Wednesday, February 25, 2009

"Teleprompter" Jindal EPIC FAIL.

The previous installment dismissed the Republican response to the President's speech to Congress of last night as forgotten almost as soon as it was delivered.

That's the problem with swingin' for the fences; when you miss, the whiff of that bat through the air is nothing short of amazing. By all accounts, Governor Teleprompter wasn't just uninspired, he dropped a big, wet, steaming one, and was the most amazing misstep since Gov. Palin's "In what way, Charlie?". This was tone-deafness for the record books.

Of course, you'll expect us liberals to mock him (indeed, it's part of ROR's mission statement), especially when they found the best that they had was one of thier 1994 speeches to source from. But even the conservatives, the ones who've hailed him as the next Ronald Reagan, the new telegenic technocratic smart young up-and-coming and not-so-white face of the 21st Century Republicans, are pulling sour faces at this one.

I mean, et tu, David Brooks?

Kenneth from 30 Rock? Seriously?

I did see the thing (not surprisingly, it's somewhat hard to find even on YouTube). It was cringeworthy. From that bizarre cockeyed grin he had when he walked to the podium to the mawkish appeal to history to the corn-fried personal story awkardly linked to Republican versions of American values to the same tired appeals to fiscal conservatism we don't believe anymore, it was strike one, strike two, strike three, and you're out.

If I were talking to Gov Jindal, I'd console him. You see, them Republicans, they're a fickle bunch. Once you go bad, it's under-the-bus time so fast your head'll be swimmin' by the time you come back to half your senses.

The best commentary I was able to find comes from the New Orleans-based blog Your Right Hand Thief (read this first, then this one):
Jindal is getting bludgeoned for his candy-ass response to Obama's speech last night. It's sort of fun seeing Wonder Boy getting criticized so thoroughly from both sides. Honestly, I was surprised to see the reaction this morning. When I watched the end of Jindal's response last night (I couldn't help myself), I didn't think it was a disaster. Sure, he sounded cheesy because of all the "talk slower!" coaching he's received. And sure, Jindal is just naturally geeky. (I don't have a problem with him being a geek, I have a problem with him being a geek who decided to force himself to believe stupid things in order to advance his political career.)
The comments are even better and more biting than the above.

But one point I wanted to make centers on the sentiment, famously expressed by Tbogg, that Jindal's "presidential aspriations blew up tonight like a cheap condom on the end of a fire hose." I think those sentiments premature, at least as far as he's going to have a a chance at the Republican 2012 nom.

Remember when Sarah Palin opened her mouth and started "aww, shucks"-ing and "drill, baby, drill"-ing all over the place and should have been laughed off the national stage, but wasn't.

Bobby "Teleprompter" Jindal face planted last night.

But he'll be back.

You can mark those words.


  1. Once you go bad, it's under-the-bus time so fast your head'll be swimmin' by the time you come back to half your senses.

    Well, not really. In fact, Republicans usually like to nominate someone who has run for president before.

    See Nixon '68, Reagan '76, Bush '80, McCain '00. Dubya was actually an exception to that rule.

    It's Democrats who nominate first-timers, and then send them out on an ice floe to die when they lose.

    See McGovern '72, Dukakis '88, Kerry '04. Even our vice-presidents who lost - Humphrey, Mondale, Gore - mostly disappeared from politics afterwards. (Except Gore, sort of.)

    Which is all a roundabout way of saying, expect the GOP to nominate Huckabee or Romney in 2012. Maybe Palin.

  2. I take your point. The lesson of history is clearly and aptly spelled out by yourself.

    The logic leading you to the conclusion of Huckabee or Romney in 12 is ineluctable actually. I do however find the interminable celebration of brains like Jindal's and Palin's as "The Future" of the Republican party a bit distracting. It's kind of a irresistible lens thorough which to view that party.

    I also note that, as I said before, that Herself Palin, even after she was shown to be a buffoon even by the compliant and softball-thowing Charlie Gibson, she still was held high by her party as The Official Future and a rising star for her party. So, modernly, it seems to take more than buffoonery and faux-pas to knock them from consideration as party elite.

    But then Teleprompter's politically young. He could skip the next cycle in his quest for gravitas and come back in '16.

    Thanks for the extra perspective. I really appreciate it!