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>
Among other things, he better hope a volcano doesn’t erupt in the US anytime soon, or those ads will write themselves. Oh wait.
Um, that’s not so bad. I mean Rainier or Yellowstone could erupt..
I believe that’s actually the expense on Cheney and McCain’s security details.
The line about the ‘magnetic levitation’ train from Disneyland to Las Vegas is a flat out lie. There is funding ($8 bn) for high speed rail. But LA to LV is not even a designated HSR corridor. He’s just making stuff up as he goes. True Republican.
its all good… we got slumdog… bobby will nail it next time..around.
With the huge mess his party has created, his extreme right views on a number of issues, and of course, his weak arguments and delivery in the response to Obama, I see Jindal’s future chances for the Presidency as slim. May be the only way he can recover is if he shows spectacular performance in Louisiana (and maybe if…that’s a big if…Obama makes a mess of things).
As a desi, I wish Jindal all the best. But I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.
Wondering aloud as a Desi…will other American folk be reminded of the embarrassing Jindal performance every time I stand up to speak in public?
Fortunately, I’m DBD and still have my accent. This will spare the average non-Desi American listener much of the cognitive dissonance created by Jindal’s southern accent, reportedly experienced by good citizens around the nation last night.
sounds like a PBS kids special! Man, he sounds horri-bibbel…
I just love that the republicans are throwing every brown face they can up against Obama. They just can’t get past the color thing, can they? First Michael Steele (wtf?) at the RNC and now Jindal to rebut. I keep hearing that our Bobby’s secretly a geeeenius, but I’ve yet to see any sign of it myself.
We’re in the middle of a monumental meltdown and the right’s still trotting out hoary old arguments that they blithely ignored for the past 8 years. Whenever you see some old guy, wattle quivering with indignation, trot out graphs depicting stimulus=deficits=bad for cable teevee…remember kids, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”.
Jindal, the next Sanjaya. But with less great hair.
8 · cicatrix said
The Repubs saw a Hillary and raised Palin. They then saw an Obama and raised a Steele and a Jindal.
Unfortunately, that’s it. They’re all in, and will have to go back to that oppressed demo: the white male. America, meet Eric Cantor, the new Gingrich, who shall now be known as the new face of the Republican party. Either that, or they will have to run on a combination of Jindal’s anti–lava platform and Steele’s linguistic reactionary movement.
8 · cicatrix said
I don’t think that’s fair to Bobby – he is generally good in direct Q&A. Word is that he’s a wonk, and he does seem to know his issues when it comes to one-on-one questions.
hmm… “bobby” jindal is supported in this site, just because he is an “indian?” wonder how much “indian” this guy thinks he is!!
“Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and most other conservative commentators (1, 2, 3) panned his performance”
The article you link to says: “Rush Limbaugh, arguably the nation’s most prominent conservative voice, defended Jindal on his radio show Wednesday while acknowledging that “stylistically,” Obama had outshined Jindal.”
Of course, Limbaugh is wrong about this, like just about everything else.
Why on Earth did they have Jindal walk out before starting his speech? He looked so nerdy and awkward. Just stick him behind a podium please.
Does the GOP really believe that it will expand its base by just re-hashing the same tired ideas that government is evil and all news spending and tax increases are evil. People don’t buy that crap anymore. They have seen what the private sector does and it’s ten times more evil.
Can you imagine what the media would do to Jindal if he was on a GOP ticket in 2012? He would be Palin times ten. They would make fun of him so bad on SNL for being an obvious dork and Uncle Tom that it wouldn’t even be funny.
The GOP is being completely transparent here, first with Michael Steele, and now with Jindal. It’s like they’re screaming from the top of their lungs, “We have color! We have color! We’re cool and historic too! We have iPods!”
no doubt jindle (why did they prounounce it such – or is that really how you pronounce it?) is one heckuva smart guy. he just needs to work on his speaking skills. seemed really uncomfortable and out of sorts. to me, this seemed more a reflection on the republican machine – lack of preparation support, speech writing skills, cohesive and relevant agenda, critical response skills. this is not the party that karl rove led to win in 2000 and 2004.
obama stumbled on the campaign trail and struggled to find his voice in the primary, but not in his introduction to the country. granted, the conditions were different (live audience vs. empty mansion). but the speech that launched obama’s career was his first national speech.
I don’t think this is entirely correct Ennis. Rush actually did the opposite. He warned people NOT to pan Jindal. He said Jindal was superior to Obama in substance if not style and that Republicans would be stupid to criticize that speech.
Abhi and Nav:
You’re right that Limbaugh is still a Jindal supporter:
but when Limbaugh says that Obama “stylistically outshined” Jindal, he’s panning Jindal’s performance. Limbaugh is trying to defend the ideas that Jindal is putting forward, and claiming that the problems with the speech were all style but not substance.
I don’t buy that analysis, but it doesn’t change the fact that even Limbaugh, who never has a kind word to say about anything Obama does, thought that Jindal did very poorly on Tuesday night.
17 · venkt said
Venkt: The difference is that Jindal’s career has already been launched, he’s known within his party and has a national profile. You’re right that this was a high-profile gig to do poorly in, and that he should learn to give a good speech, I don’t think he needs to follow Obama’s route.
Bill Clinton screwed up big time in the Democratic Convention of ’88 as well, giving a very boring speech. He did some damage control by appearing on the tonight show and making fun of his goof up. This link talks about how Jindal can do something similar and also has a very funny video of Johnny Carson giving a LONG intro to Bill Clinton.
so then the question is who is more overrated Jindal or Pinto?
cicatrix “I keep hearing that our Bobby’s secretly a geeeenius, but I’ve yet to see any sign of it myself.”
Rahul “I don’t think that’s fair to Bobby – he is generally good in direct Q&A. Word is that he’s a wonk, and he does seem to know his issues when it comes to one-on-one questions.”
But his direct Q&A responses about science education and evolution cannot change that feeling. A Biology major from Brown putting “Intelligent design” and theory of evolution as equals worthy of debate !! No wonder his Brown professor had to come out against him. Let us not start on the exorcism topic. genius maybe or more likely a panderer in chief …
sb @ #21 makes a valid point. Bill Clinton gave a terrible speech at the 1988 convention. How many people are going to say, “Bobby is a really smart guy, but I am not going to support him because he gave this bad speech”.
Most people are not going to remember this bad speech. Of course, our wonderful media will stitch this into the narrative about him, so articles will try to keep reminding people of this stumble (especially, the left leaning media)…
It is unfortunate that he is a such supporter of ID…
8 · cicatrix said
while I’m glad dems have discovered the racism that is affirmative action, I think we should be careful here not to get into gerry ferraro territory: reducing the ascent of a clearly talented and brilliant individual to “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” (this is not to dismiss yours or gerry’s argument, both have an element of truth, but half-truths are lies too. steele i can see, but jindals been on the rise for a long time now.
also, while it may seem like a lifetime ago, there was a moment there, early in the bush admin, where the republicans color-blind approach threatened the dems monopoly on minority friendly politics. Powell and rice and to a lesser extent Gonzalez had risen to positions of extreme gravitas, in contrast to the dems putting poc into token cabinet positions no one cared about. on top of that, rove and the defacto open borders bush were looking ot exploit the social conservatism within the Hispanic community, a move that would have redefined American politics but ultimately fell victim to the law and order and jingoistic right wing.
so when obmama took the stage in 04′ the dems were very much like the repubs are now. their brand of race politics had left them with an array of outdated and buffoonish characters, like jackson and sharpton and perhaps personified recently by the clownish burris and seething reverse-racist bobby rush, whose hatred for obama he can barely contain.
meanwhile, the rice and powell exuded presidentialness. their rise, an extrondinary developemnt in its own right, clearly laid the path for aobama. while O, it is often said, stood on the shoulders of king, and cosby (it has been speculated) made non-black americans very comfortable with african americans, it was really powell and rice, in positions of exreme gravitas and power, that made america accustomed to the possibility of being led by a POC. even their failures, interestingly, were not racialized…except for a few leftists who called them uncle tom or strangely puppet of bush while white boys cheney and rummy were puppetmasters.
but then the bush presidency crashed, and obama seized the moment to thake the civil rights movement to the next level. but lets not forget, for a moment there he looked like a token too, a mere reaction to more prominant african-american politicians in the opposing party.
Manju, very insightful comments.
i’ll point you to his explanation of why he is turning down part of the 3.8b bailout offered by the feds. I rather enjoyed the cogent presentation. the vid was linked in one of the earlier postings on this blog. it does seem though like he’s not very good with the random rah-rah stuff like , “we’ll get better”. pause. “we’ll get stronger”. pause. someone throws his chaddi in the air. “we’re americans and we can” pause and applause. men and women lactate.
that said his speech bombed. totally.
Then maybe he’s not cut out to run for President. You can be a senator or a cabinet member with that disposition, but it’s very hard to run for President of the United States if you’re not able to connect to voters on an emotional level.
“where the republicans color-blind approach.”
sure, sycophancy trumps color in the bush cabinet.
If this Jindal dude is the best you guys have to show for, I’m not all that impressed.
Finally! Jindal gets some love (albeit slum love) from his party.
I don’t think that Jindal was bad as everyone said he was. But he needs to study the great speakers, like this polictican from Illinois who everybody talks about. Who is a master when it comes to getting his message out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaIGHcmvNu8&feature=related
It’s pretty bad when your own party rubbishes you, and even Limbaugh is reduced to saying don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, pay attention to the message not the messenger. Take a look at right-wing sites like LGF or Townhall, the sentiment against Jindal is quite strong. He has a lot of work to do to regain his momentum.
34 · Ennis said
I think Jindal’s devious master plan worked. Everybody’s talking about the republican rebuttal, and it has definitely sucked away the airtime and attention from Obama’s not-SOTU.
Suki – one big mistake he made was to bring up Katrina, and try to claim it was an argument in favor of the Republicans at a time when most Republicans do not want to be reminded of it. It is a great example of government failure to help, and he was claiming that if only the government had gotten out of the way, average people could have taken care of everything. His own party doesn’t believe that.
He doesn’t seem to believe there should be a government role in either predicting or dealing with natural disasters.
36 · Ennis said
I think that the greatest thinkers know that the only useful function government can perform is in outlawing abortions without exception, and performing chemical castrations.
the only useful function government can perform is in outlawing abortions without exception, and performing chemical castrations.
Coincidentally, these should also be the only public service components of a health plan offered by the government.
Why he didn’t simply charge out to the podium, hack it to pieces with an axe and bellow, “Give Us Us Frrrreeeeee! Obamaaaa!” i cannot imagine. He would have gotten more ironic daps from the hotair crowd and avoided discussion of any policy specifics or empirical support for his “take some, leave else” plan for LA. That sort of vague communication is very hip nowadays.
27 · vivek said
how come nobody says, “khoof, very insightful comments”. i am tres jealouse. vere’s the lao babee.
Manju, very insightful comments.
For sometime I was under the illusion that this Swindle Jindle is a smart guy mouthing the usual Goper nonsense simply to gain support. His strong reply to the President’s address cleared that up for me. This guy actually believes in all that nonsense. Especially stupid was his swipe at “Volcano Monitoring”. Investment in basic science has suffered badly during the antediluvian Bush years, with kooks running the science desks. Here comes along a supposedly well educated guy who doesn’t know the simplest thing about scientific research. The rest of that thing about government is too ridiculous to be discussed. Right now the faux Reagan legacy lies in tatters, with every tenet foreign and domestic standing utterly discredited. So the Gopers are trying everything they can do to wind up their wingnuts, of whom Swindle Jindle is yet another. Jindle’s own state has been driven into the ditch, earlier because of his disastrous management of education and health, and now his incompetent administration of the the state.
Manju the Gopers made it a point to hire minorities who buy into the conservative, anti-scientific vision. Powell has since turned away from this vision. Rice has been a failure.
42 · jyotsana said
Jyotsana, Can you provide some evidence for these statements? I recently read an article that said his Medicaid-reform even has progressives nodding in approval; I have no independent way to judge the veracity of that statement. There is also general agreement that he managed things very well in the face of Hurricane Gustav.
Khoof: I am not a regular on this site, so have missed your insightful comments on other threads. I have read in other articles that one of the (equal opportunity) legacies of Bush, father and son, would be the elevation of Rice and Powell to major positions. Remember, Rice was Bush Sr.’s Soviet expert, when she was probably in her early 30’s, and he also made Powell, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Anyway, Manju pulled all the arguments together very well.
I am an independent, so I don’t have a dog in the hunt. May the best person win… I don’t understand Jindal’s stance on ID; I would like to learn why he feels that it should be taught in schools (other than pandering to the base).
Vivek, here’s Jindal in his own words on ID, he states that it’s equally valid. I haven’t seen a more detailed exposition of his position elsewhere.
As to why he takes that position, I couldn’t tell you. I know it’s not because of religion, as he implies. Catholicism embraces evolution and there have been Vatican officials who have made statements putting down ID.
I also know that a plurality of the American population (over 40%) believe that human beings did not evolve, but were put on this earth as is. So there is a clear political benefit to the position that Jindal takes.
Lastly, Jindal was a biology major and is a smart guy, so he at least has heard and can understand the arguments in the ID vs. evolution debate.
You can draw your own inferences from the above.
Jindal, the earnest dork, made me embarrassed to be desi. We will forever be stereotyped as complete dorks.
Yes, yes, he’s pandering on this! But, I don’t get why this (allegedly) bends so many people so far out of shape, given that all politicians pander on some issues (e.g., Obama on NAFTA during the campaign, and then sending Goolsbee on a secret mission to reassure the Canadian consulate in Chicago that it was just fluff). It’s not as if the future of US science is bound to what goes on in public high-school education in Louisiana!
Rob – take a look at the right wing site LGF. They go ballistic about this, claiming that Republican anti-evolution politicians are one of the major reasons why the GOP lost. It’s both the left and right who can’t stand it.
Hey–I am a registered “lizard” at LGF! I don’t have any patience with creationism/anti-science stuff myself, but it seems like w/ two parties you have to accept some BS–what I’m puzzled by is why this is such a sticking-point or “valence” issue, compared to, say, my NAFTA example above.
46 · rob said
No argument there. We all agree that the misfortunes of Louisiana should stay in Louisiana.
48 · rob said
<
blockquote>
The Democratic party has enough centrist/third-way types inside the tent to say “Nuh uh!” to the pandering. The GOP, on the other hand, is run by the people they’re pandering to. That’s where you see the difference in outcomes.
Khoof, for what it’s worth, I’m your #1 fan (except when you become scary conservative uncle ji; I want to be the first cadillac-driving desi welfare queen when I grow up).