It's not that I disagree with the sentiments that Governor Jindal was expressing in his rejoinder to the President's speech to Congress. However, the delivery was abysmal, especially in the shadow of a eloquent bit of showmanship by President Obama. As my father observed, he spoke as though addressing a classroom full of second graders.
On paper Jindal, is a wise choice for the GOP's next best thing. Young, impressively educated (Rhodes scholar,) not white (son of an Indian immigrant family) and possessing a resume that includes real world business experience (as a consultant to fortune 500 companies) he's a nominal candidate to challenge President Obama in 2012 or whatever Democratic candidates run in 2016.
However, if his rejoinder is any indication he needs a few lessons on his oratory.
11 years ago
2 comments:
Maybe Jindal, but rejecting stimulus money for Louisiana seems fairly silly considering its one of the poorest states in the nation and has yet to fully recover from Katrina...
What about Newt in 2012?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/magazine/01republicans-t.html?_r=1
Stimulus money is what is going to keep that city poor and under lock and stock.
The emphasis on rhetorical power is a personal preference which, as Bush demonstrated in the Iraq War, does not win victories. Or rather, it is not necessary for winning victories. What is necessary for winning victories is character. And on this score, plenty of people prefer the character of an Obama because he sounds good to them, against the character of Sarah Palin, just to use one example. I could have just as well used Bush or Jindal or Rush, although Rush is actually rather high on the persuasion ladder compared to Bush.
Post a Comment