Jindal and the GOP Response
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- 
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…That’s right. He should have stayed in bed. It was pure mumbo jumbo. To call it “lame” is being kind.
There’s really not much else to say. He’s condescending. He makes absolutely no sense. The response was way off the mark. Doesn’t the GOP read these speeches before they are given? So much has been written about Jindal’s speech already that we don’t need one more article clogging up the blog. So, instead, I’ll post some of what I’ve read about Jindal this morning. Hell, even FOX (which might as well be owned by the GOP), gave it a rousing thumbs down.
And, by the way, if this is the bright, shining light for the GOP comeback…I’d probably call Sarah Palin. This guy, if it’s possible, is even worse.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/25/121750/746/43/701697
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3822
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/24/jindal-fox-ncot/
Check out Rachel Maddow’s response:
Comment by richard on 25 February 2009:
Staging matteers and Jindal’s stunk. Chris Mathews whispter as the governor entered the scene spoke volumes on several fronts. No one expect Mathews to be fair or unbiased but he can at least be respectful of the man’s office; that he is a Rhodes scholar and of Indian extraction, etc.
Otherwise Jindal’s speech failed to impress anyone or express anything.
Conversely Obama’s speech was another theatrical success. Today we learn his spending proposals now approaching $3 trillion will fewer or perhaps nowhere to get it. Obama unendingly calls it a crisis - I do to but for a different reason.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 25 February 2009:
Well, here’s my issue: Suddenly the GOP is trying to look fiscally responsible after rubber stamping all of George Bush’s policies that got us into this mess to begin with. He was left with a surplus and a combination of the illegal, unwinnable war in Iraq, his no-bid contracts with companies rebuilding Iraq (and I’m being generous here; they are stealing government money) and tax cuts to the rich sucked that up.
Basically the conservatives are now trying to lay this at Obama’s feet. He wasn’t even in office at the time, so let’s not go there. By the way, the American people aren’t buying it either. They know who the perpetrators were. All I hear from the GOP is squealing and whining. They have absolutely no ideas. Oh, yeah, I forgot tax cuts…which do not create jobs or stimulate the economy.
Even Newt Gingrich is slithering out of his cave now touting Capital Gains tax cuts as a bold, new move. He wants to bring back the Contract on America…oops, I meant Contract with America. That’s a joke. They should just shut up if they can’t participate in the process and bring ideas to the table. Tax cuts aren’t ideas. It’s the same old same old. They do not work.
Being obstructionist is not the way to win the White House back in 2012, so here’s hoping the GOP keeps doing what they are doing. The American people have had enough of the GOP. If they can’t be part of the solution, they should at least not be part of the problem.
Comment by Proletarian on 25 February 2009:
The bottom line is; we’re in the midst of social and class warfare in America. Take from the haves and give to the have nots. Move over Democrats and Republicans, hello Hugo Chavez. I’m sure Danny Glover, Sean Penn, et al will be happy soon.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 25 February 2009:
So, Proletarian, are you referring to Sean Penn’s comments on equal rights for gay people at the Academy Awards? Because, you know what, I’m gay and I take my civil rights really seriously. I have two children and a woman I’m married to that I’ve been with for 18 years. We have outlasted many of our heterosexual friends and we hope to live to a ripe old age together.
As far as the haves and have nots, let’s put it this way. Nobody is asking them to give up their fortunes. We are just asking that they pay a proportionate amount of taxes. They don’t need tax breaks, and giving them tax breaks does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. And the “socialist” label is just crap. It’s as much bunk as believing the Israelis were “defending” themselves when they killed more than 1,300 Palestinians to avenge the deaths of 13 Israelis. It’s a poor argument. We have always had a graduated tax in America. It’s nothing new.
Comment by ihentschel on 25 February 2009:
Maybe we can go back to Jindal? Not so long ago the populace was agog with Palintolgy. That has gone largely extinct, only now to be replaced with Jindalooniness. A renewed Newt has re-emerged as a non-Newtonian, defying the gravity of failed contracts, and Lindsey Graham has gone crackers as the only fiscal conservative in the country who wants to nationalize the banks. John MCain wants to level criticism at President Obama for a helicopter he did not order or authorize (old earmarkers never die, they just come back to the Senate) and Tom DeLay is back on television spouting fallacies and misconceptions like a beached whale: he really beieves the more he waves his arms,the more people will believe him. It would be nice if John Boehner could stick to the subject at hand and stay away from the bar, and W has announced his speaking fee of $150K/gig for a man who cannot speak. And this man who also cannot read also wants to build a library (using someone else’s money), while RNC chairman Steele seems to be operating completely outside the sphere of the Anerican consciousness. And then you have Jindal. And his chidhood. And the Katrina stories he makes up. And his ghoulish entrance and exit. And his cellophane speech. And Rush thinks he is Jesus. Jeezuss. If “Americans can do anything”,what are we doing with Jindal?
The GOP has pulled the plug on itself. They have disconnected from the world the rest of us live in. In case you haven’t noticed, every time Jindal says, “let’s be clear”, it all becomes less so. It must be the holiday season: I hear Jindal bells.
Comment by murray on 25 February 2009:
Bush’s policies did not cause the current issue. It was an illadvised 1990 pasm to fore banks to lend to anyone who could stagger in to buy houses. Nice idea but f=a failure. Janet Reno was disptched to threaten lenders to lend or else. Foolish, stupid and likely criminal.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 25 February 2009:
Murray, get your head out of the sand. Wow! You Bush supporters are really over the top with loyalty. You cannot be serious about this. Are you telling me that eight years of letting Wall Street run wild, a war that costs approximately $12 billion per month, no regulation of any kind over anybody in the corporate world — from banks to oil companies, a bit of the fudging of the books by not putting the war into the budget, but going back and asking for emergency funding. Then, we have the brilliant GOP tax-cut theory in action — the the wealthiest people in the country. Murray, it just doesn’t add up? Give huge tax breaks while you’re running up the tab in Afghanistan and Iraq? Give me a break. Pretty soon the United States will have a tag hanging off its side saying “a wholly-owned subsidiary of China.” Some people have tried to sell me bad product before, but I’ll never buy that one.
Here’s what I’m finding. I hear this all the time. It wasn’t Bush. It was stuff Clinton did, and it took this long to have an effect. Yet, the same people want you to believe that if Obama’s plan doesn’t have us out of the hole by the mid-term elections, it’s a failure. Check the math. It doesn’t add up.
Comment by Proletarian on 26 February 2009:
Deb, I don’t know why I’m responding to your acerbity and inuendo other than feeling obligated and compelled to edify you.
Your comments about gay rights and the gay community is way off the mark and too dross for me to address. Suffice it to say, homosexuality is a moral issue and the government has no right to intervene or make policy regarding it. I’ve written about that subject numerous times. I’ll give you this. My nephew is gay and my niece is a lesbian. He is an ass, just because he’s an ass, an she is my favorite niece. I love her dearly. Maybe that will loosen up your rancor.
My point about Sean Penn and Danny Glover is that they condemn America for their position on Hugo Chavez and glorify the man who seeks to destroy his own country. They espouse his ideology for driving out productivity and taking from the wealthier class to give to the poor. Thus, my analogy of why they should be happy with America now. You need to go through your history books and find out about the myriad of civilizations and societies that have fallen by the wayside using such policies. You might be surprised.
Do you know anyone from Venezuela? I have four friends that fled the country in recent years and lost everything they had to do so. They tell me they are happy to have done it and would do the same again. What does that tell you? Please, don’t pretend to know something you know nothing about. Hugo didn’t ask them to give up their fortunes — he took it. Along with the oil industry, communication, banking and a host of others.
We’re doing the same in this country under current proposals; nationalized healthcare and banking industry. Where does it end? There has been talk about nationalizing the airline industry. What next?
To let you know, from a small business owner’s perspective, I would buy more equipment or hire another worker or two if I could pay less tax. That’s exactly what I did in the Reagan years. God bless the investment tax credit!
As far as your statement “the “socialist” label is just crap” here are definitions you can find in any dictionary.
So”cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.
[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen’s theory of social reconstruction.
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
If you can’t see that Obama’s plans encompass’ some of this ideology I don’t know what to tell you.
As far as your analogy of the Israeli/Palestine war to socialism, I don’t even get your point. It’s two completely different issues and makes no sense. Although a different topic I shall elucidate to give you more understanding.
It’s a military strategy, nothing more, nothing less. For everyone they kill of yours, you kill ten of theirs. A strategy instituted by Ariel Sharon after being inculcated by Ben-Gurion, with what some might call a Jewish tenet. Sharon said, “I was summoned to see Ben-Gurion. It was the first time I met him, and right from the start Ben-Gurion said to me: ‘Let me first tell you one thing: it doesn’t matter what the world says about Israel, it doesn’t matter what they say about us anywhere else. The only thing that matters is that we can exist here on the land of our forefathers. And unless we show the Arabs that there is a high price to pay for murdering Jews, we won’t survive.’”
A bit of advise; lighten up, take a chill pill, don’t be so acerbic and do more investigation.
Comment by murray on 26 February 2009:
I agree with Proletarian. As far as where my head might be at least I use mine.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 27 February 2009:
Hey, gentlemen, I’ll respond to both of you in one post. As for Proletarian, I was merely asking what you were referring to. And it may be a surprise to you, but I am not a fan of Hugo Chavez. That is where both Sean Penn and Danny Glover and I part ways. However, that being said, I do not embrace the conservative GOP position of isolating our enemies. I believe you engage them in conversation. If you don’t you rarely know what they are doing. If you are relying on the intelligence agencies in America today…well, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say much of the information is what you’d call INACCURATE. There’s nothing like face-to-face engagement.
As for Obama being a socialist, I’ve already made my statement on that a few posts back. That’s just the accusation of those who refuse to accept that this country must change to survive. Look, we’ve done it the neocon way now for eight years. If the Bush years was what you’d call “government working” then, really, God help us all.
And Murray, I do use my head. I just don’t embrace your political or social positions. I don’t have to. You do not have to embrace mine. That is what is supposed to make America what it is.
Good night.
Comment by ihentschel on 27 February 2009:
I would hazard a guess that most of this “debate” would not be taking place if the RNC had not handed off the speech responsibility to someone who was grossly ill-equipped to do so. As of late this afternoon, virtually everyone on both sides has either condemned, criticized or cast serious doubt about the value of Jindal’s performance. The only person defending his actions without hesitation is Rush Limbaugh. I don’t care what else you may believe, but having Rush as your best company in this situation is not a good idea. And I don’t care if Jindal is your brother: if he does a bad job, somebody needs to reprimand him. No one is under any obligation to defend an idiot just because he belongs to your club.
Give and take exchanges like these tend to indvertently and ill-advisedly wander around. To wit, Jindal’s ineptitude has nothing to do with Bush’s policies or Janet Reno. There is plenty of blame and histories of poor judgement to go around. The point of these dialogues is supposed to be to bring together varying viewpoints and arrive at some common ground that enables everyone to move forward without killing one another. Deb may be alot of things but ascerbic is not one of them. Murray’s vitriol is an impediment to exchange, not an enhancement. The (largely flawed)logic of the history of the last eight years, and their odd deviation from certain moral standards, are fodder for Deb’s case; the philosophy and conservative leanings of the opposite side of the discussion represent the driving force behind our great emotional divide which is, quite frankly, not helping the country through these tough and troubling times. We didn’t get here overnight, we won’t get away from our plight any faster. Slinging slurs and innuendo helps nothing.
The solutions we need, and the discovery of the pathways we need to move forward, do not lie in arguing about who is right or wrong: they lie in the mutual exploration of the myriad possibilities we have before us and the responsibilties that come along with them.
Part of our problem is that we have elected officials whose heads are not in the sand or merely off center, but rather up somewhere I dare not mention here. They worry first about themselves (and re-election)and much later about the people they have been called upon to represent. When holding the party line ceases ot be humanitarian, we have a problem. That is why we have regular elections.