Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Rush: If you think Jindal reeked last night, I don’t want to hear from you again

posted at 6:10 pm on February 25, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Sounds like Ace and I are now Republican personas non grata. As are an awful lot of commenters in last night’s megathread, I might add.

That’s okay. One of these days Andy Levy and I are going to start a secular, hawkish, (mostly) libertarian third party. You’re all welcome to join.

So, where are we? We as conservatives are in the wilderness, and many of you are hopeless. So we have a guy, Bobby Jindal, 37 years old, first time on the national stage, shows up last night to make a response to The Messiah. All he did was articulate what we believe. All he did was articulate opposition to what Obama is doing, with the obligatory when he’s right, we’ll work with him, just like we worked with Clinton on NAFTA, just like we worked with Clinton on welfare reform after we brought him in. These things happen. It doesn’t mean that we lose our distrust. All Bobby Jindal did was tell us what conservatism is; he used his own life story to do it; he talked about the American people making the country work. He had it all. Now, he may not have done it in the same stylistic way as Obama. I can understand the Democrats trashing the man, just as they trashed Sarah Palin. They are mean-spirited, heartless, horrible winners. But the people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style.

Because if you think people on our side, I’m talking to you, those of you who think Jindal was horrible, in fact, I don’t want to hear from you ever again if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well, because, folks, style is not going to take our country back. Solid conservatism articulated in a way that’s inspiring and understanding is what’s going to take the country back. Bobby Jindal’s 37 years old. I’ve spoken to him numerous times. He’s brilliant. He’s the real deal. I’m not coming here to defend him, he doesn’t need that. We’re going to have to figure out what we want. Do we want to have somebody in our party who can sound as smart as Obama regardless what he says and convince people to vote for us, or do we believe in a set of principles that defined this country’s founding and will return it to greatness again?

Answer: Both, and it’s amazing that a guy who worships the Great Communicator and whose own net worth has reached nine digits on the strength of his communication skills would pose that as an either/or. Jindal will shake this off but the fact remains that he blew an opportunity to turn himself into a breakout star a la Obama at the 2004 convention. He’s touted as a sort of boy genius, but a boy genius should have been able to figure out a way not to be actively bad, even if it meant being merely boring. He couldn’t, so his image took a hit. What’s the problem with admitting that? If he was doomed to fail because of the setting — and he surely wasn’t doomed to fail as badly as he did — he should have adapted by changing it and doing the speech in front of a small audience (or a big one). He’s supposed to be the solutions guy, right?

Not a big deal either way, but I’m not sure why it’s heresy to take a dim view of this. Special exit quotation for all the Dittoheads: “People who don’t believe in God believe in Obama. Agnostics, atheists, because believe me, a planeload of atheists on a jet on the way to Hawaii and three of the four engines go out, the atheists start praying to who? God. Not the ocean, to save ‘em. Everybody believes in God at some point, but not until they face their mortality. Everybody does. They have some God. Very few people think they’re it. Obama is one. I think when Obama prays, it’s to himself.”


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8

Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.

Businesses don’t understand that yet.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 6:04 AM

Nor do liberals. That’s why they grow the government.

philwynk on February 26, 2009 at 6:47 AM

Rush is 100% correct as usual. The form over substance types are idiots. That’s what Democrats do. Conservatives hate phonies and wouldn’t tolerate a phony candidate which is mandatory on the Dem side. Let me repeat…so called conservatives who mocked Jindal are idiots. He represents the best hope to save this nation from the socialist tyrants in Washington. If some on our side are helping to bring down our brightest rising star, then go ahead and form your own party and go help the Dems take down the country. The Dems wouldn’t take you…they’re not dumb enough to criticize their own.

orlandocajun on February 26, 2009 at 6:48 AM

Matt Helm is correct, but in order to do that, we have to get rid of the people who are dragging things down.

AllahPundit is one of them.

That is why I’m over at Manly’s Republic, for the most part. Because the RINO jerkfest that is over here has started making me desire to go homicidal on people.

Sakaki on February 26, 2009 at 6:50 AM

Jindal’s not my favorite, but Rush is absolutely correct.

tgillian on February 26, 2009 at 7:12 AM

Both Rush and Hannity went to great lengths to prop up Jindal’s poor speech. Methinks they both protest too much. Thats the major giveaway it was a terrible speech. But since Pillboy already admits he carries water for the gop, I expect nothing less. I do love me some gop civil war. With the Rush Wing of the gop its either your with them or against them. The Rush Wing won’t win national elections, so get used to the wilderness.

athensboy on February 26, 2009 at 7:13 AM

Rush is right again! And it absolutely kills the Dems! Get over it boys and girls! Glenn Beck is right behind Hannity! Actually I like him more than Sean! Watch his show on Fox! It’s fantastic!

Eyvonne on February 26, 2009 at 7:18 AM

The Rush Wing won’t win national elections, so get used to the wilderness.

athensboy on February 26, 2009 at 7:13 AM

Wild things come out of the wilderness.

JiangxiDad on February 26, 2009 at 7:21 AM

Nor do liberals. That’s why they grow the government.

philwynk on February 26, 2009 at 6:47 AM

At least they’re more willing to serve the people than some random Third World country.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 7:50 AM

Both Rush and Hannity went to great lengths to prop up Jindal’s poor speech. Methinks they both protest too much. Thats the major giveaway it was a terrible speech. But since Pillboy already admits he carries water for the gop, I expect nothing less. I do love me some gop civil war. With the Rush Wing of the gop its either your with them or against them. The Rush Wing won’t win national elections, so get used to the wilderness.

Hilarious ignorance on full display. Idiot.

Jockolantern on February 26, 2009 at 7:52 AM

Rush is RIGHT!

ALL you losers who want our guys to fly on magic carpets in the age of messiah Obama can go start your own party pick your own magical candidates and see how far you get.

I want SUBSTANCE.

When people(who still have brain cells that work) are sick to their stomachs from the sugar coated bull-sh!t, and realize style is nice but it gets you NOWHERE, they will vote conservative.

Mercy4Me on February 26, 2009 at 7:53 AM

Why is it always either/or? Rush is both right and wrong, or rather: he exaggerates.

Jindal is very young, he is brilliant, we need him. But of course being a good communicator matters. It shouldn´t matter to us personally, but it matters to the vast number of idiots people and we need to acknowledge that. Rush´s heart and mind are in the right place. Jindal can do it. But let´s not pretend there isn´t room for improvement there.

el gordo on February 26, 2009 at 7:57 AM

Tell ‘em, Rush!

Gina on February 26, 2009 at 7:58 AM

Whining about the style of conservative speeches undercuts the ability to criticize someone like Obama who can merely give good speeches.

You can’t really complain about liberals ignoring the substance when they can point to conservatives ignoring it as well.

But hey, it gets blog traffic right?

aikidoka on February 26, 2009 at 8:03 AM

athensboy on February 26, 2009 at 7:13 AM

+1

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 8:06 AM

Rush, as usual is RIGHT! Allah, suprisingly, is partialy correct too, for once… (rofl)!

Rush is right because we no longer need a Liar-In-Chief, a GQ President, a Anti-American Socialist as PotUS… We need a real, honest, moral, values driven Conservative that walks the walk, that has CUT TAXES six times, has reduced Government spending by BILLIONS in his State. Has a budget SURPLUS and has expertly managed a real Government. Jindal is NOT perfect… As Allah correctly said, (still can’t believe I agree with Allah), Jindal did not deliver his message well at all, although I do fall into the group that believes message and honesty and values are so much more important to Americans then style and lies and cult worship.

Jindal was great on his follow-ups, both on TV and Radio with Hannity yesterday… Great points, solid positions and moral clarity… He articulated real Conservatisam just fine. So Jindal’s mulligan was terrific, he hits home the Conservative message with passion, as does Rush…

I hope Allah and others here will see the real danger is in us, as RINO’s, Moderates, Centerists, Conservatives eating and damaging our own brand with chatter about style over substance… If stlye wins out within our ranks, we are doomed…

The message is key, the message is key, the message is key, the message is key, the message is key… We better all, yes you Allah and David Brookes and others here at HA, start repeating that montra… The message is key!

Mark Garnett on February 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM

Here’s an idea that I’m sure has already been suggsted in the first 6 pages, so I’ll (surely) say it again…just in case I suppose…

why wait? Start your 3rd party now and leave conservatism to the real conservatives. I hear McCain will be available in 2012.

OwlorNothing on February 26, 2009 at 8:38 AM

I’m just happy it still stings when it feels like Rush is calling you out Allah. The day it stops stinging… ah well, let’s just hope it doesn’t.

Immolate on February 26, 2009 at 8:43 AM

BTW HA, I love the ad at the top of the page telling us how to recieve TWO bail out checks! awesome.

I can only hope it leads to a page telling people that clicked on it that they are idiots…….

OwlorNothing on February 26, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Sounds like Ace and I are now Republican personas non grata.

I don’t know about Ace, but you AP have never been a Republican in definition spouted by any talking head.

You are a lib and it is about time you admitted it to all.

TwinkietheKid on February 26, 2009 at 8:54 AM

The substance of the speech was fine but Bobby Jindal came across like a freshman dork.

Hilts on February 26, 2009 at 8:58 AM

I think people are going way too overboard on dissing Jindal’s performance. The Left and their MSM enablers were going to rip on it no matter how polished he was. I mean, you’ve got Chris Matthews going off on the “antebellum” background (code for: historical link to slavery.). Obama delivered his speech from the truly impressive and awe-inspiring House of congress. Jindal delivered his from what looked like the atrium of the state house. Obama’s speech was greeted with the equivalent of an “applause track” from the heavily Democrat audience. Jindal delivered his speech to an empty house, save for the cameras.

Dagnar on February 26, 2009 at 9:08 AM

And as if you needed any more evidence of how in the tank the MSM is for Obama:

“All the news that’s fit to print”

Dagnar on February 26, 2009 at 9:15 AM

OT:

Allah, this is *not* a snide remark, I mean it with sincere interest…

The saying is that there are no atheists in foxholes. Is Rush right in saying that if your plane were going down, you would pray to “God”? Is atheism an intellectual choice which must overcome any (socially induced?) inclination to turn to a “higher power”, which would seem to break down in an emergency as the intellect loses focus/will during that time? Or, is atheism more a direct, visceral “knowledge” that there is “nothing” beyond our observable universe?

Thanks for any clarification.

Geministorm on February 26, 2009 at 9:24 AM

Well, the problem is everyone is comparing Jindal to Obama…not substantively, but by “the way” he speaks….Even here on Hot Air… The thing is substance is always better than style when people care about what is going on…

Also, this was a rebuttal to idiocy. Those rebuttal deals are always stupid sounding, no matter what anyone says, because, the President takes 12 hours to stand up and “preach” his policy, then Jindal takes 10 minutes to be the guy who has to show Obama respect, and make people like him, and buy into the ideology that he’s selling – not an easy task, and I always laughed when someone would respond after Bush’s speech because it sounded so dumb, however…

the substance of Jindal’s remarks were brilliant and well spoken…give him a pulpit, or a captive audience, and I bet he dazzles – but every blogger, and newsperson that has went after Obama b/c he’s all style and no substance, seems to be GOING AFTER JINDAL FOR THE EXACT OPPOSITE – “HE’S ALL SUBSTANCE AND NO STYLE” – PUHLEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAASSSSSSEEEE!!!

charlie36r on February 26, 2009 at 9:30 AM

At least they’re more willing to serve the people than some random Third World country.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 7:50 AM

No, liberals aren’t interested in serving the people–they’re only interested in serving themselves.

You might want nanny government to change your diapers, burp you, and tuck you in at night, but I don’t. I’ll be free and independent–thank you very much.

Matt Helm on February 26, 2009 at 9:44 AM

I agree that Jindal’s delivery was poor. But his message was just fine.

I think (and trying to read the Great One’s mind is always tricky) that Rush is trying to prevent the early caricaturization of Jindal. Palin (who had a GREAT first public outing, btw) was quickly tossed into a template by the media: good speechmaker/complete idiot. I’m sure they’ll try to pin Jindal into a narrow negative stereotype as well. Why should we let that happen? So he gave a bad response, style-wise. So did Tim Kaine, but it hasn’t hurt his star in the Democrat party at all. That’s because Dems are willing to overlook the funky eyebrow in the interest of advancing their party’s goals.

For whatever reason, many in the GOP think that their candidates must be perfect. But that’s never going to happen. Instead, we need to pick a candidate (doesn’t REALLY matter who) and support them wholeheartedly. That’s how the empty leftist suit made it to the White House. That’s how Bush won his 2nd term, despite some misgivings. That’s how the Ronaldus Magnus got elected, despite the “he’s a senile old actor” sterotype.

Ignore the warts – support your party.

hawksruleva on February 26, 2009 at 9:45 AM

I agree with Rush on this one!

The country did the American Idol Candidate thing last year and that ain’t workin’ out so well. When I look for leadership in government, I don’t want a smooth talking used car salesman. I want a person with a brain between their ears and the ability to recognize BS when it is being spoon served.

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Ask an atheist or an agnostic to affirm something, and they sudden;y start sounding strangely religious, unless they are utter nihilists. I’ve never met an absolute nihilist.

“Nihilists! F**k me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

That said, I think Rush jumped the gun on this, but I understand why. Screwing up a speech is no big thing, it happens. But to shy away from Jindal because of it is to give up WAY early on very good contender for 2012. THAT is what Rush is railing on, people that want to parachute out of the Jindal plane at the first instance of turbulence. Rush just went overboard in saying it. That being said, some of the atheists on this site dislike Jindal for his “intelligent design” support. As an agnostic, I’m not overly thrilled with it, but it is a small issue in the grand political scheme as neither side can prove or disprove God, and I’m also not too thrilled with the topic of evolution being co-opted into a vehicle for the advance of atheism as if they were one and the same. People like that guy on Little Green Footballs really dislike Jindal, and if you read that site, he seems to takes every chance to “pleasure” himself to articles slamming Jindal.

Saltyron on February 26, 2009 at 10:09 AM

I have to agree with you. I’m a dittohead but I was kind of surprised that Rush said that yesterday. Although i do feel he just felt bad for Jindal and he figured the attack from the left was bad enough. But i think it’s ok for us to criticize Bobby for a pretty bad performance. His stuff was good but the presentation killed it. He’s a good speaker…he spoke at my graduation but he didn’t use telepromter. He used a few notes but mostly just went off his head. But for Rush to say that is kind of making him sound like there’s no positive criticism. Which is just wrong!

youngO on February 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Matt Helm on February 26, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Very well stated! Personal Responsibility is not part of the Liberal ideology. I want to have as much control over my destiny as possible; same wish would apply for my sons and daughter. I believe in good work ethic, and a way of life that allows my spirit to live free of guilt and remorse as best as possible. Guilt and remorse are emotions that are a direct result of one’s own actions. No matter what any human says about me, at the end of the day, I’m the one who takes my own personal inventory. Did I give my job a good effort? Did I travel through the day without bringing harm to another human? Was I the best husband & father I could be today? Was I honest and trustworthy today?

I fall down regularly, get up and clean up my mistakes, and go at it once again with the same motives in mind. No matter what the government says or does, I can always try to be the best husband & father as possible; one day at a time. The last thing I want in my life is to have government dictate my motives for me!

Sethstorm consistently comes here and makes lame excuses for really bad behavior. Liberals don’t seem to care about managing their own, and holding them to the same standards they demand of Republican politicians; Republicans in general. Damn shame, as we all should hold our own accountable for their behavior; good or bad.

Keemo on February 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Limbaugh is right in the sense that what you say is more important than how you say it. We are temporarily in a situation where people buy style over substance. Once unemployment breaks ten percent, reality will slap them in the face.

Vashta.Nerada on February 26, 2009 at 10:17 AM

While I may not agree with Rush’s style in this instance I think he’s right.

It now appears that many/some Republicans are just as shallow and vapid as the Democrats. They see how far the Democrats got on empty promises given glibly and have decided that is the way the GOP should go. Who cares if people abandon any basic principles as long as the speaker does it slickly and with style.

The anti-Palin people here at HA fault her supporters for falling for her charisma but then they turn around and criticize Jindal because he doesn’t have the razzamatazz Obama does. People need to make up their minds.

katiejane on February 26, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Consider me one of the first out of the gate to provide critical commentary of Jindal’s rebuttal. I did not think it went well and I stated my reasons for my assessment.

But now I think Rush is right. Too much time and effort has been spent on trying to brand Jindal as a ‘loser’.

Jindal is talented and will have better days. Perhaps he was overhandled and received poor advice, perhaps he had a sore throat or perhaps he just didn’t have it on ‘rebuttal’ night.

Folks, Tiger Woods has had bad rounds of golf. Does anybody out there really believe that one bad round of golf defines Tiger Woods? Neither should one subpar performance define Bobby Jindal.

Get over it and let’s focus our attention in removing the Messiah from the office and stopping his socialist agenda from being implemented.

And Jindal and you Republicans please stop with this ‘redemptive journey’ nonsense. We must resolve to bury white guilt forever.

technopeasant on February 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM

don’t hate the player, hate the game?

seaniep on February 26, 2009 at 10:28 AM

I did not hear Rush, but from what is written above his point is made very clearly.

“if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well”

Do conservatives disagree with what Jindal said, or were they just disappointed in his delivery?

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Jindal is still one of the brightest conservative leaders on the scene these days. And, stands alone when it comes to walking the walk in a state with an incredible political history.

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Rush is 100% correct as usual. The form over substance types are idiots. That’s what Democrats do. Conservatives hate phonies and wouldn’t tolerate a phony candidate which is mandatory on the Dem side. Let me repeat…so called conservatives who mocked Jindal are idiots. He represents the best hope to save this nation from the socialist tyrants in Washington. If some on our side are helping to bring down our brightest rising star, then go ahead and form your own party and go help the Dems take down the country. The Dems wouldn’t take you…they’re not dumb enough to criticize their own.

orlandocajun on February 26, 2009 at 6:48 AM

Right on brother/sister!

If we the GOP can’t get beyond this style over substance BS, we’re screwed forevermore. The DEMS sure got style over substance and we’re ALL paying for it. SUBSTANCE is our only hope.

Oink on February 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM

At least they’re more willing to serve the people than some random Third World country.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 7:50 AM

For all the “talk”, and that’s ALL it is” about the Liberals caring for the poor and the War on Poverty, it is a total Gobmit’ failure…

Welfare = FAILURE = Destruction of black families

Abortion = FAILURE = Black genocide at the hands of Liberals

Pop-Culture = FAILURE = Blacks as gangsters, disrespecting women, America, faith in God and poor role models

Billions spent on “housing” of blacks and poor = FAILURE = Gettos, slums, crime, gangs, poverty

Now exactly when would you like to talk about what Conservative policies could do for minorites and the poor in America? Maybe you could try it our way…

Mark Garnett on February 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I have the utmost respect for AP’s keen insight,blogging skills, but the intellectual pride is spilling over, just a bit. AP, come on man, this post of yours was just whiny and pouty. Get over yourself.

Schweggie on February 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Ahem.

His Rushness not correct.

Pay attention, folks. The Conservative movement just had its CLOCK cleaned by ’style’ over ’substance’.

Stick to substance only, and conservatives will LOSE.

In American Politics today, like it, hate it, or simply numb to it, the STYLE is a CRITICAL ingredient in the mix – because, guess what? The voting public either doesn’t give a red rat’s ass about substance, doesn’t understand the substance, or is completely unaware there is supposed to be a ‘there’ there.

Conservatives need a standard bearer that can not only recite the platform talking points, by rote, in his sleep, but can actually SELL! SELL! SELLLLLLL! the message!

And when this mythical unicorn of a conservative creature appears, they MUST be supported by an effectual, efficient, buffoonishness-free support and campaign staff as possible.

THAT is how conservatives are going to win. And it’s a formula that will work for offices at ALL levels of government.

Not by sitting around and crying about other conservatives noticing that the ‘party all-stars’ ain’t quite all that and a bag o’ chips, too.

Which, while he is an amazing and talented individual, doing some fantastic work in LA, kinda sums up a lot of folks impression of Jindal.

Oh, and pay attention to that word “impression”. It matters. More than the most sterlingly clear, concise, and easy to understand bullet point talking paper on issue X.

Cry and throw a tantrum if you must. But then burp, and get the hell over it.

Hey, I don’t make the rules, I just point out what seems pretty frakkin obvious.

Wind Rider on February 26, 2009 at 10:38 AM

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 10:30 AM

For me it was ‘the SOTU was a ‘completion of a redemptive journey’ that put the GOP Jindal on the defensive from the get-go, then it was his lackluster address and quick speaking mannerisms (may have had a sore throat)that just didn’t register. Then it was going back and talking about Katrina which just rehashes how Bush took the heat for supposedly not caring enough about the plight of the citizens of New Orleans and finally for me he just didn’t give the average conservative any red meat and attack Obama and his agenda. From a football point of view he came out flat and didn’t improve his performance all that much as he progressed throughout his rebuttal.

Hope that helps you to understand.

Having said that Jindal will survive and have better days. He should not be branded, as Sarah Palin should not be branded, for one subpar performance.

technopeasant on February 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Random thought. I’m wondering if, in a way, Ronald Reagan didn’t subtly damage the conservative movement by setting the bar so high -

And by that, I mean that Reagan was SUCH an effective communicator, he COULD SELL the message; and usually with such ease, grace, and style, that a heck of a lot of folks mistakenly got the idea that the job was a piece of cake.

You might want to check with the Bush family on that point. They probably have some different thoughts on the matter.

Wind Rider on February 26, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Hmmm… it seems evident to me (and blaringly obvious) that the more people DON’T listen to the wise words of Rush, the worse the Republican party fares. Not saying Rush is a be-all-and-end-all political god; he just happens to consistently make clear sense.

But you nay-sayers just keep on moving moderate. That’s really working out well for the GOP.

ErinF on February 26, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Being an ex-salesman I know how important COMMUNICATING THE MESSAGE is. Sure you may represent a fine product but if the potential buyer does not know of its attributes and how it can make their life better or make them happier he or she will usually pass it up because ‘they are not sold’.In sales there is a saying: logic makes sense but emotion makes dollars and cents.

My criticism of Jindal was based on this premise. He just didn’t connect on rebuttal night. I’m sorry. I wish it were different.

No, we shouid not aspire to mediocrity when searching for a leader. We should aspire to greatness.

Remember where Winston Churchill was after Munich Conference when France and Britain handed Hitler the Sudetenland and gave him an open invitation to take Czechoslovakia: in the wilderness on the back benches predicting a war was inenvitable. Few believed him at the time. Eventually he became PM of Britain and rallied the British people to beat back Hitler during the Battle of Britain.

In Jindal or Sarah Palin we may have our Reagan or Churchill. Let’s not give up on them!

technopeasant on February 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Oh, Please. I was totally annoyed at the reaction to Jindal’s speech. Finally someone articulating what we need to hear and too many people took it as a challenge as to who could pile on the most abuse. I did notice that Jindal was on TV everywhere yesterday and problably will be today also. The guy is bright, quick on his feet, and has lots of facts and figures at his command. He’s a take charge kind of guy and actually accomplishes things. He has a record of accomplishment. None of this can be said about Obama. As Rush says, Obama says nothing better than anyone else. Bobby Jindal is a dynamo and does not deserve your distain. Good grief, people, get a life. There are more important things to do right now than to rag on Bobby Jindal.

BetseyRoss on February 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM

El Rushbo, FTW, DownerPundit.

That whole third party thing was a good joke though.

I can see your campaign slogan now:

“VOTE BETA PARTY!!! Unless, you think we’re wrong, which we probably are. Sorry to waste your time. Please don’t hurt us.”

SuperCool on February 26, 2009 at 10:56 AM

The Conservative movement just had its CLOCK cleaned by ’style’ over ’substance’.

Ahem… style will do little to clean up the aftermath of the obama-imposed fiscal depression coming our way, nor the oncoming terrorists attacks yet to come.

Our gold-plated-turd of a president won’t be able to make a single solitary move after such disasters without consulting with his 300 advisors and popular opinion polls.

Style is going to be the death of us.

ErinF on February 26, 2009 at 10:57 AM

I’ve seen Jindal when he was spot on with his delivery. It is in the guy to sell his message. I like the man’s character and brilliance in confronting real problems with real answers.

The past two years put us into a perpetual campaign that is still going on right now and it is not demonstrating true leadership in the least.

You can keep the smooth talker that has never run anything in his life and voted present to avoid controversy. Give me substance and a track record.

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM

AP is right, it’s not that big of a deal. Jindal missed a chance, but he’ll learn, improve, and recover. Limbaugh was wrong to pose a false dichotomy, but the negative reaction to Jindal’s style was overdone. Then there are jokers like David Brooks, whom I no longer can comprehend as in any way principled with whatever he thinks of when he refers to himself as conservative.

It’s an open question to me whether Obama’s style will be enough for the left to reshape the country in its image. It may be that when the devastation becomes too great the predominantly center-right population will actually become aware they’re being lied to by the established press.

wordsson on February 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I hope Allah and others here will see the real danger is in us, as RINO’s, Moderates, Centerists, Conservatives eating and damaging our own brand with chatter about style over substance… If stlye wins out within our ranks, we are doomed…

The message is key, the message is key, the message is key, the message is key, the message is key… We better all, yes you Allah and David Brookes and others here at HA, start repeating that montra… The message is key!

Mark Garnett on February 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM

The message is very important, but the packaging matters too. Republicans always seem to overestimate the electorate, while Democrats always overestimate themselves. Swing voters are not clamoring to join the Heritage Foundation and listen to dry lectures, no matter how correct and important the material is. Consider that in the last election, the swing voters – and a sizable number of registered Republicans to boot – cited the mortgage crisis as their top concern, but were persuaded to vote for the people who caused it, and even elevated one of the exact individuals responsible to the presidency. They said they were most deeply concerned about the economy, but then voted for a candidate who promised to shower them with free stuff, assured them they didn’t need to worry their pretty little heads about how it would be paid for, and croaked out a Marxist dialectic when a working stiff asked him a simple question in a random encounter. They were simultaneously persuaded to give the presidency to a man whose resume would fit on a cocktail napkin, and sneer at the lack of qualifications the vastly more experienced governor of Alaska brought to the vice-presidency. They were not argued into any of these positions by sweet reason, or carefully thought-out, sensible plans.

I would add one more qualification that we should look for in any aspirant to the Republican nomination: they have to remain conservative after they get to Washington. It won’t do the country much good if they advance a solid conservative message, get elected with their charisma, and then use their time in office to slow the growth of Obama’s payoffs to ACORN by two percent. I personally find the fiery populist types to be the ones most likely to “go native” when they arrive in the swamps of D.C. I think we need someone with serious experience at governing, someone who’s been able to walk the walk, as well as talk the talk.

Doctor Zero on February 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Mark Garnett on February 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Your only argument is a racial issue with respect to one particular minority? The Third World isn’t just Africa. It’s also Asia, home to many offshoring efforts to evade prevailing First World wages and protections.

The only thing that’s happened here is that business regressed back to 19th century Taylorism. The only real difference is that it’s just scaled to a world level versus a national level. Try reading from more modern sociological beliefs than ones older than FDR’s time.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Allah missed Rush’s point …

What Rush is saying is that style shouldn’t take precedent over substance – and it shouldn’t. Men should also look at the inner-beauty of fat women, but most don’t. Yet, very often you can have a happier marriage when you place less a premium on looks of the woman and more on her character and personality.

Good luck telling that to most men though.

I’m critical of Jindal’s delivery – it’s something he needs to work on if he wants to win over the “shallow” voters of America – which MOST are. However, even if Bobby Jindal doesn’t improve his speaking abilities – I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with him and charge the gates of hell with a water pistol for him – because I personally value his substance more than his style.

Ronald Reagan had substance and style – the “Great Communicator” – he was the ideal. Not everyone can be the ideal – but with three years until the next election – Jindal has time to work on the style side, as far as I’m concerned – he’s mastered substance.

Rush’s point was that if you’re a Conservative that values style over substance – then you can get bent.

I don’t think that includes the vast majority of us here loitering in HotAir.

HondaV65 on February 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Nope, I have worked with, employeed and been friends with more minorites then you have even met. I look at what is on the inside, the moral compass, the values, the way they treat their children, their wives / husbands, their pride in America, whether or not the hyphonate (African-American) or are they just an American…

I look at Liberal social policies and I see FAILURE after FAILURE all with the best of intent, I am sure, but FAILURES non the less… Please argue that welfare did NOT ruin the traditional black family… Even most blacks say it did… Promoted by guilty white Liberals…

Mark Garnett on February 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM

If the GOP had in fact listened to Rush, they would be much better off.

Rush told the GOP to much more fiscally conservative. They didn’t listen.
Rush told the GOP to nominate anyone but John McCain . They didn’t listen.
etc, etc.

In the end, we lost the house, senate and the presidency.

Seems to be that the people we should kick off the cliff is the RINOS (who has been incorrect about everything, including election strategy) and listen more to Rush.

Norwegian on February 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Norwegian on February 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

And less to Allah, Brookes and other moderates…

Mark Garnett on February 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM

The only thing that’s happened here is that business regressed back to 19th century Taylorism. The only real difference is that it’s just scaled to a world level versus a national level. Try reading from more modern sociological beliefs than ones older than FDR’s time.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

The blacks had a lower divorce rate, lower single family home, lower crime rate, higher value of education, basically a more stable family and social structure then “white America”…that was before the “great society”.
Look at the stats since the “great society”, look what the liberals have done…paid for out of wedlock children, lowered demands in school, provided worse schools in the black communities…since the dems got involved with black society, it has been a downward spiral…and they know any “uptick” means less votes, so they keep the blacks on the government plantation.
Remember, the birth of the KKK was the dems, and it was kept active by the dems…the dems fought tooth and nail against any removal of discrimination laws, until they could supplant them with their own “laws”, laws that created the black society you see now…

right2bright on February 26, 2009 at 11:50 AM

In essence, many of you are suggesting that the RNC hire an excellent actor, provide him/her with a script and turn them loose on the public. We’ve come a long way….. not sure in which direction though.

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Mark Garnett on February 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Short of you working for a certain Atlanta based conglomerate- I’d disagree on the first point.

As for the second part, I’m trying to hint that you can co-opt certain “Liberal” policies by adopting the better parts of them in a business.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 11:57 AM

For anyone interested in actual Libertarian thoughts, versus what we get here at Hot Air, check out cato.org.

I’ve been interested in the Libertarian mindset but the more vocal self-proclaimed Libertarians, or people I assume are Libertarians, turn me off. Allahpundit being numero uno in that.

If you want substance over style, don’t look for it here at HotAir.

It wasn’t always this way, but has changed. And remember, AP owns this site (by his own admission in another thread). So if you come here looking for a more visual presentation of MichelleMalkin.com, you won’t find it. <– this was my mistake.

I crave substance and thoughtful action. Not snarky, fence-sitting punditry.

I atrophied myself by relying on HA.com for a bit too long. Time to stretch the limbs and grow.

Montana on February 26, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Re-read it. Rush quotes an anonymous (not verified) “source” from the Huckabee campaign who …, well, that Rush said criticized him.
apacalyps on February 26, 2009 at 3:45 AM

Guess you missed this part.

RUSH: That was November the 8th on this program. Mr. Rollins, who’s now the campaign chieftain for Mike Huckabee, is saying that I am part of the New York or Wall Street-DC axis, the media elite axis, that didn’t see any of this coming.

What Rush is saying is that this was a Clintonian move: Get someone in your campaign to attack and then deny that you did it.
Anyway, I don’t think Huckabee is ever going to be a viable Presidential candidate in the future. He’s a nice guy, a good man, but he is not a true conservative.
So let it go.

Christian Conservative on February 26, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Rush is right. Nothing Jindal said was wrong. If all the GOP stuck to his message we’d be way better off.

Allah P’s welcome to take off as far as I’m concerned. The smart and snarky libertarian atheist Party can hold their convention at the nearest IHOP.

Who’ll miss ‘em.

rcl on February 26, 2009 at 12:13 PM

The message is very important, but the packaging matters too.

Doctor Zero on February 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Agreed, but as others have stated, it’s better to start with substance and then add style. Timing being critical. You have X time to grab your audiences attention.

We must also take back education–this being a longer term task. Instead of playing to the lowest common denominator (on display in AP’s post here), we need to start raising the bar.

Montana on February 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Style doesn’t matter to me!
I am sick of slick speechifiers.
I want SUBSTANCE. I want some MEAT in a response. I want it short, sweet , & to the POINT.
I never trusted Clinton & I don’t trust Obama.
I trusted Reagan bcs of his deeds. And yes, it’s nice to watch a good speechifier!
Bush was not one & I hated watching his speeches-but the guy did some stuff right (not enough for me to have voted for him again if there’d been a chance).
So a slick & packaged TV star personality is a no win for me unless they’ve got some substance.
I do not need to be flipping romanced about politics.
I want some bald faced honesty for once from SOMEONE.

Badger40 on February 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM

We must also take back education–this being a longer term task. Instead of playing to the lowest common denominator (on display in AP’s post here), we need to start raising the bar.

Montana on February 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM

I agree. And you know, when I do that in my HS, the parents HOWL bcs little Billy isn’t maintaining his easy 4.0 anymore bcs I actually challenged him & he didn’t (GASP) get an A on everything in my class.
The horror of it!

Badger40 on February 26, 2009 at 12:33 PM

I agree. And you know, when I do that in my HS, the parents HOWL bcs little Billy isn’t maintaining his easy 4.0 anymore bcs I actually challenged him & he didn’t (GASP) get an A on everything in my class.
The horror of it!

Badger40 on February 26, 2009 at 12:33 PM

My sincere condolences–and my thanks for your efforts. YOU are what we need. My parents (and extended family) were all teachers and professors. They experienced the same and have since retired.

I experience it in my personal life. Certainly you can’t get into in-depth socio-political discussions ALL the time! But at least once a week? Even that is too much. People prefer snark because they were raised on it. The purveyors of snark have a puffed up opinion of their self-worth as a result.

Montana on February 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM

The folks who agree with Rush and are saying that substance is more important than style are missing one obvious point:

Sarah Palin.

Oh, sure – she was a hard-right conservative, so she had the substance that you want. But she also had the style to appeal to a wider audience than the hard-core rightwing. And that’s the point.

Why was Sarah Palin chosen for the VP slot? They could have found other people with equivalent substance. They chose her for her style.

If you get someone who just has the substance without the style, you will lose. So many of you complain that Obama is all style and no substance. Okay, if you believe that fine… but who won in November?

People had Jindal pegged as a rising star because it was believed that he had both conservative substance and mainstream style. This week he showed that his style is severely lacking. Thus, it is right to question whether he is a GOP standard-bearer.

That’s not to say that his career is over; a person can come back from a relatively minor stumble. But for Rush to claim that this wasnt even a stumble – that any Republican who finds fault with Jindal’s performance should be shunned – shows a bubble mentality that will not help the GOP win national elections.

orange on February 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I really don’t think Jindal was that bad.
Obama is consistently WAY worse.
Is it bcs he’s biracial we overlook this?!!!!!

Badger40 on February 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Try reading from more modern sociological beliefs than ones older than FDR’s time.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Why “trust” literature regurgitated from whole cloth propaganda spun from the New Deal of FDR Socialism MORE THAN respect the literature that withstood critical scrutiny from opponents PRIOR to FDR’s presidency?

A scholar reads it all and researches the documentation to find where self interests influence the messaging.

maverick muse on February 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Orange:

I don’t believe people disregard style. It IS important–and you make that case very well. We’d do well to pay attention.

What angers us is people ignorning substance or relegating it to so small a part that it is invisible. Substance matters once in office, style gets you elected (sadly).

People who value style so much that they become incapable of grasping even a small amount of substance.

The MTV generation, if you will.

In this thread, people realize they are betrayed by the very web site they hoped could deliver the substance (with a side dish of criticism, yes, but not a constant all-you-can-eat buffet of it that crowds out the substance).

Montana on February 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM

orange on February 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I listened. The context was simply, stop eating our own.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Sociology only began as a “study” along with the Progressive Party and Socialist Party.

To avoid historical records prior to a given date in order to validate one’s limited opinion is hardly intelligent.

maverick muse on February 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM

It is a no-brainer that substance must triumph over style, but if the messenger can’t sell the message of substance because people are distracted by mis-steps in style points, then, well, you know.

I think it is being overplayed, though, from both sides. Any publicity is good publicity, so even this mis-step can be turned to his favor through improvements in style.

It’s a little too early for broad dismissals in this regard.

However, to not take note of mis-steps in delivery and then improve on them seems a bit careless to me.

Otis B on February 26, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Obama without a teleprompter and a script is a child lost in a sea of uh’s, ah’s, err’s, duh’s and more uh’s. Only Robert Gibbs can out shine him in the uh department.

Jindal did alright. The presentation did come off a little amatureish, but the sincerity was there and the message was strong.

Now, I am a Palin fan as well, because she too actually has a record of accomplishments and she is some kind of fun to watch in a debate or deliver a prepared speech!

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Forgive my ignorance but those who are criticizing Jindal for his stylistic failure seem to be the same ones who criticized Palin for her lack of substance.

So who in the Republican Party has the necessary combination?

katiejane on February 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM

One thing for sure can be learned from this episode. In the future no one should stand alone in a room with one camera and give a rebuttal to such a glorified love fest.

Set it up in front of an audience and let it rip!

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM

“So who in the Republican Party has the necessary combination?”

Mild mannered reporter, Clark Kent! lol

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM

katiejane on February 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Ah, now you’re getting close to speaking my language!

Hmm, Jindal/Palin 2012, Palin/Jindal 2012…

Otis B on February 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Drop the tacky attack of an intelligent and diligent conservative politician. Governor Jindal deserves your respect, not your derision.

Any “pointers” regarding style can be privately directed to the intended person to consider or ignore without making a public display of derisive criticism at the expense of said person. And don’t beat your chest with the sanctimonious “all done with good intent” liberal mantra that placates cruelty. Study your own bad style of packaged presentation.

Quit promoting self defeating behavior. It is not only irresponsible, but prevents success. The ultimate goal is to preserve the Constitution, so quit defacing our good politicians with graffiti because you care.

Self-preservation motivates a certain type of people to cannibalism.

Conservatives are NOT cannibals.

maverick muse on February 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM

As a conservative it is very disheartening to see other conservatives piling on along with the libs. Seriously, it’s as if you want to get your licks in before the libs. It’s sickening and it makes me feel pretty pessimistic for the future of conservatism.

I have seen many clips of Bobby Jindal, and in every one he was poised, confident (I’ll leave the quasi-racist “articulate” off the list) and expressed the conservative point of view in a firm yet not snarky way. I was really looking forward to seeing him, and yes, I was disappointed that he was so stilted and awkward, but still, the message itself was good. I was disappointed that his first national speech did not go well, but it does not make me want to pile on and write him off. And it’s very disheartening that so many self proclaimed conservatives do. When I see stuff like this, I think some conservatives just prefer to be in the minority and whine.

Queen0fCups on February 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM

athensboy on February 26, 2009 at 7:13 AM
Att: athensboy, Obviously you are in love with Obamma. Talk about “wilderness”. Not a clue. Complete ignorance of economics. Marketing 101 states that when advertising a product to the masses, assume 90% are Morons. Ah..perfect example of that percentage.

whsiii on February 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Somedays it’s like I’m living amongst pod people in a real life “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”

Rush keeps me sane in this new world of insanity.

redridinghood on February 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Rush has a point and it is a good one. The flyover part of the country relates to people like Palin and Jindal..honest, hardworking, trustworthy, everyday people. This is the era of liberal elitists unless you are in with the “cocktail crowd” you are nothing, worthless and stupid.

Quite frankly people in middle American are getting tired of the “uppity ways” of the liberal media and east/west coast liberal crap. I am one of them. I wouldn’t be opposed if the US wanted to secede from California.

Sorry Conservative Californians… but we’ll take ya! Lower taxes here!! hee hee

kthomas8268 on February 26, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Allah did you see this photo? I was looking at the photos on flickr because Van Morrison was Imus’s guest this morning and this one was of a guy holding a sign outside of Imus’s studio the sign asking people to help stop Rush Limbaugh with a phone number.

Kind of funny.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcow/3238499753/in/photostream/

If you listen to the Begala interview this week on IITM, Imus was defending Rush so I doubt he was aware this was going on outside his studio.

http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/02/van-morisson-imus-guest-thursday-26.html

Dr Evil on February 26, 2009 at 1:56 PM

This is what I was looking for, I was just browsing flickr interesting there was a guy outside holding up his vintage original vinyl of Van Morrison’s “Astral Weeks” from 1968. I know because Imus was trying to buy it from him, and the guy refused. So I guess they took a photo of the guy above link outside because of the Stop Rush Sign?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcow/3310956995/in/photostream/

Dr Evil on February 26, 2009 at 1:59 PM

It’s not about having to choose about Style vs. Substance. We need both in order to win elections. To say we’ll “tire of Obama’s empty style” and automatically elect someone “boring” in 2012 is so wrongheaded. If you believe that, you don’t know the American Electorate and we’ll be in the wilderness for decades to come.

Jindal has lots of substance, but is severely lacking in style. That can be remedied, but he probably won’t be ready until 2016 or 2020. Although he will never be really charismatic.

Palin has lots of style & charisma, and I would say a great deal of substance as well. Whatever she is lacking she can easily pick up in a few years time.

Charisma is a lot harder to “learn” than substance.

Norwegian on February 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM

This has gotten blown far out of proportion! Jindal was a good man before the speech and he is a good man today. This American Idol mentality needs to be put in check.

joedoe on February 26, 2009 at 2:29 PM

No, but it’s a lot more likely to see his replacement not want to go against its constiutents a la Jindal.

sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 6:25 AM

So you admit that Obama is a liar. So, why did you vote for him?

Johan Klaus on February 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Point 1) Atheism and conservatism:Face it Allah, you’re a minority among a minority.

Even you must have enjoyed this part:

I think when Obama prays, it’s to himself.

shick on February 26, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Agree with all who say that Allah has chosen style over substance.

It’s all the rage now.

Priscilla on February 26, 2009 at 3:08 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with Rush on this one. Just as I said yesterday, it makes no sense to be so critical of Jindal only on the basis of style. Everything he said was right on the money. If we want to elect leaders based on oratory skills, we’ll end up with Hitlers and Obamas.

Sign of the Dollar on February 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Point 1) Atheism and conservatism:Face it Allah, you’re a minority among a minority.

Even you must have enjoyed this part:

I think when Obama prays, it’s to himself.

shick on February 26, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Make no jokes about Allah. His caucus will attack you.

Johan Klaus on February 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8


You must be logged in to post a comment.