Americans can do anything, except give a decent rebuttal address

Since we couldn't watch the presidential speech at DL last night (much appreciated, Pub at Rookwood Mews, for refusing our request), I had pretty much figured that I'd read a bit of the text of the speech and the rebuttal, and that'd be that. But I read so much on the blogosphere today about just how bad Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal's republican response was, I had to check it out for myself. The verdict:

Oh. My. Lord.

As one blogger put it (and it escapes me who it was, so no link), "Jindal spoke to us like we were four year olds, which makes sense since the kids that are four years old right now will probably be the next people to vote republican."

This really needs to be separated into substance vs. style. And the substance of the speech...well, let's see. Never mind that the governor of the state which experienced the worst natural disaster in our nation's history can be opposed to volcano monitoring, which is something that minimizes material destruction and human tragedy during a disaster. Never mind that he doesn't understand how high-speed rail earmarks work. Never mind that the republicans showed no interest in conversation or spending cuts while they had control of both houses of Congress. And never mind that it's utterly ridiculous to think that the private market can somehow 100% run a universal health care program.

No, at the end of the day, the problem with the substance is that it's the same old crap all over again. Tax cuts, spending cuts, big defense, small government, bureaucrats evil. It's the same old shit all over again. They might as well have had John Boehner give the speech, instead of having their "rising star" regurgitate the same ideas that cost them the last two major elections.

The style, however, was just breathtakingly horrifying. I've read a lot of talk today about how maybe he was just nervous, or had a bad speech to read, or had poor coaching, etc. But I keep thinking back to how Obama came into the national political scene, and it was on the heels of a phenomenal speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I can't see how he could ever bring himself to deliver a speech that sounded as clownish as this - and make no mistake, Jindal sounded like a complete clown. No, this was an utter stylistic nightmare that, if it does not derail, at least tremendously damages his credibility as a presidential candidate for 2012 (though, to be fair, McCain made several statements that should have disqualified him from candidacy and that didn't happen, but that's another story).

If this is the republican's great hope, I'm going to go ahead and make hotel reservations in DC for 1/20/2013.

UPDATE: Keith Olbermann is reporting that some of the details he gave about the Katrina story may not in fact be true. This disaster may get even worse.


jk said...

Jindal was definitely bad, but so was Bill Clinton in 1988:

Don't count out Bobby in 2012.

Anonymous said...

I watched Obama's speech, so I wasn't at DL. I tried to watch a bit of Jindal's, but his "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" style was so bad, and he was opposite Nip/Tuck, so I only caught him during commercials.

Anyway, now that Rush Limbaugh is the darling of CPAC, and even RNC Chairman Michael Steele has apologized to Limbaugh for calling him an "entertainer", I think there will be a "Draft Rush" movement.

Maybe we will see "Limbaugh/Palin", or "Limbaugh/Coulter" or "Limbaugh/Hannity" in 2012.