Bobby Jindal

Vet Voice offers another contrast between Obama and Jindal's speeches. Obama offered tangible support to the troops and veterans while Jindal offered up meaningless rhetoric about national security and failed to mention at all the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or discuss veterans issues.

I don't have too much to add to the conversation about Obama's Not State of the Union Address last night, or the hilarity that was Kenneth the page Bobby Jindal's response. I think Greg Sargent gets it right:

The President’s speech was, at bottom, a call for radical change. He outlined an extraordinarily ambitious governmental agenda, vowing aggressive governmental action to rescue the economy and the banking system, find alternative energy sources, and overhaul the country’s health care system — all at once. As The Times’s Peter Baker put it, Obama proposed a “more activist government than any other since Lyndon B. Johnson.”

And Obama was able to do this while coming across as moderate and reasonable and garnering the support of huge majorities, if last night’s snap polls are any indication.

How? Politico’s John Harris and Jonathan Martin argue that Obama was able to do this with words and mood “intended to convey caution, moderation, sobriety.” That may be part of it, but I think something bigger is happening here.

Obama may be well on his way to breaking the “big government versus small government” rhetorical frame that has had a stranglehold on our political discourse for well-on decades now.

This seems right to me. Beyond that, though, last night was a disaster for the GOP, and any hopes they had of appealing to young voters in the near term. During his address, President Obama spoke of making an investment in the future of our country. He spoke of a call to arms - for government and for the American people - to recall some of the greatest achievements in our country's history and to replicate those feats in tackling the crises we face today.

The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate steps we’re taking to revive our economy in the short-term. But the only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world. The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care; the schools that aren’t preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit. That is our responsibility.

[...]

History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.

In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.

We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal. Now we must be that nation again. That is why, even as it cuts back on the programs we don’t need, the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education.

This is very much in line with how Obama campaigned and it is going to play very well with young people in America, most of whom - more so than previous generations - view government and large institutions as potential partners in solving the long-term problems our country faces, and a vast majority of whom view Obama's three main policy proposals - on energy, health care and education - as vital to their own, and the country's, long-term health.

Governor Jindal's response offered a completely opposing view, and one that is out of step with the current mood of the country and the beliefs of young voters. At a time when they need to be appealing to independents and young people, the GOP seems to have missed the fact that Obama just crushed them in an election in which the role of government was a major issue, and in which young voters selected Obama's policy prescriptions over those of the GOP at a rate of 2 - 1. :

But Democratic leaders in Congress -- they rejected this approach. Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history, with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest. While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.

It's the same, tired "government bad, tax cuts good" argument that the GOP has spouted through the last three decades - no matter what the current economic climate. Reactions to last night's speeches pretty much speak for themselves. Focus groups by Democracy Corps show Obama making huge gains among Republicans and Independents. Meanwhile, Jindal's response was universally panned by Democrats and Republicans alike - not only for delivery, but for content as well. Here's a review from conservative columnists David Brooks:

Yesterday, Bobby Jindal was the fresh-faced savior of the GOP; their great hope for capturing back the youth vote and overcoming their image as a party of white southern males. Looks like that dream is toast.

Tomorrow, President Obama will give a major speech in which he will roll out his budget, and discuss the economic crisis and health care reform. The GOP has tapped Louisiana Governor (and 2012 Presidential candidate) Bobby Jindal to deliver their response. In preparation for that, CNN is running a fairly large profile of the governor in which many GOP reps acknowledge Republican failure to connect to young voters, and pin their party's future hopes on Jindal:

The GOP, still reeling from election beatings in 2006 and 2008, is looking to revamp itself by rebuilding from the states up and reaching out to young voters. At 37, the popular Louisiana governor embodies that mission, experts say.

"The job is very important in framing the Republican message really for the rest of the year," said Nick Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association, referring to the response speech Tuesday. "Gov. Jindal provides the outside-the-beltway, not D.C., perspective. And he's one of the smartest policy minds in the country. He's not perceived as a overtly political person."

Being tapped for this prime-time speech, a job normally for congressional leaders, has helped to elevate Jindal's standing in the party dominated by old pros, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner, as well as personalities, such as Alaska's Sarah Palin and California's Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"It's time for another generation to come into play," said GOP strategist Ed Rollins, a CNN contributor. "A lot of Republicans came of age under Reagan, which was 25 years ago … and we just haven't built on that with young people."

Rollins, a veteran of the Reagan White House, called Jindal, a first-generation American born to Punjabi parents, a "young dynamic governor" with "appeal to younger voters."

The governor is a "textbook Republican" who is "scary smart," Cross added.

And, having an accomplished minority figure represent your party's message doesn't hurt, he said.

"The Republican Party very strongly wants to have a new look," he said. "They're saying, 'We're not just a party of old white guys' and he's part of that appeal."

As I've written before, Bobby Jindal certainly gets young Republicans fired up and ready to go, but I'm not sure he can cross-over and pull independents back to the GOP. It certainly doesn't help when Jindal, purely out of ideological and cynical political motives, is refusing millions of dollars of stimulus money that could help out poor, struggling families in his state.

I'm looking forward to seeing polls tracking how Jindal plays with young voters on a national level. My bet is that he doesn't do nearly as well as many conservatives are hoping he will.

This strikes me as very smart politics, and one of the first smart things the GOP has done to revive it's public image among young voters:

From NBC's Mark Murray
Not a big surprise, but still interesting nonethless... Republican congressional leaders have announced that they've tapped Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal to deliver the GOP response to President Obama's address to Congress on Feb. 24.

Although he's served as governor for slightly more than one year, Jindal, 37, is one of the GOP's rising political stars. What's more, for a Republican Party that's trying to extend its appeal beyond white voters, he's one of its most prominent minority faces.

You can laugh and call him the exorcist, but when I was at the RNC, every young Republican I encountered viewed Bobby Jindal as the conservative answer to Barack Obama. If he can survive Louisiana politics for another 4 or 6 years, I would look to see him at the top of the GOP ticket in 2012 or 2016, depending on the political climate.