Alarming News

February 25, 2009

Am I the only one?

I have to disagree with Ace and Allah, a rare happening, I think Bobby Jindal did a great job in his rebuttal. Wooden? Um, our last candidate was John McCain and our last Republican president was George W. Bush. Jindal? I’ll take it. The real issue with Jindal is the same issue we had with Palin: they’re not ready for the kind of scrutiny they will get on the national stage. Both are great leaders, both are very bright, and both will be eaten alive if they don’t take some time to adjust to the spotlight. Can we run in ‘12? Maybe. I’d rather he wait until ‘16, personally, and we run a Mark Sanford-type instead. But good job in the response, Bobby. Straightforward, honest, plain-spoken and clear. That’s all we really needed right now.

Posted by Karol at 12:36 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I was listening to a few people at work talk about how Jindal talked as if reading from a script and wasn’t specifically addressing Obama’s speech.
Hello?
It’s always been like that. I remember listening to Pelosi’s rebuttal to one of Bush’s speeches and it was the same thing. These rebuttals are written in advance. They focus on Party direction. It’s the same story.

Posted by: daniel at February 25, 2009 at 1:57 pm

I thought he was fine. I actually liked the return to conservatism that his speech suggested.

Posted by: Carolynp at February 25, 2009 at 2:29 pm

I liked Jindal. He was the only one saying anything I wanted to hear.

Posted by: Lily at February 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm

So Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin weren’t ready for the kind of SCRUTINY that applies to the NATIONAL STAGE?
Why was Pharoah Obama not SCRUTINIZED?
How about his DEAL with REZKO? Has that been Scrutinized yet? How about his stance on INFANTICIDE? CRICKETS CHIRPING IN THE DISTANCE.

Posted by: gus at February 25, 2009 at 2:46 pm

Jindal did just fine. I think that people are overly critical. I’m disappointed in Ace and Allah for being so shallow. My guess is they’re discrediting him because they have someone else in mind for Prez in 2012. Politics is ugly.

Posted by: Ben at February 25, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Hitting the crackpipe again? Or the Kool-Aid? Look, I like Jindal. He’s smart and he managed to become governor of my home state, no small achievement for a guy who has brown skin.
But the delivery, like it or not, IS half the message — which should have become obvious during the Obama/McCain/Palin performances last year.
Jindal, for some reason, sounded like Kenneth on Thirty Rock*. Ask Dawn Summers … I was the first person to write that :) … but the fact that I got texts, emails, tweets and FB statuses saying the exact same thing at the exact same time should tell you something about how the message was perceived. Remember, his job isn’t about convincing US, it’s about convincing the rest of the population.
*But instead of giving a tour of NBC, he was giving a gee-willickers tour of Bobby’s life

Posted by: Ken Wheaton at February 25, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Wait, I’m sorry, is that Ken “Condi Rice vs. Rudy Giuliani will be the match-up in ‘08″ Wheaton accusing me of hitting the crackpipe?
It was gee-willickers but I think it worked. I don’t have a dog in this fight yet, I did say I rather Jindal not run till ‘16, but I think he did fine.

Posted by: Karol at February 25, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Oh and Gus, yes, it’s not exactly a newsflash the media has a liberal bias.
So, yes, Republicans have to work harder. And no the Democratic candidate will never experience their same level of scrutiny. That’s life.

Posted by: Karol at February 25, 2009 at 4:36 pm

“I was listening to a few people at work talk about how Jindal talked as if reading from a script and wasn’t specifically addressing Obama’s speech.”
More seriously, Obama wasn’t specifically addressing the nation’s problems. So he had people standing and cheering over every word – does that actually make his a good speech?.
I never saw so-called “conservatives” acting so interested in style points when it came to Democrat attacks on Bush. If we are going to spend our energy criticizing the style of our own, we have no chance at all in 12 or 16. It is time to educate the masses that style is not going to get them a job or cut their bills. It is time to bring people out of this Hollywood mentality where looks and style are all that matter.

Posted by: Craig at February 25, 2009 at 4:45 pm

It was gee-willickers but I think it worked. Worked for who, exactly? The polls across the board disagree, as did pundits all over the news channels, liberal and conservatives alike…

Posted by: katie g at February 25, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Personally, I want two things in a Republican candidate in ‘12: a strong libertarian strain forming the backbone of their conservatism, and a snowball’s chance of winning.
Fortunately, I think maybe a snowball could win in ‘12 if Obama doesn’t get a better grip on the job. As he has pointed out, he won; time to show those mad brain skillz and do something (besides talk) that isn’t a total cock-up.

Posted by: Mark Poling at February 25, 2009 at 7:02 pm

The rebuttal is tough and more people strike out with it than hit home runs with it. Sebelius did not do well last year. J.C.Watts seemed to peak when he did it-all downhill from there. The worst ever was 1-23-96 when the first debate of the 1996 campaign took place-Bob Dole gave the Republican response to Clinton and it was such a disaster that it basically killed any momentum that the Bobster had-less than three weeks later, Dole had a less than impressive victory in IA and then went on to lose to Pat Buchanan in NH. While I don’t think Jindall got KOed, he did lose on style points and ring generalship to Obama in a unaninmous decision. While I don’t think this will do much damage to Jindall over the long haul, in the short term it will. Jindall was one of the few Republicans who had anything close to momentum after the 2008 elections. That momentum has now stalled and I think a lot of people will be singing the same song Karol is-gee Jindall will be great….in 2016.

Posted by: Von Bek at February 25, 2009 at 7:13 pm

Mark, haven’t you heard him yesterday? He’ll cure cancer. He said so – what else do you want? You’re so difficult to please.

Posted by: Tatyana at February 25, 2009 at 7:21 pm

He does seem to be awfully fond of the “Big Lie” technique of kicking the can down the street. What’s perplexing is that a good friend of mine, who is otherwise quite bright and undeniably a finer human than I, “got a deep sense of inner peace from reading Obama’s speech.” (Quoted from her current Facebook status.)
And apparently she’s not alone.
Now that is something so depressing/disturbing that words currently fail me. Fortunately, there’s still bourbon.

Posted by: Mark Poling at February 25, 2009 at 8:50 pm

Mark P, if you are a rep supporter, accusing Obama of doing big lie and not blushing about WMD’s you have either very big brass balls or a very damaged brain atop of your brass neck.
btw, I live in a country that bought into/helped with this big lie and have lost friends and family members because of same, so don’t try the ‘you live abroad, keep your nose out’ non-defence.

Posted by: bryan at February 27, 2009 at 10:14 am

Talking of lies, it seems Mr. Jindal may have (ahem) misremembered what really happened during Katrina. Oh dear.

Posted by: bryan at February 27, 2009 at 7:35 pm

And, bryan, that concerns you …how?

Posted by: Tatyana at February 27, 2009 at 10:11 pm

Tatyana, I dislike liars, and people who hypocritically see lies from one guy/party and not another. Especially when people I know have have died.

Posted by: bryan at February 28, 2009 at 3:19 am

Bryan, are we talking about Obama or Bush? Because I could have sworn that the person in charge now is Obama, and that we should be talking about how things have changed (or haven’t, fwiw.)
Bush is history, and right now, right now, I’m worried about lies being told to me in the present tense.
As to WMD’s get a fricking grip; Big Ol’ Bill Clinton kept the Iraqi’s under the heel of the USAF and subject to the tender mercies of the U.N. Oil-for-Golden-Toilets program based on the WMD threat; forgive me if I find your charge of partisan blinders is laughably ironic.
And you know, you’ve made some statements here that could benefit from the inclusion of things called hyperlinks.
Sorry you knew people who are now dead. Don’t know why it’s relevant. Care to share, or was that one of those “absolute moral authority” moments?

Posted by: Mark Poling at February 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Shorter Mark: I can show you all sorts of rep blogs like slate that back up the idea that Obama is worse than W.
I’ve decided. You have a brass neck. Eff your sympathies.

Posted by: bryan at March 1, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Ever hear the elementary school kids read the news on Saturday on PBS? It was worse than that. No, seriously, It was painful.

Posted by: bour3 at March 1, 2009 at 11:26 pm

republican blogs like slate? Haha.
brass neck? hahahaha.
is that how they espress themselves, in your tiny neck of the woods? how peculiar
where are these blogs that like Obama better than Bush? show us, pls. Using hyperlinks, as you were advised. Or admit that you’re lied misled us.

Posted by: Tatyana at March 2, 2009 at 3:38 pm

I think you should try that last sentence in english.
Are you saying that Saddam wasn’t linked to the WTC attacks? There is proof that he did on Youtube of all places.
Are you also saying that WMD’s in Iraq wasn’t a lie?
Brass neck, btw, means breathtaking nerve, or cheek. Suggesting that the dems have resorted to using ‘big lie’ techniques seems brass necked when you support the last guy.

Posted by: bryan at March 2, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Shorter Bryan: “I can’t HEAR you!!!!”
Better a brass neck than glass balls. Your man is backtracking hard on every “humanitarian” complaint he leveled against his predecessor. You pick the reasons that makes most sense to you, but the gamut run of root causes run from “I was a fool” to “I was an unscrupulous opportunist.”
Meanwhile, the same man says he’s going to cut the deficit in half in his firs two years in office wants to spend more in his first year than Bush did in eight. Gee whilakers, that’s either a Big Lie or a Big Stupid. Again, pick your poison.
One way or the other, he’s the President now. The bucks that are still moving stop there. But keep on working to impeach Bush, that’s what seems to give you that warm-and-fuzzy.

Posted by: Mark Poling at March 2, 2009 at 10:06 pm

Mark, I’m British. You’re foolish.

Posted by: bryan at March 5, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Good to see you holding up the Brits’ reputation for wit and style, bryan. Enjoy the DVDs.

Posted by: Mark Poling at March 5, 2009 at 10:18 pm

They’re some pretty good films, but it does strike me as something he had in a drawer shit-I-haven’t-got-him-anything type of present, especially the helicopters. Thanks for the laugh!

Posted by: bryan at March 6, 2009 at 6:14 am
Post a comment