Pages

February 25, 2009

Bobby Jindal Is a Liar

Impressions from Obama's speech and the republican response:

Obama's Speech:

Frak it, lets go big. I mean the guy is gonna cure cancer, halve the deficit, and fix energy, healthcare, education and the economy. I applaud the boldness with which he makes these statements. Now is a time for boldness. But damn! Its big stuff and Obama runs a real risk of massively overpromising. You can credibly make the argument that the stimulus bill did not go far enough. So if he promises way beyond his ability to deliver, he's going to be punished for that by the electorate. But I like that he says it like he thinks he can do it. Now Mr. President, stand and deliver.

The republican response:

Bobby Jindal was charged with the republican response. I've heard good things about Jindal and I'm inclined to like him because he is a wonky sort of a guy. Tonight was his introduction to the national stage and to a large number of people who have never seen or heard of the guy. It was not an auspicious beginning in my view.

The opening few seconds of his rebuttal were jarring for me. First, he comes walking out and he's this skinny brown skinned guy and he looked quite nerdy and geeky. Then, to make it a tad freakier, he starts talking and this Louisiana accent is coming out of this skinny brown nerd face and he's trying to be folksy while he reads from the teleprompter and it did not quite work. So his tele-mojo was not really clicking. So he gets no points for style.

On content and theme, I have to say it was a miss for me too. The theme was an old GOP favorite. Government is bad, government is the problem. I'm sorry, but I don't think that old saw is adequate to the rhetorical challenge of Obama nor the concerns of the electorate for action. I think that when the GOP says government is the problem, government is bad, what the electorate hears is "do nothing". The problems confronting us are perceived to be huge and require something as huge to address them, and in this case, thats the federal government. There is a role for the government and to talk as though there is not I think is a big miss.

On content, some real missteps too. For starters, the emphasis on race and talking about Obama as the first black president. His blackness is evident to us all, we just got finished being cheesed off by Holder's ham fisted comments on the subject and Jindal comes out leading with some schtick about how glorious it is that we have a black president? I think the country has already pretty much absorbed the novelty of that and is trying very hard to get on with business. I think the country regards him as "the President" and is rapidly permitting his color to fade away into the background. I think much of America already finds the non white reality of the President to be routine, unremarkable and not particularly worthy of comment. Its America, we have a black President....and?

Why do I call Jindal a liar? Because of this statement:

"A few weeks ago, the President warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said ‘we may not be able to reverse.’ Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don’t let anyone tell you that we cannot recover — or that America’s best days are behind her."

The President did not say, nor did he imply that the US cannot recover or that America's best days are behind us. Simply never did. It was a lie. Jindal's use of this phrase along with his repeated assertion that "Americans can do anything" was an attempt once again to rhetorically paint Obama as un-American. There is no shortage of legitimate issues upon which to disagree vehemenently with the President. This continued insinuation that Obama is un-American as a political tactic of opposition is quite dissapointing and angers me. We don't have time for it. And considering that the use of such tactis resulted in the GOP's defeat in the election by a margin of 192 EVs, I'm waiting for somebody to get the frakking memo. Being a liar in your national introduction is not great

As he was closing, Jindal also said the following:

"You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust — and rightly so."

Michael Steele made a similiar statement about trust while on the Glenn Beck show recently and hearing Jindal say it gave me an epiphany about why the GOP's time in the wilderness may be long indeed. Republicans were running the show for six of the last eight years and in that time, did not distinguish ourselves as the party of fiscal discipline whatsoever. Now, we rail against the profligate spending of the One and the democratic congress, but we've lost all authority and standing to criticize the democrats on this issue. It simply rings hollow. We have been exposed as being nothing more than politicians who will spend the taxpayer's dime just as easily as a democrat will, making us therefore indistinguisable from them and it renders our attempts to be a unified opposition on spending and fiscal prudence very empty sounding. Bottom line, we are simply not believed on these issues, because when it was our turn, that is not how we behaved. And that is why we fail to get any major traction with such arguments against the One.

7 comments:

  1. Great observations, folks. You should be on MSNBC doing instant analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks. I'm waiting for the call from somebody, anybody. Buzz me up, maybe you'll see me on tv or hear me on the radio soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. [quote]You can credibly make the argument that the stimulus bill did not go far enough. [/quote]

    How can you make this case?

    It appears that you are operating with the notion that "Deficits don't matter"?

    In 'not going far enough' this means more deficit spending. Where as in the past our currency was backed by the gold standard - today it is backed by Treasury Bonds. In as much as other individuals/institutions/nations are willing to purchase our debt - THERE IS INDEED A CONSEQUENCE for "going further".

    It is a foregone conclusion that the debt for the United States will continue to grow. Let us place this as a stake from which to work from. I then argue HOW BEST to draw from the credit cards that we are taking cash advances from and apply it toward spending that will produce sustained future economic growth? This is what we are effectively debating.

    My key criticism of the Obama Administration and progressive/quasi-socialists in general is that in transferring more burden to the United States government - EVEN IF they symbolically raise taxes to support this spending does NOT adequately address the fact that we are ALREADY in a hole that is filling with water and they are adding more of a water load to the confined space.

    It was rather ironic that Democratic Senator Kent Conrad who I have always respected as a fiscal hawk teamed up with former US Comptroller David Walker who I saw in person at the "Fiscal Wake UP Call" symposium to warn about the future economic insolvency of the United States.

    When I saw Mr. Walker he noted that the next president of the United States is going to have to SLASH SPENDING and talk about the unsustainability of our present circumstance. He said that in telling the people about our FUTURE collision (which was to start in earnest in 2017 as the baby boomers started to retire enmasse) the President would have the people mindful of the purposeful PULL BACK of government now for long term best interests.

    Barack Obama is actually doing the OPPOSITE. In order to blunt our present pain we are spending RECORD AMOUNTS OF MONEY with more to come. YOU say "we should do more!!" How on earth do you substantiate this?

    At some point the numbers will have it that the United States is no longer the blue chip investment for bonds and/or other debts. Just as California as a state has to pay more to service its debt - America is headed in this same direction.

    I get the sense that you are advocating for Obama while getting lost in respect to the big picture of the United States. No RHETORIC used by Obama OR Jindal - positive or negative trumps the economic reality as it is written.

    Expansion of government at this present time is NOT a matter of "Government Good/ Government Bad" it is ONLY a question of "IS IT FISCALLY VIABLE to do so?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. *Sigh* I knew that bit of clumsily worded sentence, without clarification, was going to get me some heat and here you come along CF to supply it. My point was not really to support the recovery bill, but really trying to underscore the idea that Obama is making huge promises but may not be bringing forward actions as big and bold as the promises he's making. There are some who have argued on that note, that the stimulus bill should have been bigger. So that was really my only point, but I was in a hurry and just did not take the time to make that point more effectively and I figured somebody was going to call me out on it and here you are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. [quote]underscore the idea that Obama is making huge promises but may not be bringing forward actions as big and bold as the promises he's making.[/quote]

    Once again - it is YOU who are missing the point.

    The best I can say is that YOU are working to make this "About Obama" and "About Jindal" and "About the Republicans" and "About the Democrats who are in power".

    I have not been able to gather YOUR VIEW of these spending proposals independent of these other "about" people.

    Ironically Rush Limbaugh said the other day that "Obama is telling people what THEY want to hear", regardless of what is so. If you are in agreement that his WORDS are in a different zone than his actions to back them up - it could be that you and Limbaugh are saying the same thing about this same man, despite both the baggage that you likely believe Limbaugh brings to the table and, no doubt, the divergent agendas that you both have in the matter.

    WHY do you think that Obama's promises are bigger than the policy backing that he is initiating?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not trying to make it about anything other than my basic point that Obama is making huge promises and I have yet to see him take actions commensurate with those bold promises. Now, what is my opinion of the spending bills you ask? Clearly, any piece of legislation spending this amount of money, crafted in mere days and not read by anybody voting on it in detail has got tremendous problems. I'm no economist, but I'm persuaded by the logic that a stimulus strategy makes sense. Is this chunk of spending the right way to go? On balance, probably not,but bottom line, nobody really knows how to solve the problem definitively. I'm willing to let Obama take a stab at it and for him to be responsible for the results. Unlike the vast majority of those on the right, I believe quite firmly that even if Obama is worse than Carter, the United States will survive Obama just fine. Further, he is not an emperor and there are checks and balances. Democracy works. We just have to use it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. [quote]I'm no economist, but I'm persuaded by the logic that a stimulus strategy makes sense. [/quote]

    This must be addressed in a more expanded argument. Where as when I listen to various champions for this spending they almost exclusively make the case: "People are financially stressed - this will provide money AND in the case of Jesse Jackson on his latest radio show - "Get out the activists pushing for Affirmative Action contracting to insure that we get our FAIR SHARE".....this big government debt expenditure is seen as market based entrepreneurs saw VENTURE CAPITAL funding sources of a decade ago.

    It is true that to the recipient of the money - a dollar from the government looks and functions the very same way as a dollar from a "venture capitalist angle".

    As we look at the SOURCE of the funding these two could not be more different. Where as the Venture Capitalist might have gotten seed money from private investors OR even leverage a previous IPO into cash money which in turn he pumps into a new venture start up......this GOVERNMENT MONEY is DEBT that doesn't disappear and must be backed by Treasury Bonds and interest must be paid. If the venture capitalists lose their money - they are simply S.O.L..

    Thus - it is true that in the short term injecting cash into an anemic economy, regardless of the source - does cause stimulus. It is also true that more money paid by the government in interest payments is one less dollar in the future budgets to be spent on general budget items.

    [quote]Unlike the vast majority of those on the right, I believe quite firmly that even if Obama is worse than Carter, the United States will survive Obama just fine[/quote]

    I respect this statement.

    I also ask that you bring attention to "those on the left" for many of them see the same "Obama" as the embodiment of all of their spending dream. They are far more concerned with bringing forth changes in the "social contract" than they are worried about the long term debt position and TAX CONSEQUENCES that these massive government transfer payments are and will incur.


    Take a listen to this "Fiscal Wake Up Tour" as a reference to what a panel of BIPARTISAN economists are saying about the BIGGER crisis that is in front of our nation and what our leaders need to be doing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-uVw7iXDAk

    ReplyDelete

Speak and be heard.