Last night's address was an egg, let's be honest. Very strong on core content, poor on delivery. Yes, the latter got better as the speech went on, but the anecdotes were neither good nor well delivered and the cadence of the speech was simply ineffective (which can be fixed with a little coaching). Jindal is clearly better when talking policy and politics directly, not playing overly forced man of the people via the teleprompter.
Moreover, following a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress is almost never a winner for an opposition speaker, regardless of party...even before getting stuck following one of the most potent political communicators in years. In this blogger's view, the Bobby Jindal on Meet the Press, in front of the White House this week, and even on the Today Show this morning was night and day with the Jindal of last night.
Either way, too much talk - including dissection of Jindal last night - is already being given to 2012. The election cycle of 2008 proved how worthless early prognostication and pontification can be. What the GOP needs now is leaders to develop further; people like Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Mark Sanford, John Thune, etc.
From that kind of bullpen will come someone capable of bearing the GOP standard in 2012. Will they all develop into Presidential candidate caliber leaders? No. But, they need to be given the chance to do so. Look how much Obama himself grew as a campaigner and political figure in the time between his election to the Senate in 2004 and his ultimate victory in 2008.
That's the perspective through which Jindal's performance - or any similar such Republican opportunity in coming months - should be viewed.
UPDATE: Comment #3 makes an excellent point.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 25, 2009 11:19 AM | Email ThisLook what happened four years later.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/02/25/whoever-kidnapped-the-real-bobby-jindal-returned-him-this-morning.php
Just because Democratic 'pundits' are eagerly yowling that Jindal is washed up forever by last night's response, we don't need to reflect that malicious propaganda, consciously or unconsciously. Of course Obama won the beauty contest - his whole speech was staged as one - but Jindal has some real ideas that reach far beyond Obama's pink fluff, and they resonate very well with those of us who are being looted to pay for Obama's obscene 'stimulus' payoff to ACORN and company.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 25, 2009 12:18 PMOn the contrary, form is very important. That's how Reagan put himself over the top of Carter in '80 and it's how Obama sealed the deal in '08 by mopping up McCain in the debates with overwhelming Presidential style (thus convincing remaining undecideds that he was competent & Presidential).
A careful reading of my post shows I reject that idea that Jindal should be "washed up forever." Yet, we should also be honest that delivery matters - especially when Obama is our most visible antagonist. And Jindal's delivery wasn't very good.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 25, 2009 12:27 PMIn case nobody has noticed there are some real concerns about volcano activity lately. Yellowstone for example seems to have a lot of activity in the last six months. We've had activity here and in Alaska fairly recently. All of which should cause some concern.
What I don't agree with is putting it in a pork bill and calling it stimulus. This type of spending needs to be addressed case by case. These things need to stand on their own merit.
Posted by: Vince on February 25, 2009 12:49 PMYet, we should also be honest that delivery matters - especially when Obama is our most visible antagonist. And Jindal's delivery wasn't very good.
Did you just ignore my link in #6 to Jindal this morming? You can dump on last night's performance whether or not I disagree, but Jindal this morning was responding in real-time to a not wholly sympathetic interviewer, and did a superb job (there, now you don't have to waste time watching it yourself).
The unmistakable conclusion from this morning's piece is: were Governor Jindal and President Obama ever to engage in a real-time debate, moderated or not, Jindal would wipe the floor with Obama.
The Democrats will move heaven and earth to prevent such a debate - the big O is helpless without a Teleprompter.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 25, 2009 01:10 PMYou're right. We should only put things people don't need in the stimulus package. That's just Republican common sense.
Posted by: slag on February 25, 2009 01:12 PMNo, how could I ignore it since I linked to the very same Today show appearance in my original post and made the same point about Jindal being better in non-speech formats?
In the meantime, giving speeches is still a significant component of American politics, and on that score conservatives need to acknowledge the fact his stylistic delivery last night was not good at all.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 25, 2009 01:22 PMPossibly, in front of a debate judge because Jindal DOES INDEED have a better command of the facts and is better at extemporaneous speaking. However, in front of the American public might be a different matter -because POTUS Obama has the intangible of 'appeal', whereas Jindal can't readily identify with folks like that. At least not yet. :)
Posted by: Duffman on February 25, 2009 01:26 PMEven in our Internet video clip age, though, no one is going to look at Jindal if he is a candidate in 2012 and go, "Oh, there's no way I could vote for him. Do you remember that pseudo-SoTU response he gave three years ago?" They didn't remember Gary Locke's, and they won't remember Jindal's.
Posted by: Franklin Pierce's Second Term on February 25, 2009 01:26 PMThen why don't we just have one giant bill a year with everything in it? Sorry, but volcano monitoring isn't "economic stimulus". A good idea, sure. But so is are a lot of other things that have no business in an economic stimulus bill. If volcano monitoring is so important, than it should stand on it's own merits, or be included in another more appropriate bill.
Posted by: Mike H on February 25, 2009 01:43 PMFunny, they said the same thing about McCain and he just came across as an old, grumpy, and out-of-touch when placed next to then Sen. Obama.
I don't totally disagree on your points about 2012, however I do disagree quite a bit. (as an aside your bullpen leaves out probably one of the top 4 potentials in Mike Huckabee who is already developing).
The reason I disagree is that the choosing of Jindal, as well as the choosing of Steele to be RNC chair, is a complete 100% power play from factions of the Republican Party. There is currently a power struggle where the party is attempting to identify itself for the near future (next four years). This struggle is basically deciding whether or not the Republican Party will still be outwardly social conservative or not. Those who are winning are the ones who are anti-social conservative in the sense that all that stuff is back burner.
As such, now the Republican Party will be moving more towards govt. mandated healthcare (ala Romneycare), pro-federal education spending, and of course taking no position on other moral and social conservative agenda items.
Basically, they are becoming a suburban republican dream party. This is why looking to 2012 is so very important and why Jindal's performance is so key to that. The social conservatives, the P. Noonan's etc., are all vying for position and the failing of someone from the other camp becomes huge, at least on the inside circles.
Posted by: Doug on February 25, 2009 01:50 PMGood God, with the rest of a political lifetime in front of him, we should wear sackcloth and ashes because Jindal made one lukewarm speech? Is this a call for a ritual apology to acknowlege our sins to the Great Communicator in the Sky?
Guilt complexes are fine for liberals, but for me, give me Jindal's next speech, or the one after. And Jindal (who's certainly smart enough to recognize that soft delivery and improve on it) isn't the only articulate Republican in the country.
And even with the MSM and Congress 110% behind him, Obama will lose altitude when he has to deal with the hard facts arising from his wafty policies. Reflexive demonizing will only carry him so far with the general electorate, and even the MSM will carry his water less willingly once his ultra-controlled press opportunities generate some more resentment.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 25, 2009 01:57 PMFunny, the Democrats all approved of McCain as the candidate and some (including the son of the halte Henry Jackson) crossed over into the Republican primary to ensure he was the candidate.
Posted by: Funny on February 25, 2009 02:38 PMHypocrite.
Posted by: swatter on February 25, 2009 02:48 PMDoug @ 21 - I have yet to see Steele say anything that says he wants to change any party position on social issues. He has said he's willing to embrace moderate candidates in blue jurisdictions, which is a logical statement from an RNC Chair fundamentally tasked with expanding the party's success in winning federal offices.
Meanwhile, Jindal is firmly in the social conservative camp. If you believe otherwise you simply haven't done your homework on where he stands and what positions he has taken in past campaigns. Thus, he certainly isn't part of any effort to minimize social conservatives within the party.
Speaking of which, I think you're creating much more of a conspiracy that actually exists with a "suburban Republican" wing trying to minimize social conservatives. Are there people that feel that way? Sure, and that sort of friction between different wings of the GOP is pretty standard fare the last couple decades. For now, is there some sort of profound effort to make social conservatives less relevant? I don't think so, even if the current state of the voting public means such issues generally receive less attention. Lastly, and ironically, it would be figures you appear to dislike, such as Jindal and Romney (regardless of whether or not they're a good choice for 2012), who could counsel those "suburban Republicans" not to have the national GOP abandon socially conservative positions at the same time they speak to currently dominant economic concerns.
I left out Huckabee on purpose, because whatever his appeal (which is powerful within the niche he currently holds), he has yet to demonstrate the ability to either a) appeal to non-Southern Evangelicals in significant numbers or b) fundraise in a manner that would be necessary to compete with Obama - indeed, Huckabee's fundraising, even after his rapid ascension and orgy of earned media in late '07, was atrocious. If he couldn't do either then, I seriously doubt he can do so in the future. I believe Huckabee can and should be an important leader for conservative Evangelicals. I have no belief, however, that he has any capacity to be a part of that bullpen for 2012.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 25, 2009 04:12 PMJindal delivered strong, principled points with specifics relating to the issues facing this nation.
I fear it's bread and circuses that the media and the Marxists want to push, and to ignore the real problems!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 25, 2009 04:24 PMThat volcano monitoring line was asinine - people want the government to be prepared for natural disasters. It's arguably part of the government's core security mission. (What if we hadn't evacuated Clark Air Base before Pinatubo blew because we weren't paying attention? USGS funded that monitoring work.)
For that matter, it was idiotic of him to repeatedly reference Katrina. People remember who was in charge then and don't much care for the job they did. (Democrat and Republican alike - Blanco didn't even bother to run again.)
Not just bad delivery, bad text.
Jindal said, in the words of Ahnold - "'ll be back".
Posted by: KS on February 25, 2009 08:36 PMPower to the Sheeple.
Posted by: Ed on February 25, 2009 10:20 PMSeriously... Where did he promote a free market policy in that entire speech?
Posted by: Lysander on February 26, 2009 05:47 PMFree Market policy - he either did not mention because he did not have an issue with Obama's policy or he plain forgot. There were enough other issues, such as the Government ineptness during Katrina in LA and making the point that too much government will be a long term deterrent to a growing economy - I agree with that.
Posted by: KS on February 26, 2009 08:55 PM