Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show yesterday:
So, where are we? We as conservatives are in the wilderness, and many of you are hopeless. So we have a guy, Bobby Jindal, 37 years old, first time on the national stage, shows up last night to make a response to The Messiah. All he did was articulate what we believe. All he did was articulate opposition to what Obama is doing, with the obligatory when he’s right, we’ll work with him, just like we worked with Clinton on NAFTA, just like we worked with Clinton on welfare reform after we brought him in. These things happen. It doesn’t mean that we lose our distrust. All Bobby Jindal did was tell us what conservatism is; he used his own life story to do it; he talked about the American people making the country work. He had it all. Now, he may not have done it in the same stylistic way as Obama. I can understand the Democrats trashing the man, just as they trashed Sarah Palin. They are mean-spirited, heartless, horrible winners. But the people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style.
Because if you think people on our side, I’m talking to you, those of you who think Jindal was horrible, in fact, I don’t want to hear from you ever again if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well, because, folks, style is not going to take our country back. Solid conservatism articulated in a way that’s inspiring and understanding is what’s going to take the country back. Bobby Jindal’s 37 years old. I’ve spoken to him numerous times. He’s brilliant. He’s the real deal. I’m not coming here to defend him, he doesn’t need that. We’re going to have to figure out what we want. Do we want to have somebody in our party who can sound as smart as Obama regardless what he says and convince people to vote for us, or do we believe in a set of principles that defined this country’s founding and will return it to greatness again?
Allahpundit doesn’t get what Rush’s big problem was:
Answer: Jindal will shake this off but the fact remains that he blew an opportunity to turn himself into a breakout star a la Obama at the 2004 convention. He’s touted as a sort of boy genius, but a boy genius should have been able to figure out a way not to be actively bad, even if it meant being merely boring. He couldn’t, so his image took a hit. What’s the problem with admitting that? If he was doomed to fail because of the setting — and he surely wasn’t doomed to fail as badly as he did — he should have adapted by changing it and doing the speech in front of a small audience (or a big one). He’s supposed to be the solutions guy, right?
I think the problem with AP’s thinking is that Jindal finds solutions to the problems of government, not necessarily solutions to make himself look better. There is a difference.
And I think Rush’s problem is that Republicans fire their best volleys at their own. Many are tearing down a solid, young conservative Governor who delivered a speech to the non-State of the Union that was stylistically off. Of course, other than political geeks, no one will even remember the speech in a couple weeks. How many State of the Union responses do you remember? I remember quite a few and this doesn’t approach the poor delivery of Bob Dole’s 1996 State of the Union Response, nor the cheesy responses put together by Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt.
From the speech, we see that Bobby Jindal isn’t as charismatic as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, but that’s okay, we’ll find something different to destroy them over, because we’re on a mission to tear down potential leaders rather than build for our party’s future. We want to end up with the worst possible leadership so we can say that we didn’t support the good, but not quite Reagan leaders for our movement.
By the way, Jindal can give a better speech than he did on State of the Union as he illustrated at the NRA:
Still not great, but he’s a good man and he’ll have a good future. I don’t think he runs for President for 2012, but any nominee of the party that doesn’t at least consider him for VP isn’t worth their salt.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:55 am
You’re a glutton for punishment, aren’t you? Mentioning Palin and Huckabee here is akin to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater: Panic ensues, lives are lost, etc.
But at least you didn’t say anything about Mitt Romney.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Rush seems torn between Palin and Jindal, hahaha. Imagine if the two ran on the same team, the press would have a field day and say they were handpicked by Rush Limbaugh. I’m expecting “Sarah Palin” and “Bobby Jindal” to be on SNL sometime soon.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am
i think he runs to set up a future run at the minimum
February 26th, 2009 at 9:09 am
“Rush to Jindal Critics: I Don’t Want to Hear From You Again”
Thus speaketh the Lord of the GOP (or at least half of it).
February 26th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Jindal’s a good guy, and I know he can do better, and he’s got a good future ahead of him – VP in 2012, perhaps, or the nominee in eight or twelve years.
But the people who are against any criticism of Jindal are, in many ways, the same people who called anyone who voiced concerns about Palin liberal trolls who were working for Obama – and look where that got us. If the reality about Palin had come out early, McCain might not have picked her, and he would almost certainly have done better in the general.
Like I said, most likely, Jindal will shake this off – but its not like he hasn’t earned the criticism.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:26 am
#5:
The reality about Palin? Come on. Palin didn’t cost McCain the election and I don’t think one state can be identified that McCain lost but would have won if Palin hadn’t been on the ticket.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Adam, Palin made a fool out of herself. The initial excitement was gone in two weeks, and replaced by the SNL lines that – using her own statements – made her into a walking joke.
I don’t know if Palin cost McCain any state – though I’m fairly certain she turned off far more moderates than other candidates, even other conservative candidates, would have.
But Palin’s biggest problem was what she didn’t add, not what she did. McCain was never going to win this election on his own, and his choice of a VP candidate who was neither experienced nor particularly competent when it came to policy was a disaster.
I can’t help but think that what got me banned from this site was my criticism of Palin, on, believe it or not, experience and policy knowledge – the same two things that doomed her candidacy.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Adam, Huck and Palin will destroy themselves politically, no matter how charismatic you seem to think they are. Being folksy only takes you so far, and it leaves you open to ridicule from the left.
Jindal may have given a sub-par speech, but he’s actually got substance and none of the baggage of Huck or Palin. I’m not worried about him at all.
And, BTW – last time I checked, you’re still on the mission to destroy the best potential leader we have right now.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Adam, Palin was a controversy practically from day one. Every day it was a new flub or red flag. We weren’t talking issues, but cringing at her encounters with the press, and discussing her personal family matters. It’s pretty clear she turned off a lot of voters who might have considered McCain. No one has been able to say difinitively whether Palin was a drag on the ticket, but I’ve seen evidence both ways.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Ah, the MittWitt fringe of the Rombots have arrived!
Many of these are convinced that Romney would have won the election for McCain, and to prove their point, they voted for Obama to protest Mac’s jilting Mitt for Sarah.
The MittWitts are still in a state of inconsolable denial.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Matthew, Martha, there’s this thing called an exit poll that indicated 60% of the respondents considered Palin to be a factor in their vote and 56% of these respondents voted for McCain.
I’m a data guy for the most part and the numbers seem to be pretty solid in Palin’s favor…data and numbers are always superior to opinions.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am
“I’m a data guy for the most part and the numbers seem to be pretty solid in Palin’s favor”
What was her approval rating among independents on election day?
February 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Tommy Boy, I was ready to vote for Paul out of disgust with McCain, but then McCain announced Palin as his VP and she gave a great speech at the convention. I got excited enough about the ticket that I donated to McCain. I kept hoping for great things from Palin, but was seriously disappointed as time went on. I kept giving her second chance after second chance right up to the election when I pulled the lever for McCain mostly because Palin was on the ticket. She has just proven herself as a loser and I am convinced that she will be a loser in the 2012 general too. I will admit that she was tied to an even bigger loser; McCain’s floundering during the economic meltdown was undoubtedly a bigger reason that the ticket lost than Palin’s poor interviews and recycled speech that she gave at nearly every event.
Adam, Martha was dead right, “And, BTW – last time I checked, you’re still on the mission to destroy the best potential leader we have right now.”
February 26th, 2009 at 10:02 am
“Matthew, Martha, there’s this thing called an exit poll that indicated 60% of the respondents considered Palin to be a factor in their vote and 56% of these respondents voted for McCain.”
Thats nice, except that it means that more than 1/4 of the electorate considered Palin, and ended up voting against the ticket.
Now, if those people are mostly Democrats, there isn’t an issue. But if those people are most independents, then she very well may have lost McCain the election.
—
Also, yeah, I think Romney as VP could very well have won the election for the GOP. You know why? Because for all his faults, the media would not have been able to attack him on experience or competence, and Obama was in no position to make flip-flop claims. But the number one reason is that he would have given the economic issue to the GOP.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Matthew, you assume that the 56% of those respondents who considered Palin a factor in their vote and voted for McCain would have voted for McCain anyway. I’m guessing that these are “moderate” evangelical Christians that may have stayed home and not voted at all if you take into account that McCain did worse among conservatives than Bush in 2004 but won more evangelical votes than Bush in 2004. I wish the exit poll had dived further into the question of Palin but it didn’t….
Palin is polling pretty well among indies if you go by Rasmussen in the limited data that we have had on her post-election. Obviously, she polled extremely well with indies after her convention speech but didn’t poll well after that. However, based on the limited information that we have, she seems to have recovered among indies unless you have post-election data that shows otherwise.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Sometimes critisem is good. Jindal is far better than some that are wannaruns. He is well educated, often well spoken and is a conservative with true family values. Not fake ones that is dragged out in photo ops. However, Jindal needs a lot more weathering before he is ready to run this country. It’s time to get a grasp on reality. Were trying the young maverick type president now. It’s not working for us. Why would the GOP run to the same thing now? Oh yea. He’s not Romney, whom some here despise for his true conservative creds. (and, I might add, jelous of his family and his well earned fortune.) I stopped listening to Rush when he glombed onto Palin. Pity all he can tell us about her is how purdy she is. And how much he overlooks. Just shows even more that some thought with little brain, and not big brain.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Palin, Romney, whatever – its getting us off topic.
What I want to know is why Jindal should be exempt from criticism.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Mark
I did not vote for Obama to ‘jilt’ Palin. I voted for him becaue our GOP has gone off the deep end, and it was being led to the deep waters by the nutcase far, far religious right. Sorry, but that’s how I and many others saw it.
Howard Dean, last Feb, said in an interview that the DNC was breathing a huge sigh of relief that Romney had suspended his campaign. Howard Dean, leader of the DNC said that Romney was the ONLY one they felt they could not beat. Romney was talking econ’s during his campaign, and when stumping for Mac and cheeswiz. Palin was talking about her forthcomming grandson and how wonderful it was that daughter has made ‘right’ choices in her life and will soon be married to the baby daddy (which was flunted in front of us at the convention). The biggest issue I heard out of Palin was that Obama had ‘questionable’ buddies he hung with. Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, Toddy was hanging with those that want AK to be a new country- not state, COUNTRY. Palin even addressed their convention not too many years back. Frankly, I don’t see the difference there. I had concerns over BOTH. But ain’t she purdy. Must put blinders on and take stupid pill so we don’t take a good look at what is really behind the curtain.
Yupeers, I’m a Romney supporter. Dang proud of it too. He’s the total package, not one made up to look good. He takes his lumps and makes no excuses. He’s worked hard, got an education, supported his family, served his chruch and his God and has lived a pretty good life. His wife Anne, has that quiet ‘class’ that you can’t buy at Sak’s with OPM. His kids would never give an embarrassing interview, as there is nothing in the son’s lives to be embarrassed about. Romney bought his won homes, without question of how the contractors got bids for other projects in town, his wife is not CC’d on other than personal e-mails, and he has EARNED his own way on WHO he is, WHAT he can do, and not what he ‘looks’ like.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:41 am
17 – ask Rush. Anyway, I don’t think there’s all that much to criticize. He’s certainly got a little work to do, just like every candidate. I think there’s plenty of time to run him later, after we give Romney his crack at turning this country around. However, if Mitt doesn’t pull off the nomination and Jindal does, I’ll still be happy with our choice. Much happier than I was in 2008.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I think Mr. Limbaugh just does not want Mr. Jindal trashed which is fair. While I like Mr. Jindal’s policies, I am frankly a little disappointed in his lack of charm and so forth.
Matthew K, with respect, I think you are dreaming if you think any Republican could have done a whole better than Mrs. Palin after 9/15. Could another VP candidate gotten a few more EC points? Perhaps, but which ones?
February 26th, 2009 at 10:49 am
20 – Palin was GREAT for fundraising (as Romney would have been) and getting more media coverage (which Romney wouldn’t have helped with, but probably would have been better in interviews) but I don’t think she was so great at convincing people who were unsure whom to vote for that they should vote for John McCain. I think she was good at making people who didn’t like the idea of voting for McCain (but were going to anyway) feel better about their choice, but I don’t know if that really made much difference in the election.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:57 am
OHIO – Mac’s numbers starting tanking the morning after the Couric interview with Palin – 5 days before the meltdown. And, Palin did NOTHING to help shore up McCain on the economy, indeed the opposite. According to Palin, the bailout was about healthcare. (snicker)
There just isn’t any way you can claim Romney wouldn’t have been a better choice at that point.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Get real,
I was a tepid supporter of McCain. When he choose Palin, he lost mine and my husbands vote. Along with those of my 6 sister in laws and my 2 sisters. My adult step daughters are liberal democrates, so Mc never had them anyway. Face it. She did lose a lot of votes for McCain. Here in Utah, McCain won. But, for the first time in HISTORY, the Democrat got above 30 percent. Unheard of in Utah, and certainly caused a lot of head scratchin’. Turns out, that many were turned off with Palin. Now, I knew my little vote here in the outlands of Utah would not make Obama president. BUT, it has sent a message to the GOP’s in THIS state that we are not happy with the direction of the GOP. Message may have been received. Personally, I would rather suffer with Obama – the devil we know, than with Palin, the devil we don’t.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:11 am
No, Mr. McCain’s numbers did not tank after the interview, they slipped slightly and then tanked after the financial crises.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:11 am
18: I might have voted Libertarian if Mac had chosen Mitt. I was already considering jumping ship once Mac kept banging the drum for the economy-wrecking cap-and-trade nonsense. Having Mac pick Mitt after hearing so many Romney supporters run extreme opposition to Mac would have clearly been a sign that Mac was more cynical than I had ever wanted to imagine.
Either way, I might wind up supporting Mitt in ‘12 if he throws his hat in. If he’s as offensive as such an overtly cynical, shamelessly pandering politician again, I’ll support someone else. I can’t say yet. But if I back him, it won’t be because I have to hate everyone else more than him.
I was definitely swayed by the input of the autonomous Rombots. Their negative sales pitch told me that I should support Mitt because he was less objectionably revolting than anyone else. That’s no reason to vote for someone.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Adam,
The Gephardt/Daschle one was the worst that I have ever seen. It was so bad.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Having lost sight of the main post so far, Tommy O reminds me of the topic at hand. And I have to admit, even as a political junkie, I can’t really remember any rebuttal speeches at all.
The task of rebutting the sitting president is not very memorable, at least in my experience. And that should ultimately work to Jindal’s advantage.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:28 am
MarkG – you’re kidding. Choosing Romney would have been the least cynical thing Mac could have done and would have shown everyone his honest committment to “Country First”. As it was, The Palin pick was the most cynical thing possible.
Also, Mark – try choosing your candidate based on merit rather than your contempt for his supporters.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:30 am
FredsFighter to Rush: I Don’t Want to Hear From You Again
Seriously guys, until we can get better public personas for the GOP than windbags like Rush and Hannity, we’re screwed. I know the Democrats didn’t exactly have many, but now they have Obama. We need someone competent and easy to listen to.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
If Jindal wants to play with the big boys. He has to be able to preform on a world stage.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Martha, unlike some around here, I’m keeping an open mind.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Brilliant column Adam. I agree 100%.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:58 am
But MarkG – you didn’t answer why you allow supporters to sway you rather than simply voting based on the merit of the candidate.
Personally, I wouldn’t let anything a supporter says deter me from voting for who I believe is the best candidate.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Brilliant? not sure about that.
Just stating the obvious.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I feel like that has been explained a thousand times in as many different ways. But I’ll sum it up again myself.
The negativity of some in the Romney camp reflected a campaign that clearly relied on trashing all of Romney’s opponents one by one. The scorched-earth tactics were rather obviously encouraged, having never once been repudiated or contradicted. The Romney campaign wanted to have it both ways while at the same time shrieking foul hypocritically at every turn.
None of the other campaigns could stand the Romney campaign by the time he conceded — that’s how vile his campaign’s attitude was.
Another related point is that the high-dollar campaign to trash his rivals made it look desperate: There was nothing else positive to sell in favor of Romney, so they had to make all the alternatives as toxic as possible.
Of course, I predict you’ll reject this and gripe about it. If so, I encourage you to continue on your obviously winning trajectory, ensuring a solid second-term win for the jackass party.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
MarkG, oh please! Even the most anti-Mitt hack out there could admit he had many strong attributes. And I never saw any of the implicitly approved underhanded tactics by campaign “surrogates” that you are indicating.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Mark – that’s la-la land stuff. Just didn’t happen. Romney went after records, and never got personal.
Nothing positive to sell in favor of Romney? – give me a break.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
This asinine comment elicited from me the same visceral reaction as when Romney’s personal fluffer, Hugh Hewitt, sought to squelch and disqualify dissent.
Rush, if you don’t want to hear from me ever again, you’ll first have to rip that cochlear implant out of your ear, you deaf, corpulent f*ck!
February 26th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I think its clear to MarkG that the other candidates didn’t gang up on Romney because he had the most money and possibly the strongest shot at winning the nomination, it was because he had the gall to claim McCain supported McCain/Kennedy and Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas!
February 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
#7: You want to to know the definition of distortion: claiming that Sarah made a fool of herself.
Tell that to the millions who watched Sarah’s debate with Biden when she basically took him apart a Senator with 35 years in the Senate and a specialist in foreign affairs.
Tell that to the tens of thousaands who watched and listened to her condemn the Messiah ‘for palling around with an unrepentent domestic terrorist, who wanted to ’spread the wealth, destroy the coal industry and implement a socialist agenda.
While the original maverick could only legitimize the Messiah by saying ‘that America had nothing to worry about if Obama became President’ Sarah was the only one fighting to defend America and the Constitution.
If Sarah made a fool of herself I and I believe millions of American patriots also intend to make fools of themselves. Let us resolve make such fools of ourselves that we end up making a fool of the Messiah and his socialist agenda.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
38 – What was so bad about Mitt’s speech? The one big complaint I heard was he didn’t include athiests, but come on. It was a speech about faith, not lack of faith. I wouldn’t expect Hitchens to write a column about how wonderful it is to be a Christian.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Romney started out of the gate as the candidate willing to do and say anything to win, and nurturing a back-door rumor-mill campaign was only a small part of it. Astroturfing was also part of the effort, on a grand scale. And that’s just all peachy.
But don’t come crying to me when everyone else decides you’re the lowest common denominator, worth the concerted effort to be taken out. You wanted “anything goes” and got it.
So grumble all you want. I’m just glad that justice was served to Mitt and his minions in ‘08.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
bob, with all due respect, you are not the slightest bit objective when it comes to Palin or Obama. Wow.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Sarah took Biden apart? Did we watch the same debates? Sarah did not answer the questions. she went off in her own direction, and did not ‘debate’, but wink, blew kissies and tried to charm her way without answering any with any substance. Drill baby Drill? Yea, that’s sweet. It’s about all she said worth two plugs. She tanked. She knew it. We knew it. Only the most blind supporters thought she took biden apart. I’m no fan of Biden, but at least in HIS personal life, he walks the talk.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
MarkG’s distortion of facts, historical revisionism, and sanctimony are growing intolerable. The other candidates, the media, and many posters on this board unfairly targeted Mitt and falsely characterized his positions and campaign tactics. Unfortunately he was not able to break away from that characterization. In four years that will be ancient history. By the same token, so will Jindal’s botched speech, perhaps even Palin’s botched interviews and subsequent tailspin will be sufficiently buffered by 4 years. At this point ALMOST anyone has a decent shot; though Mitt likely has a leg up on the rest (a short leg). The only candidate that I can’t seem to imagine any circumstances that would allow him to get nominated is Huckabee. The GOP reached a new low when they fleetingly considered his candidacy. He has simply nothing to offer–no redeeming qualities (at least any that are unique to him).
February 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
GetReal,
I wasn’t commenting on the content of Romney’s speech in #38. What was atrocious, in my estimation, was Hewitt’s absurd assertion that any political analyst who denied Romney’s speech was simply magnificent is untrustworthy.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Lol, I’m no Knickers or Martha, but the only saving grace of Palin’s debate performance was that it wasn’t as bad as we thought it would be.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Then allow me. My favorite line:
February 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I guess we did not watch the same debate, Knickers.
As for Mr. Limbaugh not wanting to hear from anti-Jindal people ever again, I think it was a poor choice of word and it should not men that we should stoop to his level and not want to hear from him.
MarkG: To be sure, there were those in the Romney camp that did not play nice, but that should not necessarily reflect poorly on Mr. Romney himself. Although, they still have a few loose cannons, among other things, I actually give credit to the Romney camp for toning down the rhetoric against other Republicans.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Ohio Joe
Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, are all about “poor choice of wording”. They are shock jocks, intentionally provocative, inflammatory, and shrill. Their audience loves it. Everyone else sees right through it.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I do not think that for the most part they are provocative. They rubbed me the wrong way by meddling in the primary process, but they do have a lot of wisdom and are sincere. Yes, sometimes they go over the top to make a point and thus portray a certain persona among other things, but I think that at the end of the day they are sincere and they are trying to promote many (perhaps not all) of the values that most Republicans stand for.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
48–
MarkG–see 45.
Also, wasn’t there an entire post dedicated to the ridiculous semantic austerity demanded by the Anti-Romney camp? Your distortions are unbecoming.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
oops–referring to the MLK quote
February 26th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Ohio Joe, I do agree that they’re trying to promote their own Republican values, but I think that, to them, the ends justify the means. If they
find a needle in a haystack piece of evidence that supports their view, they’ll scream about it from the tops of the mountains as if it trumped the haystack of evidence to the contrary. They’re not afraid to distort, misinterpret, or spout off on topics about which they are completely and obviously ignorant. Oh, and they have massive egos. Just my opinion…
February 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Do we want to have somebody in our party who can sound as smart as Obama regardless what he says and convince people to vote for us, or do we believe in a set of principles that defined this country’s founding and will return it to greatness again?”
Why can’t we have both? Rush seems to think being a bad communicator is necessary to being a good conservative. I’m definitely willing to overlook Jindal’s performance, but if its indicative of his overall speaking skill than we’ve got to find somebody else.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
#35 – MarkG
You are correct in your assessment. Note that much of Mitt’s strategy/tactics was drawn from the Rove Playbook for 2000. Not surprising since many of the staff/consultants were the same. I believe that this was Mitt’s single biggest mistake, for the Rove Playbook was a concoction unique to two men (Bush and Rove) at a particular point in time and was thus outdated and unsuitable.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“If they
find a needle in a haystack piece of evidence that supports their view, they’ll scream about it from the tops of the mountains as if it trumped the haystack of evidence to the contrary.” I agree that this is sometimes true. However, it is certainly also true of the MSM at times.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“They rubbed me the wrong way by meddling in the primary process”
Can’t say I agree. In my view, we ended up with McCain because talk radio didn’t have the parts to pick one Conservative over another.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
It is not their job to pick one Conservative over another.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
If Jindal runs, Palin is history. Rush and Co will drop her like a hot potatoe.
Jindal is the only one who seriously competes with Romney.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Did I spell potato wrong???
February 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“In my view, we ended up with McCain because talk radio didn’t have the parts to pick one Conservative over another.”
If Republicans are truly just waiting for an anointing by talk radio to make decisions with regards to an election, they really don’t deserve to participate in democracy, because that’d be a sham.
Sean Hannity does not have one iota more clairvoyance into conservative principles than I do. And he’s more of a jerk.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
The Cal Ripken President
by Ann Coulter
February 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Well stated, MellowFellow.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Daniel Henninger of the WSJ thinks republicans better get their act together to combat Obama’s “Radical Presidency”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561433557778201.html
He says Jindal didn’t go far enough in his response, and that we’re facing an enormous alteration in the way the government and the economy interact – bigger than anyone could have imagined a few months ago.
It’s a good article, someone should post on it today.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Rush should just get over it. Some great politicians started well (Obama in 2004), and some did badly (Clinton in 1988). I don’t think Bill Clinton supporters would bash someone who said that Bill’s speech in 1988 was bad.
But then Rush is hardly a beacon of tolerance is he?
February 26th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Rasmussen Reports: 51% Say Tax Hike On Those Earning Over $250,000 Is A Good Move
February 26th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Gallup: Obama Speech Bolsters Confidence for Many Americans
Of those who watched, 57% are now more confident about his plans to fix the economy
Gallup: Americans Reject Sequel to Auto Bailout
More than 7 in 10 say Congress should not approve more loans
February 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I like Jindal, but he destroyed his 2012 chances with that rebuttal.
Wait until 2016, Bobby, and get some grey hairs first.