A good number of folks who've been talking up Gov. Bobby Jindal's presidential chances are now defending his anodyne performance last night by pointing out, correctly, that Jindal is smart, serious and talented, and that there's no evidence that a panned SOTU (or budget speech) response will make or break a career. (Come to think of it, Bill Clinton wasn't punished for his famously long-winded 1988 Democratic convention speech.) They're just too artificial -- a man or woman, standing in an empty, artificially lit room, trying to tie several knots at once. Fine. Jindal's buzz shouldn't really go down much among Beltway insiders. As I noted yesterday, he is not charistmatic, and this format is not his best. Formal speech responses are quaint in an era of instantaneous communication.
The fundamentals of Bobby Jindal remain the same. Let's list them: he's young. He's not a white WASP. He's a Catholic convert. He seems to be a creationist. He has acquired a following among conservative intellectuals. Yes, that really is his accent. (Though you won't find many of them in the Obama administration, Southern accents still exist!) Jindal anglicized his name. He has unorthodox ideas on health care. He appears to be incorruptible. He is very, very socially conservative at a time when swing voters in this country seem to be going in a different direction. Not too long ago, he participated in what appears to be an exorcism -- now, before y'all get up in my grill, this is just going to strike a lot Republicans (even) as weird and deserving of an explanantion, so I'm not going to ignore it. (I do, however, agree with National Review's Jim Geraghty: there's going to be plenty of time to figure this out, and more Americans are "wondering whether we can exorcise the toxic subprime mortgage derivatives from the banks.")
Politicians use charisma -- call it authentic presence -- to cover up their human quirks. Luckily for Jindal, other WH 2012 or 2016 contenders (and remember, Jindal's said he's not running for president in 2012, although, as with our current president, voters don't seem to care wabout these promises), aren't terribly charismatic either, aside from Ex-MA Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has a tenuous relationship to certain parts of the Republican base. The good news for Jindal is that expectations have been lowered a bit, and if you believe him to be serious about not running until at least 2016, not a thing has happened to change his prospects.
That's all very well and good, Marc, but it obscures one simple fact: first impressions matter. (For example, Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today without his speech at the 2004 DNC.) Jindal did himself no favors with his lackluster speech yesterday, and judging by the reactions of David Brooks and the Fox News crew, he's lost some of that following among conservative intellectuals you mentioned.
On an unrelated note, why are you bothering to link to a hack like Bill Kristol on your site? I thought you were better than that.
I assume that's supposed to be "ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee." While I suppose it could also be "ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney," Romney seems to fall into the not terribly charismatic pool.
"other WH 2012 or 2016 contenders...aren't terribly charismatic either, aside from Ex-MA Gov. Mike Huckabee"
That kinda sounds like, "No one else is charsimatic, except for when they are"- especially as you left out Palin. Problematic though she is, she's a compelling speaker.
I also think that with as much as this was made to be Jindal's coming out party, flubbing it is a big problem.
And the fact that he chose to deliver a speech that does not play to his strengths (biographical instead of technocratic, idealistic instead of pragmatic) should give people pause about his political instincts. The first rule of Presidential politics is that people spot a phony a mile away...
The most important point that Marc missed is how hollow and "same old" was the content of his speech was. Almost all of the things that Jindal said are the same old gop talking points which voters have rejected and have moved away from.
Jindal does not want govt involved in anything because of Katrina? Is he too dumb to forget that it was Bush who screwed up people during Katrina?
During the time of hardship people want govt.. whether it is Katrina or financial meltdown.
It was also absurd of Jindal to vent against volcano monitoring when his own state needs safety net and monitoring from hurricanes!
By the way, vast majority of American people do not care much about whether the govt is very small or average sized or big as long as the govt is efficient and effective. People have moved on from the same old republican tactic of 'be scared of govt'.
Bobby Jindal will never be President of the United States.
Of course, he did Marc. I don't think it was the sort of damage that he can't recover from. Jindal no longer has the myth of the Republican Obama working for him, which means he'll have to work a little harder. Unlike Palin, however, I think he is probably smart enough to revive himself.
I think you're all sort of missing the point. And the point leads to the conclusion that last night Bobby Jindal immeasurably advanced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in four or eight years.
Republicans reward loyalty and service to the party. Once an heir presumptive in the Republican party, you're as good as nominated.
And Jindal earned HUGE loyalty and service points with the party regulars last night because, by accomplishing the worst delivery of a prime-time-televised address by a politician since the advent of the medium (TV not political speeches) he distracted the viewing public from the utter and complete lack of substance in the speech text itself. (And I say this as a Republican.)
Jindal took one for the team. He did a little televised legerdemain and bought the Republicans some time to figure out what they stand for beyond hoping Obama fails.
Getting the nomination is one thing - winning the White House is another and there's no way he's pulling off the latter.
The problem for Jindal is that the media world is a lot different from when Clinton gave his speech. Jindal's delivery was so bad, it went viral immediately with Jindal/Keneth the Page mash-ups, Facebook pages, etc...It was in the top ten Twitter trends this morning. And that is before tonight's comedians go to town on him. And before Jack McBrayer makes his inevitable appearance on SNL this week-end. Jindal is a bright guy, but not well known. Now his reputation will be created by comedians.
No. The only way it ultimately matters is if it feeds into a negative storyline about him, which can be replayed in the press, which it doesn't. The only negative meme that this reinforces is that Bobby Jindal gave a bad speech, which is very narrow in its ability to typecast him. Great speeches, or even great speaking ability are bound to be viewed in the context of the politician's life: their message, their competence, their morality. If inconsistent with their other attributes, is ability to have a large effect, either positive or negative, is probably limited. For most people, Jindal isn't yet defined in this respect. For most of those to whom he is defined, he's defined positively.
He did not hurt his chances for the wh, but he certainly did himself no favors. this was his introduction to much of the country and 1st impressions really do matter, especially in politics. i agree with brooks that jindal sided with r's on the far right and not the middle-right...the reality is most of the country is drifting leftward, socially, economically, etc. that may change by 2016. he should wait till then. his speech was poor tonally and more importantly his ideas are recycled and stale.