Bobby Jindal was thought, at least until last night, to be the most likely next president of the United States. The 37-year-old Republican governor of Louisiana has huge potential. The son of Indian immigrants, he has the ability to reach out beyond the shrinking core constituency of the GOP. Yet he's also appealing to the base, because of his positions on abortion and government spending (he's against them). He's largely thought to have brought a measure of competence and dynamism to Louisiana's creaking and corrupt state government. He's clever (a graduate of Harvard, Yale and Oxford) and likeable.
It wasn't coincidental, therefore, that Jindal was picked by his party bosses to deliver the response to Obama's speech last night. It was a big moment for him, as his national profile is still fairly low. I think he fluffed it.
Now, he had a difficult task. He needed to project a persuasive alternative voice to a currently very popular president, whilst sounding in tune with the national mood. Two paths presented themselves. The Schwarzenegger path: be broadly supportive of the president's programme whilst sounding cautionary notes. Or the Washington Republican path: oppose, oppose, oppose. A really skillful politician would have found some middle way between the two. Jindal chose the well-trodden path of outright opposition, but showed little conviction and less imagination in doing so. He railed against big government and pork, but didn't really offer a convincing alternative to Obama's plan of action. He may have pleased his party bosses, but I suspect his message failed to excite the voters. He also spent too long talking about himself.
The second problem is presentational. In public, Jindal often speaks way too fast. The words flood out of him. He lacks gravitas as a result. He's aware of this, clearly, and seems to have worked at slowing down and modulating his speech. But on the evidence of last night, he's been overcoached. Judge for yourselves. I think, frankly, he comes across as a bit of a tool; ingratiating, stiff, and patronising, like a bad kids' TV presenter.
Jindal will come back from this. He's too talented not to. But, as has been remarked elsewhere, last night was a good one for Mike Huckabee.
Is there talk of Huckabee running again in 2012? Yikes.
Posted by: Lyle | February 26, 2009 at 01:47 AM
I hope both Mike and Sarah run in 2012, both would be better than Bobby.
Fizzles out, not flames out, is a better description.
I'm sure it looks a LOT better in transcript, but the kid's show presentation of good words that I mostly agree with -- I can barely stay awake.
His story about himself was one of the highlights, I can remember his dad talking about the choices in the aisle.
His accomplishments in La are real and hugely substantial, but a great speaker he is not.
The Reps need some. Both Mike and Sarah are better speakers.
Posted by: Tom Grey | February 27, 2009 at 05:39 PM