Last night’s speech was a disaster, and key shares plunged in response this morning, demonstrating that recent declines will prove difficult to reverse.
The speech in question, however, was Jindal’s and the shares in question were “Jindal stock” on the Intrade prediction market.
While Obama got a 17% bump in response to his speech, critics were less kind to Jindal, comparing him to Steve Urkel, Kenneth from 30 Rock, and Mr. Rogers. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and most other conservative commentators (1, 2, 3) panned his performance, leaving people wondering whether he has done serious harm to his chance of running for President some day:
“it’s difficult to imagine him now as Obama’s 2012 opponent. Jindal not only didn’t live up to his advance billing, he proved that he needs a lot more seasoning before he gets a prime time slot.” [link]
I agree that Jindal did poorly (who doesn’t?) but I’m not yet ready to say he has ruined his shot at becoming the GOP candidate. While Krauthammer compares Obama to Reagan as a communicator, it is easy to forget how much Obama stumbled in finding his voice even a few years ago, and how hard he had to work to find a style that worked well for him.
Jindal is young, and, as Abhi pointed out, has plenty of time ahead of him. Plus, the GOP field is so weak right now that it gives him time to grow and develop. Jindal may be down, but I wouldn’t count him out.
While they can fix Jindal’s delivery, it’s harder to fix the underlying problems that made his speech so weak.
The first is that Jindal is a wonk, plain and simple. To try to communicate to a broad audience, he gutted his speech of specifics and he talked down in a condescending fashion.
That’s one reason why he reminded people of Mr. Rogers, he came across as an intelligent man trying to speak in simple terms to a bunch of elementary schoolers. It was particularly glaring coming after Obama, and the audience resented it. I know Jindal is trying to play to the populist segment of his party, but he has to find a different way to do so otherwise he’ll end up like Mitt Romney.
(Such oversimplification also leaves him vulnerable to attack. Jindal said: “their legislation is larded with wasteful spending … [including] $140 million for something called “volcano monitoring.” Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C. ” [link] Opposing volcano monitoring is like opposing hurricane warning systems, it makes little sense, especially when the USGS is saying that their system may have saved the US military more than $200 million dollars in a single instance)
The second problem is that Jindal offered little new in his speech, he didn’t even try to spin Republican ideology in a different way so it felt new, and the audience wasn’t buying it.
“To come up in this moment in history with a stale, ‘Government is the problem, you can’t trust the federal government’ is just a disaster for the Republican Party,” Brooks said on PBS’ “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” “It’s not where the country is, it’s not where the future of the country is.” [link]
At a time when Alan Greenspan is talking about bank nationalization, it’s hard to tell the American public that the answer is for the government to get out of the way.
I actually think the first problem will be harder to fix than the second. As time passes, people will become more receptive to the ideology that Jindal is putting forward, especially if he can make it sound different from what Bush offered. But he has to find a way to sound authentic without sounding geeky, and that’s a much more difficult challenge.
Text of Jindal’s speech, and video below:
<
p>
How is volcanno formed?
Khoof, very insightful comments.
I think he is pandering to the base. The problem with this is that it produces ignorance in people. A while ago, there was some state legislator who wanted to pass a law mandating the value of Pi to be exactly 3, or another who wanted to change the definition of Science to include supernatural things…
One of my friends’ father was a minister (in a pretty liberal church). I asked him once if he believed that God created everything in 7 days. He said, personally no, but if his flock wanted to believe that, then who was he to stand in the way. But a politician should be held to a different standard.
re: ID. It is not science so it should not be taught in a Biology class. If, however, the schools want to have a separate hour where they can debate the burning questions of the day, then that is probably OK to discuss it there. If nothing else, this will give scientists an opportunity to debunk it. Banning things usually drives them underground and gives them a life of their own.
OK-I’m a Frenchy/American don’t ask me how i got here-but I am a long time commenter and reader of Republican blogs.
Jindal has been talked about for a long time as a contender. The thing that they were holding him back for-was based on his age. Seriously if you are under 36 it’s unconstitutional-and he needed more experience. [although in hindsight…compared to Obama]
Well before the primaries of the Democratic party-which if you have a memory of longer than oh say a year-Obama was suppose to be obliterated by Hillary.
So please pack up some of what you got-as criticism.
In my opinion, it’s great, fascinating and awesome for the country to see the GOP finally starting its reform. On the other hand, its sad that it still bears the Bush legacy; haphazard, condescending and un-intelligent. I like Bobby Jindal, although I might not like everything about him, I think he’s genuine and bright and I think having our “Slumdog” wins coupled with our “Jindal” losses are good for the South Asian community. For what its worth, we aren’t a monolithic group of IT geeks and over-achievers, we have our successes and failures.
If he is such a genuine bright guy he didn’t have to embellish his Katrina Sheriff story .. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Jindal_aide_Story_was_set_after_Katrina.html
And the ID support as a Biology major and the belief in exorcism doesn’t fit both the genuine and bright adjectives together.
It’s not as if the future of US science is bound to what goes on in public high-school education in Louisiana!
Yeah, right .. another idiot genius like this is exactly what US science needs.
55 · madawaskan said
Not a valid comparison: Hillary was the front-runner, she had the connections, she had the money, she had the name-recognition, she had the supporters..She was already there. She had the stage back when people criticized Obama as a light-weight nobody.
The problem for the Republicans is that there is no one else. The old guard has either lost its credibility after Bush or faded away with John “git off my lawn!!” McCain. The Republicans themselves positioned Jindal as the rising star of the new vanguard. There is a charisma vacuum…who else now that Sarah Palin beat it back to Alaska? Limbaugh?
(Cantor is a possibility I suppose. Not sure why he’s not given more time in the spotlight.)
No, it’s not what it ‘needs,’ the point is that it’s a silly valence issue–yes, Jindal is pandering on this–yes, yes, yes–but the point is, the real world effects are close to nil, so what’s the big freaking deal? You’re connecting what goes on in high school science classes and real world outcomes way too much. Let the baby have its freaking bottle. . . .
Now that Jindal’s been booed off the stage, there’s always this kid!
yes, Jindal is pandering on this–yes, yes, yes–but the point is, the real world effects are close to nil, so what’s the big freaking deal? You’re connecting what goes on in high school science classes and real world outcomes way too much. Let the baby have its
So have we establishes that Jindal is indeed pandering ?? Or maybe he really believes it as a born-again IDiot.
No one is connecting high school classes with anything .. just highlighting the foolishness that leads to stopping federal funding for stem cell research and other assorted unscientific nonsense.
yeah, like the Democrats’ opposition to nuclear power, based as it is on serious science, rather than cheap emotion.
yeah, like the Democrats’ opposition to nuclear power, based as it is on serious science, rather than cheap emotion.
How about sticking to Jindal and his pandering or clueless ID belief for now .. Or are we settled that either conclusion does not look pretty for the smart genius.
And btw Democrats have opposed nuclear power as a block while all repugs embrace nuclear power !! Thanks for the newsflash, maybe I should come out of my well inside the cave ever so often .. The light is blinding …
Doesn’t a nuclear accident qualify as “low-probability, high-impact event” per the scientific Cheney doctrine? Are you saying Cheney was only emotionally manipulating the American people?
— If power infrastructure has path dependencies, shouldn’t nuclear be the last option (it should an option nonetheless)? There are foreseeable problems with the nuclear issue, such as the cost of uranium and the occupational hazards of mining Uranium. I don’t know about the cost-benefits, and technological aspects of nuclear energy, except in very elementary terms. It seems to me though, that it is worth researching and adopting inherently safer and cheaper technological solutions, based on renewable resources and making electronic gadgets and automobiles more efficient.
Why the “last option”? Sure, of course, we should figure out costs and benefits, but it’s weird to put one’s thumb on the scale against it absent those facts. I’m no “Dr. Strangelove” in favor or nuclear energy at all costs–far from it–it’s just that the opposition to nuclear often takes on a quasi-religious/irrational/anti-scientific bent. The French seem to be doing quite well with it. Jindal is, for sure, pandering to the know-nothings re: Creationism, but my (modest) point is that the left is pandering on nuclear power (by being unscientifically opposed).
Hi Rob, Portmanteau
From Wikipedia:
“As of 2005[update], Japan…with 55 nuclear reactors accounting for 30% of its electricity generated…plans to increase this to 37% in 2009 and 41% in 2014 as part of Japan’s overall economic plan…Ultimately, nuclear’s share is planned to rise to around 60% of power production in 2050…”
“In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) — the country’s main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country’s 59 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update], these plants produce 87.5% of both EDF’s and France’s electrical power production (of which much is exported)…”
In Germany, nuclear power plants are being phased out because of the Greens (again from Wikipedia).
Liberals get the vapors when they hear of nuclear energy. I used to work at a lab on Long Island. There was a minor incident, in that some radioactive material (roughly the amount found in an EXIT sign found on an airplane) leaked into the water table. Mind you, because of the size of the lab campus, it would have taken years for the contaminated water to get offsite (aggressive remediation was being done to remove that possibility). Also, because of the smallness of the leak, the average amount of radioactivity in the water was less than what is found in orange juice (due to naturally occurring isotopes of Potassium). But no, the Dems and celebs like Alec Baldwin/Montel Williams hounded the lab, blaming it for all sorts of maladies around the lab. They even brought out a 5 yr. kid with cancer, who was asked on William’s TV show if he knew how he got his cancer; he replied “It was due to Brookhaven Lab”. Really!
One funny incident was when we had protesters at the main gate with signs of skulls and cross-bones. Some of them were smoking, missing the irony that their “vice” had the potential of being much more injurious to their health…
REID: Let me make a sharp turn here to a different issue, an issue that has raised some controversy. Now, you were a biology major in college. I think you had a double major. But you were a biology major, and you support the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Do you have doubts about the theory of evolution?
Gov. JINDAL: A couple of things. One, I don’t think this is something the federal or state government should be imposing its views on local school districts. You know, as a conservative I think government that’s closest to the people governs best. I think local school boards should be in a position of deciding the curricula and also deciding what students should be learning. Secondly, I don’t think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent.
REID: But how about you personally? Where do you stand personally on the issue?
Gov. JINDAL: As a parent, when my kids go to schools, when they go to public schools, I want them to be presented with the best thinking. I want them to be able to make decisions for themselves. I want them to see the best data. I personally think that the life, human life and the world we live in wasn’t created accidentally. I do think that there’s a creator. I’m a Christian. I do think that God played a role in creating not only earth, but mankind. Now, the way that he did it, I’d certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don’t want them to be–I don’t want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness. The way we’re going to have smart, intelligent kids is exposing them to the very best science and let them not only decide, but also let them contribute to that body of knowledge.
I wish Bobby Jindal was a democrat. Things would be different
Jindal on spirits curing cancer
in an essay Jindal wrote in 1994 for the New Oxford Review, a serious right-wing Catholic journal, Jindal narrated a bizarre story of a personal encounter with a demon, in which he participated in an exorcism with a group of college friends. And not only did they cast out the supernatural spirit that had possessed his friend, Jindal wrote that he believes that their ritual may well have cured her cancer.
Reading the article leaves no doubt that Jindal — who graduated from Brown University in 1991, was a Rhodes Scholar, and had been accepted at Yale Law School and Harvard Medical School when he wrote the essay — was completely serious about the encounter. He even said the experience “reaffirmed” his faith.
………………
Jindal then describes how the whole situation made him physically uncomfortable, and he wondered if the same demon afflicting Susan was responsible for his state of nervousness:
Vivek – I love how you’re comparing a 5 year old on a TV show to a 37 year old Rhodes scholar who was principal policy advisor to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in terms of their level of ignorance about science. It’s a very telling comparison.
It’s also interesting how you feel that our understanding about the policy implications of nuclear power are as thorough as our understanding of evolution (which we’ve been studying for far longer). I can’t figure out if that means that you think we know a lot about the consequences of nuclear power or if you think we know very little about evolution (the Jindal position) but in either case, it’s an apples and oranges comparison again.
70 · Ennis said
Well, Ennis, I think you are mis-representing my comments, either accidentally or deliberately (hard to tell). I have already made my opinion on evolution quite clear (in previous comments). I was responding to Rob’s “…opposition to nuclear often takes on a quasi-religious/irrational/anti-scientific bent…”
The 5 yr. old didn’t exactly drive himself to the show, where he just happened to be sitting next to Alec Baldwin, and Montel Williams just happened to ask him about his cancer. This was the view of celebs, who wanted to milk the situation for their agenda. Around the same time, celebs like Christie Brinkley (who lived in one of the Hamptons) could easily get an appointment with Richardson (SecEnergy), whereas scientists were kept at arms length. Their agenda was to close Brookhaven lab, which thankfully didn’t happen, but they caused enough problems that a couple of major research facilities had to be shut down; most scientists had to continue their work in France.
A colleague of mine at the lab, who used to be liberal, moved across the aisle in response to the controversy over the Shoreham nuclear power plant (also on LI). It was built, but in the face of protests, never turned on; it is a $2B dust-collector.
re: your other comment. Of course, we know a lot about nuclear energy; I am not sure what you mean by “policy implications of nuclear power”. It has been around for over 65 years now (the first chain reaction was achieved right around 1940). We know how to produce it, what the challenges are, especially when its comes to dealing with the radioactive waste. Sure, if you cut corners on safety it can have devastating consequences (but so can a lot of other things). But the French/Japanese and others have operated them quite safely for years now.
The problem is that people hear the word “nuclear” and go crazy; this attitude mainly stems from ignorance. For instance, the diagnostic test, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) used to be known as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), which was a better descriptor of the effect, but it was changed because it freaked people out.
the tu quoque, though much maligned, is a good way to keep one intellectually honest. in this case, rob and vivek have exposed an anti-science left.
you can add to nukes: opposition to genetically modified crops, gene manipulation in humans,opposing researching IQ (and oppressing larry summers), fake science in the courtroom (putting silicone breast implant makers in bk, and people out of work…for example), alar scare, destroying research labs that use animals, and more recently, attempting to apply title IX to science as it is to college sports:
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man/
When multiple candidates of a party say or fell compelled to say that they don’t believe in evolution it exposes a serious intellectual weakness of their platform. It will be difficult to justify that this a view that a President of the US should be promoting.
Trotting out a litany of extreme left/ green agenda does not expose anything. Just shows that nuts are abundant on both sides.
Manju – the anti-science left are in ridiculous as well, but they generally operate in areas with far less consensus than evolution, and they generally don’t position themselves as experts setting policy in that relevant area.
Jindal’s primary policy expertise is in public health, and this is an area where evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria have become a major issue. If Jindal doesn’t believe in evolution, will he mandate that LA hospitals use penicillin for all ailments? And if not, then what does that say about his consistency?
I’m happy to blame Montel Williams and Alec Baldwin for the foolish things that come out of their mouths, but they’re not Rhodes scholars, they’re not policy makers, and they have no position in either party of government. Talking about what Alec Baldwin believes is like me saying that because Mel Gibson is right wing and anti-semitic, that this is an indictment of the GOP. Nobody assumes that Gibson speaks for anybody other than his crazy self, why then bring Baldwin into the debate?
If you want to talk about Nuclear Regulatory Policy, talk about what Steven Chu believes. That might tell us something useful about the differences between the two parties.
Apples to Apples and Oranges to Oranges, otherwise the conversation falls apart in a big mess of ad hoc and ad hom comparisons.
74 · Ennis said
True, but they are the ones who raise gadzillions of dollars (primarily, for one side), and then attempt to influence policy. Why do you think people like them could get in to see SecEnergy, but not scientists? That’s why you have to pay “attention” to them.
In general, the Repubs support the “anti-evolution” agenda because the Christian Right put them in power, and they have to pay the piper. This is mainly true of Southern Repubs. You won’t find many (or any) Repubs from the NorthEast or the West adhering to these positions, but they go along in the name of “party unity”.
For the sake of desis everywhere, I’m hoping that Jindal will keep on being an epic failure on the national stage. I don’t know if he actually believes in all the intelligent design stuff or if he’s just bringing the crazy for the Palin crowd, but that is not the person I want breaking barriers for my people in American politics. So I hope my fellow brownz cut out this “I support him because he’s desi” stuff and judge him for his positions, which I hope most people don’t actually support. Now, let’s get Ashwin Madia elected to Congress in 2010.
That is all very well, but you haven’t answered the Cheney Doctrine objection to nuclear energy that bothers some people. Or those who do not want to import Uranium. And, rob, will your tony friends deign to live near nuclear plants? Most Americans ( Repubs or Dems ) don’t want to. Hell, they don’t even want to live near waste transport routes. Last I checked, public unpopularity constrains government actions. Take the stem cell issue, for instance. Most of the Republican objections to it are unscientific, but we have had to acquiesce to the ‘culture of life’ we have in America. Again, if nuclear energy works out on the cost-benefit path, we should do it. But important issues remain: public opposition, path dependency, and relative safety compared to other options (eg from terror attacks).
75 · vivek said
Apples to apples, oranges to oranges. If you want to talk about Alec Baldwin, compare him to GOP celebrities of equal stature and leverage (i.e. not much). That gets you … Mel Gibson. Fact is, nobody in government listens to Alec Baldwin at all. And I doubt very much that the SOE spends all his time schmoozing hollywood stars while keeping his office locked to scientists.
I also don’t think that our understanding of the policy implications of nuclear energy is anywhere near as clear as our understanding of evolution. Go back and read the conventional wisdom before 3 mile island and Chernobyl, nobody thought accidents of such a scale would happen.
And distrust of nuclear energy is hardly a Democratic matter. Try siting a nuclear plant in a Red State, and you’ll see just as strong opposition to it. The irrational knee jerk concern is quite strong all around.
i suppose it is a matter of trust or the lack thereof. in spite of a generally horrid speech, i got the sense he was on the money when asking for more prudent spending. aside of volcano monitoring, i also heard a mention of maglev trains and looked into it. to all appearances maglev is an unproven technology – and in all current deployment (3 instances), it is unlikely to recover money.. Ever! there are better hi-speed train technologis out there. the japanese shinkansen for one has been around for 20+ years, and one doesnt need to go bleeding edge to make ultrafast mass transit happen. it is politics no doubt to keep jabbing at the opponent; it keeps complacency from setting in. just a few years ago the shoe was on the other foot – but when someone is shouting fire, hustling and wanting to turn the hose on, anyone who quietly gets up and asks for validation is just not in a position of advantage.
this is the openign salvo. it is good in democracy to have a strong opposition. out here, it took a major major upheaval and we had no government for much of December [Really!] but we have thankfully found middle ground. may i humbly add that while 2009 will suck like a lamprey, we actually reported a surplus for 2008. so, as your neighbor up north i vish you vell and hope the repubs find a strong voice. as goes the us, so goes canada (more or less).
79 · khoofia said
yes. it looks like that brilliant masterstroke of playing up katrina as a victory of personal ingenuity when govt gets out of the way wasn’t all that.
khoofia, do you know of any public transit system that has ever recovered money? EVER? Infrastructure doesn’t recover money because it’s a public good with numerous benefits that accrue to people aside from the buyers and suppliers (i.e. something a free market will have trouble providing adequately.)
The train system we have doesn’t run a profit either. The only reason the sinkansen does is because Japan is sufficiently population-dense that they can build like 4 lines and cover 80% of the population. But you know what, our national highway system doesn’t run a profit either! We pay for it in taxes every year. Why is a subsidy on trains worse than a subsidy on roads?
The maglev train in Shanghai has been in operation for a little over 4 years now. Can you give a brand spanking new technology a few years to catch on?
YogaFire – my point was that maglev is not necessarily the best technology for high-speed mass transit. the investment needed for maglev trains is an order of magnitude higher than for continuous track trains. the boost in avg speed does not justify that investment. i mentioned the shinkansen because those are traditional steel track and still hold the world speed record. there is a 2007 article in popular mechanics [ it takes forever to download and is very hard to read online ] that discusses the highspeed train plans for the united states. maglev was planned just for one little route. i would be curious how the current plan stakcs up relative to that chart. in general, my feel was that maglev is not the way to go and if 8B is allocated exclusively to this – the money could be better spent in other high speed transit.
81 · Yoga Fire said
Our government subsidies externalities big time. If cars were actually made to pay for their negative externalities to the environment, alternatives with less negative externalities would become economical. It is really a market distortion – due to political pressure from big corporations which fear exactly this (I am specifically not mentioning the side of the political spectrum that is anti- pricing in negative environmental externalities – that prevent the sensible Pigovian model from taking hold.
I don’t think using far left arguments to claim that dems are anti-science holds water to combat comparisons with opinions by folks like Bobby J and Dubya. (Also, if I recall correctly, the alar ban was in 1989. Wonder which party was in control then!)
I really don’t see what the republican solution for the NIMBY problem is (barring dumping the waste in Harry Reid’s state), and I sure as hell am not at all sure that I want the private sector operating these plants willy nilly. It is only too likely that short-term profit considerations will force massive underestimation of the once-in-a-lifetime risks, leading to a big mess with huge human and economic cost (not that such a thing has happened recently or anything 🙂
Hi Ennis, I’ll respond to your points later.
One of things you wrote, “…If you want to talk about Nuclear Regulatory Policy, talk about what Steven Chu believes…”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an independent agency setup by Congress. From their website,
“The Commission as a whole formulates policies and regulations governing nuclear reactor and materials safety, issues orders to licensees, and adjudicates legal matters brought before it.
Steven Chu may have his opinion, but it’s not clear if he gets to set policy. DOE’s website seems to be down right now.
I’d say both sides are anti-pricing negative externalities in some cases and pro in others. It depends on which particular interest groups are hit.
Khoofia – that point would have been better made if he hadn’t lied about the endpoints of the train. There is no discussion of a train from Anaheim to Las Vegas. There is discussion of high speed rail in CA because the level of road congestion is extreme, and additional capacity simply gets filled quickly.
I don’t know why you’re giving somebody credit when they’re being patently dishonest.
fyi – the map is from 2007. it shows the proposed anaheim to vegas maglev link. the idea’s been around for a while.
Sidetrack – i agree with the congestion bit – though easing the congestion will need more to do with behavior patterns than mass transit. i once explained the California lifestyle to someone while stuck in a jam on the 405 (i think) hov lane. “look to your right. all those guys are traveling one to a vehicle. that’s California. thoda khao thoda phenko*”
Khoof — it’s not in the bill as Jindal claims, and there’s no evidence that anybody is seriously considering it.
i see. well now we can agree there was absolutely nothing to the speech. but we arrived at the conclusion via an objective approach, nahin? ve shall now eat a croissant and ruminate. hm.
In Frank Rich’s excoriation of Jindal in today’s NYT, this line about his trying to get some street cred stood out:
Listening to Jindal talk Tuesday night about his immigrant father’s inability to pay for an obstetrician, you’d never guess that at the time his father was an engineer and his mother an L.S.U. doctoral candidate in nuclear physics.
Ouch.
Khoof – what kind of croissant. Plain, chocolate or almond?
H U H ?
One of these years somebody will successfully explain to me why the case that societal structures make it difficult for women to success in the scientific academy is trumped by the case that women are just dumber. Even men haven’t succeeded so far.
92 · Ennis said
Plain my man, but with blueberry preserves and some green tea. it was like being back in the pind. le singhada.
Does anyone else think that Jindal was set up by the GOP? Purposefully made to look bad so they could legitimately give up on him and put a white face back in the forefront?
“it was like being back in the pind.”
if only my pind was like the impossibly lovely hybrid pind in your head 🙂
96 · portmanteau said
the pind is a state of the mind, dear port. now ve are having an avocado and feta sandwich with some desi adrak chai. it’s all very pindy. vish you vere here.
Jindal doesn’t come across as authentic and genuine…
I get the sense that he knows how ridiculous his image and policies are, but he’s crafted this character to achieve political success and there’s no way out for him …he’s got way too much invested in it.
He’s like a brown Howdy Doody. Brown people, humanity, we can do better…what an epic fail.
Bobby Jindal – Esquire Article
Perspectives of an Indian convert by Bobby Jindal – America The National Catholic Magazine
“Bobby” Jindal: The Story They Don’t Want You to Read