cmahanta at charter.net
Wed Feb 25 20:25:30 IST 2009
At 11:52 PM -0600 2/24/09, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>Bobby Jindal is normally a pretty good speaker - but look at what he was up
*** I thought so too. He does present himself well and usually speaks
convincingly on the subject. But my exposure to Jindal is very
cursory. Never saw a full speech or a discussion on the TV circuits
where he was a major participant.
So, I was horrified by his performance last night!
I realize that no matter who or how good a speaker or intellect one
is, to compete with the like of a President Obama last night, is, at
the very least, a tremendously challenging task, as far as the SHOW
part of the task is involved.
But what about the SUBSTANCE part? Could Jindal have not been
expected to do MUCH better than how he did on the substance of the
Republican rebuttal ?
There was a lot of hype from the Republicans on how Jindal wrote his
own speech ( Obama like) and how it was vetted by the leadership
luminaries like Michael Steele ( heh :-)), Mitch McConnell ( new
blood :-)) and who helped him fine tune it ( that ought to have been
a giveaway). What Jindal delivered, was almost sophomoric. I could
not believe how much of it was a poor repeat of what Obama spoke
about minutes earlier. Then there was this incredulous example of his
policeman friend's story about governmental ineptitude and
bureaucratic bungling, compounded by the Bush admin's. horrific
failures in the Katrina response to support the old and tired
conservative arguments against GOVERNMENT ! Who was he thinking he
was speaking to? Where was all that intellectual acuity of the Rhodes
Either his speech was thoroughly stymied and diluted by the veteran
vetters or he/they just did not really have any ideas beyond
repeating the same old tired mantras of tax-cuts and tirades against
big-government. And if the substance was that weak, they needed at
least a stellar orator to deliver it.
I have to give him high marks, however, on not thoroughly
discrediting himself like the Rush Limbaughs of the right by sounding
to be the strident obstructionists and acknowledging why the
Republicans have lost the confidence of the people.
We realize that style alone ought not to be the measure to judge a
speaker by. Jindal was handicapped on style and personal charisma.
But he could have and should have been able to make a difference on
I was watching MSNBC. And guess what? As Jindal was walking in,
someone exclaimed with the mikes on, Oh God! That was very bad on
CNBCs part. But being a visual event, one could not ignore the fact
of his processional being that of an awkward, nerdy, high-school
kid's. That was sad. And to add insult to injury, the Republican
audio-visual team really blew it, when they filmed him in dim light,
against a darkened, haunted-house like background of the Governor's
Mansion, where his dark complexion almost disappeared into the
background. The final straw was that artificial grin at the end of
his spiel, that made him appear like a cartoon character.
No wonder then, those who were hoping to see Jindal as the Republican
Obama, were in for some shock. And for the desis looking for one of
their own in the White House, I guess we will have to wait a little
longer. I can't wait to see what the desi-decoder will have to say
in The Daily Show with John Stewart in Comedy Central :-).
*** I agree that Republicans ought to go ahead and accept Sarah Palin
as their leader. That will be good for the country and would serve
them right :-).
>A charismatic President, who is probably one of the best orators
>(Presidents) the US has had for a long time. Add to that that the
>Republicans have been branded as the party of 'NO', and are in the wrong
>side of history.
>And then he made a statement that LA did not get Fed funds - and it was all
>private & state funds after Katrina. The fact though is that LA did get
>something like 181 Bill $ Fed funds for Katrina.
>His speech was more like 'he also spoke' and not much more.
>What Ed Rollins ought to have said was if Palin runs, then it is actually
>excellent for another Dem term. For the Reps. their best (long) shot is
>someone like Jindal, and not a loon like Palin. GW, Chenney, and their dream
>team have done the GOP in at least for another 8 years.
>On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>> What did you all think of the Republican response delivered by Bobby
>> Republican political consultant Ed Rollins' tongue-in-cheek comment that it
>> was a good night for Sarah Palin was telling :-).
>> At 9:33 PM -0600 2/24/09, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>>> Mukul da,
>>> I agree, it was a fantastic speech. I am surprised that the speech was
>>> broadcast in India too. I mean, they pay to a address of the President to
>>> the jt. session of the Congress.
>>> On a side note, GW Bush is slated to start speaking for a fee, March 17th
>>> (to a select group of people). I wonder, how much anyone is willing to
>>> to listen to someone who is unable to put together a complete, coherent
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:56 PM, mc mahant <mikemahant at hotmail.com>
>>>> If USA had general Election tomorrow -Who would get 99% votes?
>>>> I wish I could speak like he did -and the dream-better than Jack
>>>> For the freshest Indian Jobs Visit MSN Jobs
>>>> assam mailing list
>>>> assam at assamnet.org
>>> assam mailing list
>>> assam at assamnet.org
>> assam mailing list
>> assam at assamnet.org
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
More information about the assam