It was a dud – that’s the consensus on Bobby Jindal’s response to the President’s address. Indeed, the criticism has been heated. He’s been panned by Republicans and Democrats, dismissed by commentators, and even mocked on late-night television. Needless to say, many of his fans – count the Weekly Standard and Rush Limbaugh among them – insist that he shouldn’t be underestimated.
This raises a larger question: can Gov. Jindal move past last Tuesday’s performance and get elected President?
Handicapping the White House race is an American pastime. Even though the Mall has barely been cleaned up from the last inaugural ceremony, people have begun contemplating the next President. And, yes, much ink has already been spilled on Gov. Jindal’s future prospects.
Many have an opinion – yet practically no one has attempted a substantive analysis.
Here on FrumForum.com, I’m pleased to offer a definitive analysis drawing on data going back to the 1960s. Based on this, I come to a clear conclusion: Bobby Jindal will not be elected President in 2012 – or any other time.
Why? The data is clear. Practically no one who offers the minority party response to the Joint Sessions or SOTU addresses achieves high office – or practically any Washington office.
A quick google search suggests this coveted speaking slot, first created in 1966) may be the death of political careers. Consider recent orators. J.C. Watts, Tom Daschle, Xavier Becerra, Steven Largent, Gary Locke, where are you now? (Well, we know where Locke is, but Commerce seems to be a retirement job for forgotten politicians.)
In the last 3 decades, only one speaker has made it to the White House: a young governor who spoke in 1985. But Gov. Clinton didn’t give the sole response. In the early years of the minority party response, several people often weighed in. (In 1985, Democrats offered up a handful of Democratic voters, with the discussion aided by various party luminaries, including Mr. Clinton.) Even ignoring the difference between the 1970s responses (which largely reflected the party hierarchy) and today’s responses (where the party chooses a “star”), more than 80 people have been tapped to speak after the President, and just 2 have eventually succeeded the President.
Hyperbole aside – I don’t think this really is a definitive analysis but it is historically interesting – this raises an interesting question: why is it that the speech after the Speech is usually such a dud?
Here are some reasons:
1. The strategic error. The President spends weeks on the speech. His opponent tries to compensate by delivering a pre-written response. How do you react to a speech you haven’t heard before with prepared text? Answer: poorly. The resulting speeches are thus overly general, filled with cliches, and somewhat flat. Gov. Jindal made this error.
2. The structural problem. The President speaks to Congress; a governor – not part of that governance structure – can’t really respond fittingly. He’s telling Washington what to do while not being in Washington, or wanting to tie the hands of his beltway colleagues. Is it really possible for Gov. Jindal to credibly but vaguely criticize the stimulus and the budget?
3. The tactical error. President Obama, like most Presidents before him, was substantive; Gov. Jindal, like most people responding to the President, talked about himself, attempting to introduce himself to the nation. But that tactic looks inevitably light-weight – particularly now, in the middle of a recession after a sober address on the economy.
4. The ambivalence problem – in this case, Gov. Jindal’s. Was he introducing himself to New Hampshire primary voters? Core Republicans who will donate to his PAC? Middle Americans for November 2012? Or was he really critiquing the President? The young Republican agonized over this; in the end, he couldn’t ultimately decide (and thus the jarring Reaganesque rhetoric, pseudo-presidential tone, and psychobabble).
Unlike several other writers for this blog (including its editor), I’ve never been a White House speechwriter and thus can’t offer up constructive ideas on how to respond to the President after a big Congressional address. Perhaps I’ll make a simpler suggestion: the post-speech speech itself is over-rated and ambitious pols should decline the opportunity.
With that in mind, Gov. Palin had a good week – not in what she did, but what she didn’t. Who says she isn’t smart?
33 responses so far
1 Squire // Feb 27, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Like you said, I think Jindal’s mistake was the tactic of attempting to introduce himself to the nation. He must of thought that it would be inspirational, but it came across as if he was campaigning for president.
I would have preferred Jindal giving a performance like he did on Wednesday’s “Today Show.” He was the forceful, confident, sharp, and knowledgeable Jindal that many have raved about. Jindal had a real opportunity to present a new conservative vision for the problems this country faces. Instead, we got a speech that looked like it was written by McCain’s speechwriter 6 months ago. His speech dealt with old strategies, not new ones.
Thankfully, I don’t think this speech will ruin Jindal’s career or his chances at running for president in the future. His poor performance on Tuesday night is merely a speed bump, but one that many of us (and especially Jindal) probably wished had been avoided. I think the main reason many left-leaning pundits are exulting in Jindal’s disappointment is because they secretly hope he will be discouraged and go away. The left recognizes that Jindal IS a future force to be reckoned with, a force that could probably present Obama (or any Democrat) with some real difficulties in a presidential debate. If Jindal wasn’t a threat, they wouldn’t be making a hoopla about his speech.
2 pampl // Feb 27, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I liked your historical analysis, but you can rephrase it and come to the opposite conclusion- of the last 6 presidents, 3 had given a SOTU response. That’s not bad! Of course, the real trick would be comparing the % of nominees who’ve given it to that 50% figure. If almost all the nominees gave one but only half the presidents had, it’d clearly be a big liability, and the opposite would be true if it was rarer among nominees than among POTUSes. You could even compare how many nominees had given one to how many potential nominees had, but the SOTU response probably doesn’t merit that kind of effort
3 HollywoodBill // Feb 27, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Jindal has very little chance of living in the White House but it has more to do with other factors than interesting historical precedents. At best Jindal is a regional candidate with great appeal to the white Southern evangelicals and no one outside of that base. Even though he is a devout convert to Catholicism, his views on creationism being taught in schools is a vote loser outside of Dixie. And that nonsense about him excorcising a young woman during his college days isn’t going to play well to anyone besides the social conservatives. Jindal’ s religious extremism is going to keep him out of the White House. The Karl Rove playbook is now out of print and doesn’t work anymore anyway. He and Sarah Palin are true anachronisms. They are the last two dinousaurs left standing after the meteor strike.
4 sinz54 // Feb 27, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Squire says: “Jindal had a real opportunity to present a new conservative vision for the problems this country faces. Instead, we got a speech that looked like it was written by McCain’s speechwriter 6 months ago.” The reason for that is clear. The GOP base still likes the old conservative vision just fine, thank you very much. Go over to RedState.com and you’ll see what I mean. They think the only problem with Jindal’s speech was a lackluster delivery, but the content was just fine. It’s the same problem all over again: No matter how knowledgeable the speaker may be, the base wants him to continue to sing from the same old playbook–because that gives them (false) reassurance that they have been right all along. In fact, they’ve made it clear that they consider even sincere constructive criticism to be evidence of disloyalty. That, in a nutshell, is why they are in such trouble. They insist on maintaining an aura of infallibility, which they don’t deserve.
5 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 27, 2009 at 5:03 pm
The bigger issue with Jindal was that it came out today that he had “misrepresented” himself in telling his story concerning Katrina. He lied. He and Palin have that in common besides the fact they are both willing to lie to get to the Presidency.
The other point is that a large part of Obama’s speech was online at least 5 hours before he gave it so if they had been paying attention they could have used it as a heads up.
If this hurts Jindals chances? Palin’s boat has already sunk to the bottom of the lake with her lies, which wer many in that they could not be counted on both hands, and inability to speak using grammer that one usually learns in grade school.
If given a choice between Jindal and Palin? I’ll stay home. I have had all the lies and secrets from the last 8 years that I can stand………WHY is it so hard to elect people who are honest?……..is it the Magic Blowhard Limbaugh or that total lying moron Joe the NON Plumber? Is that who is really running our party????? If so then one has to ask why?…What in the world has happened to us?????
6 fact based // Feb 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I just loved his tone deafness, His mother was pregnant which is a “pre existing condition” so they couldnt get insurance and they had to beg a doctor to take installment payments to pay for the delivery….isnt america a great country.
Just the pitch to gain the support of the 10,000s each week losing their health insurance who are worried that any insurance they could afford wont cover anything they label a “pre existing condition”
And who exactly does he think was going to rebuild the levees in new orleans if not the govt ?
And capital gains cuts helping to turn the economy around : what capital gains ? every stock and real estate investor in the country is sitting on losses.
7 krove // Feb 27, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Contrast……Obama’s new pollnumbers………….Gallop……In the days immediately after Barack Obama’s nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday.
Obama’s approval rebound is due to increased support from all political groups, but especially from independents and Republicans, whose support had been waning. Over the past week, independents’ approval of Obama dropped from 62% to 54%, but is now back to 62%. There has been a sharp increase in support among Republicans, from 27% to 42%. Democrats’ support for Obama was already extremely high at 86%, but even this has climbed slightly, to 90% in the latest polling.
So Jindal followed probably the best speaker in modern political history. And the contrast was stark. The way he talked down to us as though we were 4 year olds. The way he lied about his Katrina experience. Why was he bringing that up anyway and reminding the country of the Bush failure? The tone deaf volcano monitoring comment. For the governor of a state with huge amounts of government money being spent on disaster prevention to gripe about a small amount of money being spent to prevent death and destruction in Washington state or Hawaii or Alaska was dumb in the extreme. His attempt to disavow his Indian heritage by changing his name from Piyush to “Bobby”. His political conversion from Hidi to Catholic. His experience of exorcism and wishing to teach intelligent design. He comes across as a “phony” I agree he will never become President, but not because he gave a poor speech.
8 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 7:08 am
krove. Gallup was off by 10 points in the last election. However, you made great points about Bobby Jindal. The speech was horrible. The presentation was horrible. He seems like a very intelligent young man but he has no charisma. What this country wants and needs at this time is a competent leader that has a plan to get out of this mess. That’s what the American people are looking for. For the response, the GOP should have prensented an alternative, spefic plan instead of generalities.
9 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 7:50 am
Chekote: I was really looking at the change in Gallup’s own numbers at the increase particularly among Republicans rather than any inherent accuracy with the polling. Please tell me where this new conservative leader is coming from? I truly don’t see anyone at all that can compare with Obama as a potential leader of the right. Say what you will about his policy positions, he is a master politician. He has managed to box the right in by framing his appeal using republican ideas of hard work, patriotism and self improvement. If you read his speech to congress you will see he frames democrat’s policy using republican phrasing. That made it really difficult for the republicans to sit on their hands during the speech. They were forced to their feet to applaud purley because of the way he framed the ideas. That maybe is the reason the republican numbers that approve of him climbed so sharply after the speech. I think 2012 is a forgone conclusion for the right unless either the economy gets much worse or they find someone who can really complete with Obama. 2010 is already gone. There will be significant losses in the Senate. The house will not change much as it is pretty nearly as far right as it can go.
10 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:14 am
Krove. I don’t know who the next leader will be. I really liked Sanford in the interviews but I went to see him this past Thrusday at a Reagan dinner and he was an okay speaker. I think McCain was on the right track when he attacked Obama as the Britney Spears of politics. Unfortunately, he proceeded to undercut his argument by selecting our own Britney Spears as his VP. I think we need to be aggressive. Call out Obama when he lies. Don’t be afraid to be labeled racist, partisan, mean. Don’t be afraid of being unpopular for the time being. Do what we think is right for our country. Remember, Madoff was very popular with investors a year ago and the whistleblower was blown off by the SEC. Who is popular today? Obama is a Marxist. Let’s call him what he is. And yes, we will hear the complaints of red baiting and other nonsense. But we are telling the truth. Just like the whistleblower.
11 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:37 am
Chekote: It’s way too late to label Obama as the Britney of politics. It was dumb as an idea originally as the reality did not come close to the label. people see Obama as a caring pragmatic and generally competent person who is reacting to events by genuinely trying to help within the confines of what government can do. People are scared and a bit confused right now. They are looking for leadership. Again, say what you will about policy, he is leading and being very effective about convincing the people to follow. The way to combat that is to offer genuine alternative policy and convince people your ideas are better. The public is more engaged politically than they have been for many years. To offer the tired simplistic answers to complex problems is not going to work. Obama is offering solutions (right or wrong) on healthcare, the war, fiscal responsibility, energy. You name it, he is proposing a policy to change the status quo. People are receptive to these ideas. He is actually and in short order delivering on the very ideas he advanced as a candidate. Electors in the majority voted on those ideas and they like the delivery of those policy ideas in practice.
12 Churl // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:48 am
If Jindal were running for President of the Speech and Drama club, I’d agree. However, the US President has a bit more to accomplish than reciting mellifluous phrases from a teleprompter. Jindal is building a record in Louisiana, Obama is giving speeches and spending incomprehensible amounts of money on stuff that makes no sense. Jindal can polish his speaking style by 2012 or 2016. Can Obama undo by then the mess he’s making of the economy?
13 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:15 am
Churl. Jindal has been hopeless for the people of Louisiana, as a small government fan his state gives a dollar in tax to the federal government and gets $1.83 back in help to the state. The state is regularly in the bottom three for things like poverty, health care jobs and other economic indicators. He has reduced taxes 4 times and still run up a huge deficit. He lies to the public on national TV. His talking points are dumb in the extreme. Volcano monitoring anyone! To stand before the American people and say he is for small government when his state has accepted many billions in after Katrina subsidy is pathetic. So not a record to be proud of and certainly not one to run on in 2012. If he can get Louisiana up to third world standards by 2016 maybe he will stand a chance.
14 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:22 am
krove. The Spears attack was gaining traction. Go back and look at the articles about how McCain was turning Obama’s oritorical skills against him. As a matter of fact, following the GOP convention McCain was leading Obama. Everything fell apart when Bush, Bernanke and Paulson decided they needed to instill panic in the public to get their bailout plan passed. At this point, any solution we offer will be blasted by Obama as the same tired old conservative ideas that were tried under Bush. Sory but it will take a while before we can shake the effect of Bushism. There is no getting around it.
15 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:22 am
Churl, you are right Obama will succeed or fail like a pack of cards depending on how the economy and his other policy ideas work out. The problem for the right in framing these ideas and him as Socialist is that if he succeeds especially in healthcare reform you have then cemented in the public’s mind that big government can actually work to improve their lot in life. The right will then be seen as protectors of the rich and the status quo. So there is great danger here. The country has shifted left even if you will not admit it. It is now center left not center right if it ever truly was center right. There is potential for a sea change in the public’s attitudes here. I can quite understand why many on the right support Rush in wishing for Obama to fail. His success would mean major shifts in this country.
16 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:31 am
Chekote. you are right there was some change after the convention. A normal convention bounce. Plus Palin really did go down well with the extreme right and brought that wing firmly into the McCain camp. Unfortunately that drove the center away. They were horrified by Palin. I agree there is no way anyone could beat Obama last time around. A further right wing candidate would have lost even worse. Bush was a major factor and the economy tanking did not help, McCain ran a terrible incompetent campaign. After Bush people were looking for competence above all and Obama did give the idea he could at least run a brilliant campaign. If Bush had been in the 40’s and the economy had not tanked then maybe McCain would have been closer, as it was a landslide ensued.
17 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:31 am
I have CNBC on all day and I can tell you that there has been a sea change after the Santelli rant. More and more reporters are speaking up against this attack on the producers in our country. The Bankers Association just spoke up against Obama for trashing the banking industry. We have had tea parties all around the country. It will take time but I already see many Wall Streeter who supported Obama because of “making history” or “Bush is dumb” starting to realize the consequences of their vote. I don’t care if the country has shifted left. I believe in standing up for what I believe to be right. I don’t want to be in power and for the sake of power. That’s how we got in trouble in the first place.
18 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:37 am
krove. You cannot estimate the incompentence of the McCain campaign. It is amazing that he got 46% of the vote. We didn’t have bumper stickers. We had no yard sign. The Obama people had all the funding necessary to do anything they deemed necessary. McCain’s reaction to the financial meltdown ultimately spelled his doom. One day is was against the AIG bailout only to reverse the next day. He suspended his campaign to go to DC and solve the problem only to sheepishly vote for the Paulson Plan. After ranting and raving about naming names for the entire campaign season, he voted for that pork laden bailout bill without a peep. He undermined himself, from the McCain-Feingold to the Paulson Plan. Obama just sat back and watched McCain self-destruct.
19 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 10:00 am
Chekote, don’t confuse the rantings of CNBC talking heads and wall street punditry as being indicative of the current public mood. The public hates wall street with a vengeance and sees it as the cause of their problems not the solution. If you look at the polling in the round and not just cherry pick one in particular you will get a good idea of where the public mood is. In general they are not going with the GOP which is at about 18-20% at present. The Dems in congress are about 42%. Obama is around 65-70%. Even among republicans he is at 40+%. as I said before if he succeeds the right is toast. You can wish all you like for the mood to fit in better with your ideology. But if you are to succeed you need to see where the country is right now. 20 people turned up for the DC tea party. Most of those were from CPAC. The Malkins of this world will never represent the majority opinion. If you wish to gain power you have in the present climate to appeal to the increased center ground the right has shrunk and will continue to do so unless there is a change in emphasis. If you wish to be a rump party shouting into the wind then fine, but without the means to enact your policy that’s all it ever can be. Unless you are willing to follow Hannity and ferment revolution?
20 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 11:00 am
I don’t want to be in power to implement policies that I don’t believe in. Companies are learning the hard way what it means to have government as their business partner. Instead of being leaders, corporate heads decided to take the easy way out and present themselves to DC with a tin cup. The same is true for Wall Street. Now they are on CNBC complaining about the government getting involveds in everything they do. Well, hello! The same with the American people. They think that that free healthcare means that they get to keep the coverage the currently have without having to pay for it. They will learn their lesson too. The economy cannot succeed or recover if we continue to punish the producers in the society. Finally, I am tired of consevatives letting the opposing side define the terms of the debates. Letting the opposing decide for us who we should listen to or not listen to. I will listen to whomever I want. Why? Because I am a free American.
21 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 11:36 am
Chekote, what is YOUR solution to the current banking crisis? As I understand it the 5 biggest banks plus AIG are basically bankrupt. They are holding about 6 trillion in toxic assets. Now I would just allow them to fail and take the hit. Only problem with that is they would probably take the rest of wall street down with them. The DOW would be at 2000 which is about what it’s actually worth right now. In order to get lending going I would inject capital into the local community banks and allow them to lend (to qualifying customers) at the current prime rate of .75%. That would bring mortgages down to a level that would stabilize the housing market. It would also short circuit the banks that are leveraging their customers with 29% interest on credit cards (which is plain robbery). BTW how do you think Steele is doing as head of the RNC?
22 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 11:56 am
krove. The GOP made a mistake with Jindal’s speech. Instead of talking generalities, they should have had something like the Perot charts presentation addressing the current economic crisis that is on everybody’s mind. Talk about how we got here, i.e., too many individuals and companies took on more risk that they could afford. Then, present a solution. Point out that no recovery will happen unless we fix our banking system. Obama should have address this before going on a spending binge of a trillion dollar. Then outline a solution. First, repeal SOX and market to market. The idea behind SOX was that we could prevent another Enron. How did that work out?! Issue new account standards where valuations are based on a cash flow model with some sort of machanism to factor in the current foreclosure rate. Once we see the impact on the balance sheet of the new accounting rules, let begin the process of killing zombie companies. That’s what I would do. If that means the DOW at 2000 so be it. We need to take our medicine and get on with. What we are doing is much more destructive in the long run.
23 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:03 pm
krove. I am reserving my judgement as far as Steele is concerned. I did support him.
24 helios // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I once watched a Governor of Arkansas totally bomb a major convention keynote in 1988, whatever happened to him anyway?
I think Jindal had a pretty difficult task. I thought he was flat and a little patronizing but I didn’t think he was as dreadful as Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius. I’ve also heard him speak at different venues and he can be much better. I’m saying this as someone who has serious reservations about him, particularly as it relates to playing politics with science education.
That said I think he’d be ok if he had just sucked. But he added to his woes by strangely including “volcano monitoring” into his lampooning of the stimulus (there were more egregious examples and the raising of an item about natural disasters was unfortunate for a gov. from Louisiana) and it now appears he at best took serious liberties with his Katrina story.
I think those two things will linger longer than the memory of his performance.
25 Churl // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:22 pm
krove, Louisiana is indeed a poor and badly governed state. But, it’s a bit early to fault Jindal because he hasn’t single handedly cleaned up the messes from generations of corrupt politicians. Let’s keep our eyes on actions and results instead of analyzing speeches and daily polling numbers. It is possible, you know, that Obama is reprising the role of Herbert Hoover instead of FDR and may be easy pickings in 2012.
26 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Chekote. You are right. I have been wondering for weeks when someone (anyone) is going to get before the public and show graphically and with clarity what thel has happened and where we actually stand. There seems to be a fear about admitting the truth of the situation because the markets would fall, well if the truth drops the market then the market is overvalued. It’s time to face the music take the consequences and move on. It will come sooner or later so you may as well get it done. Is there a need for “too big to fail” banks in the system anyway. Whats wrong with small to medium sized banks?
27 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Churl, fair point let’s see how he does. I think he has damaged his chances badly but time will tell. Same with Obama he will need at least 18 months to get anything done to judge him on. The secret is not to allow ones ideology to cloud real judgments. The electorate is not so uninformed or disinterested as they have been. You can’t hide “fail” anymore.
28 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:59 pm
krove. Exactly my point. We need to take the bad medicine and move on. Once we are out of the current situation we will have to do some forensics and determine exactly how we got here. There are a few principles that we should apply in developing a solution: 1) you don’t reward bad behavior. I doesn’t matter whether it is an individual or a company. Rewarding bad behavior will increase more bad behavior and will demoralize the people who believe in personal responsibility. 2) we cannot begin with the premise that no one can lose their home or job and that no company can be allowed to fail; 3) the government should no be in the business of picking winners and losers; 4) you don’t bring down the 92% of the people who are meeting their obligation just to save the 8% who can’t.
29 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Whoops!
Louisianas transportation department plans to request federal dollars for a New Orleans to Baton Rouge passenger rail service from the same pot of railroad money in the presidents economic stimulus package that Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized as unnecessary pork on national television Tuesday night.
The high-speed rail line, a topic of discussion for years, would require $110 million to upgrade existing freight lines and terminals to handle a passenger train operation, said Mark Lambert, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
Jindal on Tuesday delivered the official Republican Party response to President Barack Obamas address to Congress. He criticized the stimulus package passed by the Democratic-majority in Congress and the president and noted examples of projects that he found objectionable.
While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending, Jindal said. It includes $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland.
There is no high speed rail from Las Vegas to Disneyland or anywhere else in the bill by the way.
30 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:40 am
Part of the problem we conservatives are facing is that so much of the business community has betrayed the principles of capitalism–and deserted us–by running to Washington with their tongues hanging out for corporate welfare. It’s hard for us to make a case for a free market when some of America’s greatest companies, from Merrill Lynch to General Motors, are all throwing up their hands and saying they can’t succeed without a Federal welfare check. (Why does Wall Street need welfare checks???) I suggest that a talking-point for us should be to highlight those American companies which continue to succeed without taking any corporate welfare checks from Washington. And there are many–they just don’t get the headlines because they’re not the ones facing bankruptcy right now. Let’s try to show the American people that there still are CEOs out there who neither need nor want corporate welfare from Washington for their companies. GM wants a welfare check. FedEx, UPS, Wells Fargo, etc. do not. Let’s highlight them.
31 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:51 am
Chekote: “For the response, the GOP should have prensented an alternative, specific plan instead of generalities.” Of course. But the reason Jindal didn’t present a “specific plan” is that the GOP doesn’t have one yet. The GOP is still arguing with itself: Cut capital gains taxes for investors? Cut SS payroll taxes for the middle class? Build infrastructure or not? How to reform health care? Etc. And that shouldn’t surprise anyone. It takes *time* and thought to come up with a plan to fix something as complex as the mess we’re currently in. Look at the ridicule that Geithner got when he wasn’t more specific with his own plan for the financial industry. Right now, the GOP doesn’t have a coherent plan in its hip pocket, other than Bushism (which already failed), and McCainism (which was already rejected by the voters). Beyond that, all the GOP has is a bunch of half-baked ideas proposed by various factions within the GOP–but not a plan the GOP could sign up to and put in its 2012 platform. Perhaps by 2010, the GOP will have synthesized a new position on the economy. But they sure don’t have one now.
32 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 11:54 am
“I suggest that a talking-point for us should be to highlight those American companies which continue to succeed without taking any corporate welfare checks from Washington.” Excellent point Sinz.
33 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Krove: On this very blog, last week, I said that if avowedly conservative GOP governors took Federal stimulus money for their states, it would leave the GOP open to the charge of hypocrisy. I was ridiculed for making that assertion. Your reaction to Jindal, and the reaction on the left-wing blogosphere, have proved I was right. If an eloquent, knowledgeable guy like Jindal can’t sell economic conservatism to the voters of his own state–who already elected him–he sure won’t be able to sell it to the rest of the nation.
You must log in to post a comment.