management
February 25th, 2009
8:09 am
Jindal didn’t lie so the libs whine, they like to be fed bull……
Open wide, little sycophants-
Holdren’s particular brand of science is infected by what we can only call a doomsday bias. Over the past 40 years, he has warned of population-growth induced “ecocide,” “global cooling,” global warming due to heat dissipation from power plants, nuclear Armageddon, and — this week — “climate disruption” caused by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Holdren was pressed about his 1986 claim that global warming could cause 1 billion deaths by 2020. Holdren at first dissembled, suggesting that his earlier comment was a “description of possibilities,” rather than a “prediction.” The senator wouldn’t let it slide, so Holdren dug in. He said “it is still a possibility” that climate change would kill 1 billion people by 2020.-AmSpec
That’s Oblahmi’s new shaman, er, chief adviser of junk science..
duh
The Kommunist
February 25th, 2009
8:10 am
Jindal sucked it. Larry Craig blew it.
fearless fosdick
February 25th, 2009
8:13 am
In a word….PATHETIC!
Taxpayer
February 25th, 2009
8:15 am
I did not listen to Jindal but I’m certain that he delivered that minority party message of We are relevant, We are relevant,in the usual Do Nothing fashion that we have all come to expect. Let me guess, the cornerstone of the minority party is to continue to fight for more tax cuts because paying nothing in taxes now just isn’t good enough for them. They want more. They think that they’re entitled to more.
gttim
February 25th, 2009
8:16 am
To follow a great speaker like Obama, they needed a great speaker as well. Jindal was adequate… for a Jr. High debate club. Is this all the GOP has? Not to mention he was lying right out of the gate. Substance and delivery were lacking.
Plus, where were all the Republicans fiscal conservatives worrying about their children tax obligation while Bush was running up the largest deficits in history. Discretionary spending went through the roof and pork was flying around like bees, yet no Republican fiscal conservatives were going off on their children’s future tax obligation. Funny how they get so upset about it now.
Louisiana Swamp Dog Millionaire
February 25th, 2009
8:17 am
I’m a conservative Democrat (yes, there is such a thing), and I like Jindal in some instances. BUT his delivery last night was horrible and his words were ironic. It was the GWB admin that sat on their hands with katrina and his state got $$ from the government, so…? This time, Jindal–the Louisiana Swamp dog millionaire?–missed the mark. I have always hated that the opposing party makes a rebuttal response just after the president speaks. We need to stop that.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 25th, 2009
8:20 am
Didn’t stay up to watch, but just read a transcript.
Question for those who have seen it: did the Gov. make bunny-ears to indicate quotation marks when he uttered the words “magnetic levitation”?
Bubba
February 25th, 2009
8:21 am
Jindal’s delivery was weak, but to criticize his message because it’s not where the country is right now is pathetic. Guess what? He said it because it’s what he believes. How quaint.
Business Items :: Faux State of the Union
February 25th, 2009
8:22 am
[...] Gergen and Brooks exchange some choice words criticizing Jindal. The AJC has collected the best of the, along with a few others, here. [...]
Copyleft
February 25th, 2009
8:26 am
Jindal just kept repeating the same tired old catchphrases that nobody’s buying any more: “Government is Eeeeeevil,” “More Tax Cuts!”, ad nauseam.
That kind of shallow thinking doesn’t work, and America knows it. The Republicans need to come up with something new if they really want to appeal to voters again… deciding that “We screwed up by spending too much” is what a Reagan-airhead economist might do, but it’s not the reason the GOP is out of touch and losing support.
A return to supply-side is not what America wants or needs. But that’s what the GOP is currently married to. Until they break loose from that mindset, they’re going to remain a minority party.
Mort Merkel
February 25th, 2009
8:29 am
Unless people with common sense suddenly seize control of the GOP, or another party rises to supplant them, the American people had better get used to a one-party system. This is not good, but Republicans have been destroying themselves since 1994.
Mrs. Godzilla
February 25th, 2009
8:30 am
Taxpayer
I’m with you…..I hope the GOP continues to rally ’round Palin and Jindal.
But I don’t think it will last. Firstly, the front runners seldom win
and secondly, I believe there are still some Eisenhower Republicans out there and they will eventually regain control of the party.
Bubba
you post “but to criticize his message because it’s not where the country is right now is pathetic.” When in your estimation would it not be pathetic to criticize his message?
DB, Gwinnettian
February 25th, 2009
8:41 am
So I read the thing, it seemed the first half was pretty gracious, and the second half was more or less what one expects. He fibbed about it being a “trillion dollar spending bill” (it’s not a trillion, and it isn’t all spending, so…)
But at least he managed to use the word “Democratic” as an adjective, rather than the preferred imaginary-adjective “Democrat.” I know it’s hard for some Republicans to break that habit.
TnGelding
February 25th, 2009
8:46 am
I missed it because C-SPAN couldn’t pick up the feed for some reason. Make love, not war sums up the difference between the parties.
sane jane
February 25th, 2009
8:55 am
“Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?”
I suppose the loan we asked for in order to wander around the desert & randomly topple a dictator was totally worthwhile, huh?
Why does AJC/DNC insist on quoting from AmSpec like it’s any kind of legit resource? That’s akin to a moonbat constantly posting Kos soundbytes as “proof” of their position.
But yeah, I thought Piyush was kinda creepy. Howdy Doody indeed.
sd
February 25th, 2009
8:56 am
His delivery of “I believe Americans can do anything” was horrible.
And what was he talking about when he kept referring to Louisianna pulling itself up without Federal Government. Last I saw, they got several billion dollars and New Orleans is still far from rebuilt, and crime is through the roof.
His delivery was like Gene Wilder in Willa Wonka. I believe Americans can do anything. Louisianna doesn’t need any help. Welcome to a world of pure imagination.
Normal
February 25th, 2009
8:59 am
I’m lost. I don’t get it. The Republican Party, it seems to me, has
eaten the brownie. They throw out Palin and Lindal as their finest,
They won’t reach out to help this cou ntry and all they can offer is
tax cuts as the only solution. If you are a Government, and you made
50.00 a week (read taxes) and you had 50.00 a week expenses (read S. S.,
Medicade), would lowering your income to 45.00 a week (read tax cuts)
really help? The Republican Party IS the “Do Nothing Party”. And if
they don’t get with the program, come 2110, a bunch of them will have
nothing to do.
Observer
February 25th, 2009
9:00 am
DB, Gwinnettian – In fact, it is indeed more than a trillion when you factor in debt service (interest) on the 787 billion. To state it any other way is misleading because the true cost of the bill to the American people is absolutely inclusive of the interest payments on that debt.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 25th, 2009
9:00 am
Wasn’t it interesting that Gov Jindal was selected to give the speech? Is the GOP closet empty at the Federal level since no Senator or Congressman was selected to give the “Federal” response?
I don’t think it’s such a big deal–the GOP had NJ Gov. Christie Todd Whitman respond to a Clinton SoTU address in… looked it up, 1995. Don’t recall that was controversial at the time.
CommunistAJC
February 25th, 2009
9:01 am
Bookman,
we have 4 years to go until the next election. Bobby Jindal has already said that he will not seek the presidency in 4 years. Just 4 years ago NO ONE gave the democrats any chance of retaking the White House. I guess at your old age you can’t seem to remember that. Anyway, speeches are fine and dandy but actions are what makes a president great. Obama Hussein and every other lib knows that Reaganism is not dead. He gave a Reagan like speech of optimism. By the way, keep on writing your hack columns. People will continue to cancel their subscriptions.
Joe Biden
February 25th, 2009
9:03 am
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that the government could rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.
But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.
Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.
The president skipped over several complex economic circumstances in his speech to Congress – and may have started an international debate among trivia lovers and auto buffs over what country invented the car.
A look at some of his assertions:
OBAMA: “We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values.”
THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn’t said so.
Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it’s important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.
“I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed.”
Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it’s not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn’t afford.
“I think it’s just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans,” Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.
—
OBAMA: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”
THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany’s Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.
—
OBAMA: “We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.”
THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.
—
OBAMA: “We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.”
THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don’t mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.
Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may
DB, Gwinnettian
February 25th, 2009
9:03 am
“Why does AJC/DNC insist on quoting from AmSpec like it’s any kind of legit resource?”
probably because he had boasted to me a coupla weeks ago that he didn’t need pundits to tell him what to think. (this was after I’d made a relatively polite request to provide a link to anyone planning to mount a real-life primary challenge to so-called RINOs out there, bizarrely enough–I wasn’t even asking for a link to a pundit!)
In short, expecting the ajc/dnc troll thing to be intellectually honest is foolish. Oh, and water is wet.
Eric
February 25th, 2009
9:03 am
You got that right, Jay. Jindal must’ve thought he was speaking to a class of first graders. It was pitiful. On the other hand, how inspiring to see Nancy and Joe and The President and Hillary and Tim and all those other adults taking charge of our government. I couldn’t stop smiling. Finally, we have some leaders we can follow…and actually be proud of. It was a good night for those of us who care about our country and our fellow citizens. YES!!!
CwnBt
February 25th, 2009
9:04 am
The measure of a man is not how well he can schmooze the electorate with empty words. Jindal should have put forth some hard truths about what the dem congress and this stimulus bill is about. Take it from Mitch McConnell:
Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell: “The president gets an A plus for style and delivery. He did a great job delivering his message. But there legitimate differences. … The Congress has spent more money than we spent on the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and the response to Katrina over the last seven years after 9/11. I mean, we have been on a spending spree, and it isn’t stopping”
The American people want the facts. We’re tired of being schmoozed.
CommunistAJC
February 25th, 2009
9:04 am
What I also find interesting is that, no matter who gave the GOP speech, every single lib including Jay would still say the speech was terrible. Keep trashing Jindal. It only helps his cause. Once Obama bankrupts the country, gets us attacked and socializes medicine the country will be begging for “change we can believe in.”
Jaye
February 25th, 2009
9:06 am
Bobby ate BO’s lunch, and you know it. BO has a nice voice and delivery but no new words – certainly no refreshing revelations – to speak. What he did have going for him: Miz Nancy constantly jumping to her feet, wearing that permanent goofy Botox grin. What comedy!
Davo
February 25th, 2009
9:06 am
Yep…his deliverly sucked. His message was OK but now that we are entering socialism the masses dont want to hear about toughing it out; they would rather hear about how they can steal from their hard working neighbors. I’m afraid Obama and the dems can run rampant as they obviously have nothing to fear from the republicans.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 25th, 2009
9:07 am
Just 4 years ago NO ONE gave the democrats any chance of retaking the White House.
Really? considering that four years ago, that’d be 2/25/2005 Bush had barely gotten himself re-elected, and had embarrassed himself with a Social Security Piratization Tour that crashed and burned, and was en route to attaching himself with Frist and company to the Terri Schaivo fiasco–I find that very extremely hard to believe.
I think by “NO ONE” you mean “guys I was listening to at the time, far as I remember.”
Bosch
February 25th, 2009
9:07 am
“I suppose the loan we asked for in order to wander around the desert & randomly topple a dictator was totally worthwhile, huh?”
sane jane,
Yeap, my sentiments exactly. I’m not a big fan of the stimulus, but it’s needed right now, and when I hear people complain about it, I just say the word “Iraq.”
And, I’m perfectly aware that two wrongs don’t make a right (we’ll spend because they did) but I feel alot of that money is necessary right now in this environment.
I noticed in the paper yesterday that state employees are on furloughs, and my local education systems are facing more cutbacks, and Sonny says he’s not gonna take stimulus money. Yeah. That’ll go over well with teachers who effectively ousted Roy Barnes when he proclaimed he didn’t need the teacher vote.
I didn’t see the speech last night, or Jindal’s performance, so I can’t comment on that. I was out paying for the occupation (and the bailout/stimulus package) as AmVet likes to say.
CommunistAJC
February 25th, 2009
9:07 am
DB, Gwinnettian,
you wrote:“Why does AJC/DNC insist on quoting from AmSpec like it’s any kind of legit resource?”
Gee DB, Gwinnettian, maybe because they are one of the few real news sources that isn’t in the tank for Hussein Obama. They don’t get a thrill up their legs like MSNBC does. Is that good enough for you Arianna?
Taxpayer
February 25th, 2009
9:08 am
Well, Mrs. G, if we absolutely must have a Republican party to help keep the Democratic (that one was for you, DB) party in check, I suppose we could do worse than Republicans cast in the mold of Eisenhower. After all, he did do a few good things like expand social security and start the interstate highway system. He didn’t tackle many of the tough issues of his time though and, after leaving office, that earned him the distinction of being a Do Nothing Republican. And, I bet some of these modern day Republicans thought they were the first of the Do Nothing Republicans. Nope. They’ve been there and done that before too.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 25th, 2009
9:08 am
every single lib including Jay would still say the speech was terrible
You don’t consider me a “lib”? Guess I should take that as a compliment…
ConservativeAnchor
February 25th, 2009
9:09 am
What could Jindal say? Obozo said absolutely nothing different than the drivel he’s been spounting for 37 days. It is the same nonsense that has caused investor confidence to plummnet, increase his disapproval rating to 24%.
My dear departed Grandmother told me many time; “You can’t have a conversation with a fool. Don’t try.”
Jindal must have heard the same advice.
Bosch
February 25th, 2009
9:09 am
Commie,
You mean like everytime you hear Obama speak (or how you so lovingly like to call him by his middle name) all you have is “Oh, you libs suck” kind of response?
Please spare us the lecture, k?
CommunistAJC
February 25th, 2009
9:09 am
DB, Gwinnettian,
Bush was spot on with SS. It’s gone. Nada, and if you are stupid enough, and I believe you are, to believe that it will all be there when you retire then you really do fit the model of a democrat voter. Naive, uneducated and still believe in Santa Claus.
Paul
February 25th, 2009
9:10 am
Gov Jindal’s speech seemed to fall into the “plenty of people bring me problems but not many bring me solutions” category. The President’s speech was broad, so was Jindal’s. But I think the opposition needs to be a bit more specific in offering alternatives. Heck, Jindal could have even done a bit more agreeing with the Pres – the bipartisan thing – then contrasted that with Congressional leadership’s divergence with the President. It would have been enough of a teaser to cause some comment and get people to thinking about the nature of Pres Obama vs Congressional leadership.
Heard the new head of the RNC said they may not give money to, or campaign for, the three ‘renegade’ Republican senators who supported the stimulus bill. Talk about encouraging alternate viewpoints to attract more voters. (Note to those who occupy the farfarleft of the Democratic Party: this could be you. Well, maybe not, as Pres Obama seems to be resisting a good part of their vision off All Things Good and True).
Still a lot of talk about the President’s ‘eloquence’ compared to Pres Bush. While it’s a nice quality, I think there are plenty of people who get a bit tongue-tied who are also very effective leaders. I’ll offer one reason people have that impression of Pres Bush (aside from the fact he gave us some doozies on a regular basis) is that his detractors gave them such wide play.
Try this: to see how Pres Obama does without a teleprompter just go to Google and type ‘youtube Obama without a teleprompter.’ Keep it simple, click on the first hit. About the only time you’ll see anything like this mainstream is maybe on Leno, Letterman or Kimmel.
It’s not about Bush and Obama being in the same oratorical league. It’s about how people do unscripted (Bush had some great moments, as has Obama; they’ve both given us plenty to cringe at) and how that is used to define intelligence.
CommunistAJC
February 25th, 2009
9:11 am
Bosch,
spare you the lecture? Um, last time I checked it was still a free country, comrade. I can say pretty much whatever I want. If you don’t like the fact that Hussein is his middle name then I’d ask you to get over it.
CommunistAJC
February 25th, 2009
9:13 am
DB, Gwinnettian,
if you could actually read then you’d know that nowhere in that posting is your name mentioned.
pcrow
February 25th, 2009
9:14 am
Observer
Given the logic you toss out should your property tax bill be revised to include the debt serviced on your mortgage? “To state it any other way is misleading.”
Me
February 25th, 2009
9:15 am
We now live in an “American Idol” society where how good you look and sound is the most important part of politics. The actual message that Jindal gave is unimportant; just how he looked/sounded while giving it is the most important thing. God help us. We deserve what we get.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 25th, 2009
9:16 am
In fact, it is indeed more than a trillion when you factor in debt service (interest)
Observer, a little common sense, please. Had Obama similarly “factored in debt service” when, say, specifying the costs of the Iraq war in 2008 campaign stump speeches, you think Republicans would’ve cut him any slack?
Taxpayer
February 25th, 2009
9:16 am
By the way, $787 billion plus something as outrageous as a 10% annual interest rate would only be $866 billion.