Max is telling us to hunker down for a long campaign between the top 6 finishers at CPAC:
The early polling indicates a 6-way race between Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul( or due to his age, someone similar carrying the banner for libertarians).
He suggests others may join. The big problem here is that the CPAC strawpoll is pretty well worthless as a predictor of electoral fortunes or even top candidates.
The poll makes no sense when compared to public polls of Republican voters. Where’s the disparity? You have to follow the numbers. The Internals of the poll. First thing that jumps out right away is that 52% of the people who voted in this poll are students, 59% are under the age of 25. At least 59% are male. 12% refused to say. So, if we assumed the “refuse to say” are half male and half female, that would mean this polling sample is 59% under the age of 25, 52% college students, and 65% male. Is there anywhere this demographic makes sense ?
13% of the voters were from sponsoring organizations (mostly inside the beltway folks.) While 48 states were represented in the survey, can we say that they were represented proportionally? The beltway, Northern Virginia, and Southern Maryland will be far better represented than other states by nature of geography and having an easier time getting to where CPAC is held.
The CPAC strawpoll is a notoriously bad predictor. In 1999, it awarded the strawpoll victory to Steve Forbes. In 2005 and 2006, it went to George Allen, and this is Mitt Romney’s hat trick.
What states are most likely under-represented? The ones that will decide the nomation. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
The bottom line: if you want to hold a conference so that big name conservatives can easily get there, hold it in Washington. If you want to hold a conference that will tell you anything about 2012, hold a simultaneous 3-day conference in Concord, Des Moines, and Charleston.
This past cycle we witnessed one of the longer primary fights in recent history, as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton waged an epic contest, that was extremely close and competitive. Many in the pundit class (most firm apologists for Obama) whined at length that the long primary would hurt the party’s chances in the fall campaign, that the GOP and John McCain would benefit, and that the primary should be prematurely ended for the sake of party unity.
Of course these calls for the contest to end were without merit, and after all was said and done the long primary helped the party register thousands upon thousands of voters and caused the candidates to spend weeks, even months in some states where they otherwise would not have focused as much time or resources. This long process left McCain and the GOP struggling just to get noticed, as the press and country at large was consumed with the dramatic primary battle. Considering that the primary is nearly 2 years long while the general election is a mere 2 months following the conventions, it is the real time in which impressions about candidates and ideas are made. 2012 will be the first time in this new media era where the GOP will have an open primary and the national stage all to themselves (In 2000, Bush was an overwhelming front-runner, and that contest still predates the blog/youtube era). It will be the first and perhaps only time during his term that President Obama will be secondary in the media’s coverage. This reality will give the GOP a chance to truly rebuild grassroots efforts, raise unprecedented amounts of money, and register many new voters. It will allow us to speak to independents and blue dog democrats who otherwise may not pay attention to our primaries. I believe this longer campaign will be essential in the effort to re-brand the party, to give the public a long battle of ideas with new (well newish) faces.
The early polling indicates a 6-way race between Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul( or due to his age, someone similar carrying the banner for libertarians). Others, such as Jon Huntsman, Mark Sanford, and Tim Pawlenty may join them as well. However, considering the history of the party, and the limited number of top advisers, organizers, and strategists, our nominee is going to be one of those first four and to a lesser extent the first six. I believe it is beneficial to our eventual nominee to see that 6-way race continue on in the fashion of Obama v. Clinton, minus the ad hominem attacks. The long race will allow us to dominate the coverage early on, and help us to control the debate, while uniting in attacks on the president’s record. As the race goes on and the field narrows, our candidates will grow in stature, benefiting from a war of attrition, and will be percieved as stronger than if the race had ended on Super Tuesday.
I believe these six candidates can and will give us a great debate, aided by a few others, and we as a party will benefit from all of their participation. This is not a group of Hunter’s or Tancredo’s hopelessly crowding the field. Even though many believe Speaker Gingrich and Congressman Paul can’t win the nomination, I feel they are important regardless. They are both very intelligent men with strong conservative ideas. Someone like Sarah Palin will benefit having debated the likes of these two. I don’t want to watch debates with questions like ‘what is your favorite Bible passage’ when we could be having a real debate about healthcare and education. This group will help ensure such a debate finally happens.
The time for orderly succession is over, and a battle of ideas is what we now need. May the best man (or woman) win.
- There were several exhibitors, including Draft Sarah Palin 2012 and Team Sarah. Embarrassingly for the movement, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays was allowed a booth. Happily, a political pin vendor was also given a booth, and I bought a few amazing ones, including a Goldwater for President button all the way back from the 1960′s, a Reagan inaugural button, and, of course, a Rudy button. Don’t know if there are any other pin/button lovers out there, but there’s something to make you jealous!
- There was a serious libertarian presence there. Groups like Bureaucrash, the Campaign for Liberty, and others were everywhere you looked.
- The dominant issue among the attendees was just as the [unlisted on Race part of the] straw poll said: economics and a return to capitalist principles. Social issues were simply not on the agenda, which is, of course, from my angle, highly promising. Foreign policy-related issues had a small niche, including a screening of Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, attended by David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Pam Geller of AtlasShrugs.com, and Wilders himself, who said that he “felt at home” here in the USA. In case you don’t remember, Wilders was banned from entering the UK for his film, due to the fact that it would “cause community disharmony.” I’d communicated with Spencer and Geller in the past, but meeting Wilders was an honor.
- In case you couldn’t tell from TV, Rush Limbaugh is King of the Movement. He brought the freakin’ house down. (Isn’t it funny that the King and Queen of Conservative Media are an obese male and an anorexic-thin female?)
- Goodies abound. I walked away with a few free books, more booklets, pamphlets, handouts than I’ll ever be able to read, several pens, buttons, pins, wristbands, and more. There was also an internship fair.
- The conference is majority-student. Middle-aged people were seemingly more likely to be organizers or co-sponsors than individual attendees. Yes, yes, that’s hyperbole, but to the extent that the conference is future-driven more than anything else can’t be understated.
- The absence of prominent politicians can’t go unnoticed — especially our 2012 prospects. Jindal, Palin, Crist, Pawlenty — all absent, as were McCain and Giuliani.
I’ll take any questions now…
Mitt Romney comes out on top:
Yes, if he discovers France ever mistreated Kenya and/or his paternal relatives.
The British tried to kill George Washington and did kill thousands of Americans’ great grandfathers during the Revolution. They sacked the White House and Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812. Yet, the United States saw fit to let bygones be bygones in order to join hands with the United Kingdom to defeat the Kaiser, Nazism, Communism and al Qaida after 911.
That’s not good enough for America’s 44th President:
A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government’s art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush’s tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: “Thanks, but no thanks.”
America long ago reconciled with Britain, Germany, Japan and Vietnam. But America’s diplomacy with our greatest ally on Earth is snubbed by the latest natural born citizen to be Commander-on-Chief on behalf of Kenya?
Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden’s official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London.
American politicians have made quoting Churchill, whose mother was American, something of an art form, but not Mr Obama, who prefers to cite the words and works of his hero Abraham Lincoln. Indeed a bust of Mr Lincoln now sits in the Oval Office where Epstein’s Churchill once ruled the roost.
Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill’s second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President’s grandfather.
Want to understand the foreign policy of the United States in the Naughts of the 21st Century? Educate yourself on the grievances of the African home of Olympic marathoners and the Marxist dreams of Barack’s dad.
No matter that Churchill stood alone against the Nazis before Pearl? Oral history has it that an Obama was once tortured by English soldiers.
With liberals its all personal. No matter if someone else’s gramps was killed. If MY foreign pappy was harmed, then alliances for the country I lead are shaky.
Sounds like a Duke-Duchess European feud that could lead to a war of roses despite the fact that Britain has been our greatest ally for a century and more?. But since Iran has never harmed a hair on the head of a Kenyan Obama, not only would gifts of Ayatollah busts be kept, we’ll trash America for making you resort to hostage taking and more for the past 30 years in our first press conference.
This is what we elected.
God help us.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Thinking ahead to the 2012 Presidential election, who would you vote for as the next Republican nominee for President?
- Florida Governor Charlie Crist
- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
- Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
- Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
- Texas Representative Ron Paul
- Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
- Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
- South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford
- Undecided
- Write-In ____________________________
Unfortunately, since we don’t yet have a polling function, card check rules apply. Please indicate your selection by writing the last name of your preferred candidate in the comments section.
Click here to see the actual results from CPAC. (H/T: Falz)
The weekend is usually pretty light on posts. People take the time to actually live their lives, as opposed to coming here and obsessing about politics. So, to provide a forum to for those who STILL want to talk politics, here you go! The only rule is don’t threadjack the open thread. How do you threadjack an open thread? You discuss something already posted elsewhere, that’s how!
</blog cop>
I’ll try to put something interesting in the posts. For the first, I have a saying I recently came across:
“God helps those who help themselves. The rest look to Obama.”
h/t Carl Plesner
This past week has brought us President Obama’s first major post-inaugural address to the nation, Gov. Jindal’s response, as well as a multitude of speeches from the leading luminaries of the American Conservative Movement at CPAC. These highly watched and highly anticipated public addresses really made me think about the importance of being an effective public speaker when deciding upon my candidate for the 2012 primaries.
After watching Obama’s speech, I can to this conclusion: the primary criteria that I will use decide who I will support for the 2012 Republican nomination will be who I believe to me the most effective and eloquent communicator of Conservative ideals–especially as delivered on television.
I am not going to go down with the ship willingly one more time with a candidate who cannot eloquently and persuasively communicate to the American Public why conservative principles will work best at solving the dire problems that face our country.
Fortunately, I believe that all of the Top Tier candidates-Palin, Romney, and Huckabee-have tremendous skills in this respect. So for me, I will be watching their performances closely as time goes by to judge who I feel will be the best choice in this respect for 2012.
Make no mistake people; no matter how badly the economy is doing, or how badly foreign affairs have been mismanaged, the American People will simply no longer place someone at the apex of power unless they can eloquently and persuasively speak to them.
CNN/Opinion Research 2012 GOP Nomination
- Sarah Palin 29%
- Mike Huckabee 26%
- Mitt Romney 21%
- Bobby Jindal 9%
- Someone else 10%
Among Men
- Mike Huckabee 28%
- Sarah Palin 27%
- Mitt Romney 22%
- Bobby Jindal 10%
- Someone else 9%
Among Women
- Sarah Palin 32%
- Mike Huckabee 22%
- Mitt Romney 20%
- Bobby Jindal 8%
- Someone else 11%
Survey of 429 Republicans was conducted February 18-19. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.
Bloomberg has an article that elaborates on what many of us have feared and warned about for a long time: Obama using fear to force through far-left programs and initiatives that create a dependent electoral majority steadfastly loyal to the Democratic Party. A few parts of this story really aggravate me.
Obama has made shifting the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthy central to his economic plan.
I guess the author forgets that the top five percent of income earners in the country already pay 57 percent of the federal income tax revenue. Oh, and I suppose he also failed to realize that about 70 percent of income tax filings at the highest bracket come from small businesses.
Obama’s first budget outline, put forth yesterday, proposed almost $1 trillion in higher taxes on the 2.6 million highest- earning Americans, Wall Street financiers, U.S.-based multinational corporations, and oil companies to pay for permanent tax breaks for lower earners.
Of course, he just HAD to mention the typical “villians” Democrats love to hate!
And with regard to Obama’s mortgage “stability” plan:
Other states with soaring mortgage delinquency rates include Indiana, with 9.31 percent of loans delinquent in the third quarter of 2008, the most recent with available data, and Ohio, with 8.31 percent delinquent. Together with Florida, where the rate is 9.11 percent, those states were crucial to swinging the election to Obama.
Don’t think we don’t see what you’re trying to do, Mr. President.
On another, more positive note, we have John Thune and David Vitter introducing some impressive gun-rights legislation. We haven’t heard much from Thune lately, so it’s nice to see him “stepping up to the plate”, as the article says, on an important issue.
Finally, the Washington Post offers an updated version of their “Ten Republicans to Watch” list. I don’t agree with some of the positioning (where is Huckabee, and why does Haley Barbour rank so high?), but I look forward to seeing people’s opinions in the comments section.
When even MSNBC can’t find an Iraqi citizen who wants us to leave, you know it’s bad…
Obama has announced that he will begin a “responsible and gradual” withdrawal of troops from Iraq over the next 18 months, dropping the number of in country troops from 142,000 down to 50,000. MSNBC interviewed Iraqi citizens for their response to the news, and here’s what they found:
“Terrorists are just waiting for the Americans to leave the country in order to turn things upside down,” said Ibrahim Salman, 55, a Baghdad municipality official. “I am against a hasty evacuation of U.S. troops from Iraq because security is not completely achieved throughout Iraq,” Salman said. “The Iraqi police force and army still need more training, experience, intelligence gathering and sophisticated military equipment.”
A barber in his late forties, Sa’ad Yassin, echoed this sentiment: “Of course, nobody likes his country to be occupied, but I want joint Iraqi and American forces to get rid of the terrorists, criminals, gangs and sleeper cells who are waiting to jump and control the land and people,” Yassin said.
Adel Abdul-Jabbar, a technician in Baghdad, fears there will be a bloodbath after U.S. forces leave. “Pulling their forces and leaving Iraq to be devoured by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey? Oh! No!” he said. “No, I am sure al-Qaida and militias will destroy Iraq and Iraqis will be swimming in blood pools.”
For more information on our Iraqi operation’s success thus far, see my earlier post “Let Them Finish the Job” – which is exactly what the Iraqi people are begging for now.
For all you “protest” voters who were so mad at Republicans for one or two things that you decided to vote the Democrats into power, here is another example of what you get.
This bill, should it make it past the legal challenges bound to arise (as it’s 100% unconstitutional, more on that later), will expand the voting members of the House of Representatives to 437, granting DC’s representative a vote and increasing the Utah delegation by 1 (to 6 voting members). Sen Ensign (R-NV) managed to add a provision that guts DC’s gun laws before the bill was approved. The bill now goes to conference, as the House has already passed a bill to give DC’s representative voting rights.
While not as grand a scheme as Pres Roosevelt’s efforts to pack the SCOTUS, this will have a similar effect in the House and Senate. Why the Senate? It’s the next logical step in the argument. “We have a Representative in the House, but we’re unrepresented in the Senate. Our voice is only halfway heard!” I can see no scenario under which ANY Republican can win the House or Senate seats here (remember, DC voted for VP Mondale over Pres Reagan 85-14 in ’84, a race Pres Reagan won the popular vote by 18% nationally and 525-13 electorally).
Were DC a state, I’d say tough for Republicans, because that’s the way the system is set up. They aren’t, however, and under Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, this means they don’t get a voting member of the House of Representatives. Sen Alexander (R-TN) sums up my feelings thusly:
“The bill passed by the Senate is unconstitutional because the District of Columbia is not a state. Our nation was formed by states, and the District is a unique city – not a state. The Constitution itself makes that distinction. The most logical alternative for giving D.C. residents full representation in Congress would be to give the District back to Maryland. The District was created from land ceded by Virginia and Maryland. Just as Arlington and part of Alexandria went back to Virginia in 1846, most of the District could again become part of Maryland, leaving only a small area around key federal buildings and monuments. I voted for an amendment that would have given DC residents full voting rights under this approach. Another option would be to keep the District as a separate entity, but allow DC residents to vote in Maryland. Congress should have passed one of these alternatives instead of passing an unconstitutional bill.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Things like this, on both a large and a small scale, are what you get when a bunch of people decide that they’ll either sit it out or vote for the other guys (who are inevitably worse on virtually all issues) because their pet issue isn’t front-and-center, and they want to teach the party a lesson. Congratulations, here’s your prize.
Adam Brickley claims in his article that Bobby Jindal has no foreign policy experience.
But Bobby Jindal was on the House Committee on Homeland Security and was vice-chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks.
It’s something.
It’s a lot more than Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabee (despite his brilliant article), or Romney have.
That shouldn’t make you feel any better about his vote against CAFTA, though.
Okay, nobody freak out. I am not…let me repeat…NOT jumping off the Palin bandwagon – not even close. Sarah is my candidate in 2012, period. That said, I think there is a serious problem with our overall field of potential primary candidates: they’re ALL governors
Don’t get me wrong, I like Governors, they make great nominees – but I’m starting to get unnerved by the potential of a primary contested solely by domestic policy experts. Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Jindal, Crist – ALL lack foreign policy credentials, and it’s going to be harder to give those issues their due if no-one in the field is really well-schooled in that department.In my humble opinion, there absolutely MUST be at least one candidate in the race who can make sure that all of the candidates – including my beloved Sarah – get their feet held to the fire regarding terrorism, defense, international relations, and national security. Some have suggested that David Petraeus could make a wild-card run, but I personally think that’s a pipe dream. Instead, we need to find somebody willing to become a second-tier, single-issue candidate who is in the race in order to channel the debate (much in the way that Tancredo and Hunter kept Immigration relevant in the 2008 primaries…love ‘em or hate ‘em, it worked).
I had previously thought about suggesting firebrand think-tank head Frank Gaffney for this role, but even I knew that was a bit of a stretch. However, after attending yesterday’s session of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I realized that I had been neglecting one of the conservative movement’s most forceful and eloquent voices on foreign policy issues – Former U.N. Ambassador John “The ‘Stache” Bolton.
As far as I’m concerned, Ambassador Bolton is the complete package politically – he’s ridiculously smart, has a memorable personality, seems to have a lot of fire in his belly, and (most importantly) is one of the more dynamic speakers I’ve seen. He positively brought the house down at CPAC this morning, and I remember that he did the same last year. Anyone would be hard-pressed to handle him in a foreign policy debate, and his dynamism might even give him a chance of pulling off a Huckabee-esque breakout – especially considering that he would have a virtual lock on security-focused voters. The only real problem is that he can be a bit of a bomb-thrower, but that can be an asset in a primary campaign, and it’s definitely a good thing if he were to find himself in contention for the VP slot after the primaries (I would pay good money to see a Biden-Bolton smackdown).
The biggest question is what’s in it for Ambassador Bolton if he doesn’t win (which would be a pretty good bet). Well, he could put himself in the catbird seat for Secretary of State or National Security Advisor if the GOP nominee defeated Obama – or he could use his momentum to launch his own policy organization, dramatically raise his profile in the media, and cement his position as the right’s dominant voice on foreign policy. As I see it, he really can’t lose.
So, do you think that we are going to need a “security candidate” in the 2012 race, and if so, what to you think of the idea of drafting The ‘Stache?
Today, Mr. Obama announced a revised deficit for FY 2009:
President Barack Obama charted a dramatic new course for the nation Thursday with a bold but contentious budget proposing higher taxes for the wealthy and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all — accompanied by an astonishing $1.75 trillion federal deficit that would be nearly four times the highest in history.
Denouncing what he called the “dishonest accounting” of recent federal budgets, Obama unveiled his own $3.6 trillion blueprint for next year, a bold proposal that would transfer wealth from rich taxpayers to the middle class and the poor.
Congressional approval without major change is anything but sure. The plan is filled with political land mines including an initiative to combatglobal warming that would hit consumers with considerably higher utility bills. Other proposals would take on entrenched interests such as big farming, insurance companies and drug makers.
Obama blamed the expected federal deficit explosion on a “deep and destructive” recession and recent efforts to battle it including the Wall Street bailout and the just-passed $787 billion stimulus plan. The $1.75 trillion deficit estimate for this year is $250 billion more than projected just days ago because of proposed new spending for a fresh bailout for banks and other financial institutions.
As the nation digs out of the most serious economic crisis in decades, Obama said, “We will, each and every one of us, have to compromise on certain things we care about but which we simply cannot afford right now.”
There seems to be a daily drip drip in the deficit projections that the Obama White House keeps putting out. Every day, the President and his friends continue to add new “investments” and “projects” under the guise of economic stimulus. Unfortunately, this form of economic trickery isn’t stimulus; it’s a lot of wasteful spending and hidden tax increases. A new climate tax that will raise the cost of home electricity but will supposedly deter polluters through the purchase of permits, a new health care reserve fund costing over $600 billion, reduced tax deductions for higher income earners, redundant education spending, billions for new rail projects, and obviously the list goes on. I can’t name a time in our history when with a projected deficit increase by 400% over one year, spending increases not seen before, and an unfunded tax cut to 95% of Americans, that we’ve moved out of a rut and into furthered prosperity. Seems pretty crazy to me.
In this interview — Race42012′s second with the Congressman — I speak with Tom Tancredo about what he thinks we must do to win Hispanics, who he considers the anti-illegal immigration torch passed to in Congress, and what he thinks of the Race 4 2012.
He was speaking at the inaugural celebration of a new conservative youth group, Youth for Western Civilization, of which he is the honorary national chairman.
—
Sum up the purpose of your message here tonight to Youth for Western Civilization.
CPAC has become, unfortunately, has become a little too PC and needs to be yanked back into the conservative — into a conservative sort of — serving a conservative cause. And especially on the issue of immigration, they are running away from it here, they dont wanna talk about it. They accuse me of being the reason why the Republicans lost, but I suggested that if more Republicans had had my message, we would have been more successful than we were, and you cannot pander your way out of a losing position. You cannot pander your way out of the minority and that’s what one of the things is that I want to get across tonight.
Setting aside the issue of immigration, how do you propose that the GOP win over Hispanic voters?
It’s the same thing as when you ask what the Republican Party has to do to win black voters — there’s hardly anything [you can do], quite frankly. Hispanic voters do not vote as monolithically as black voters, but it’s a pretty set figure, at about 65% for Democrats, 35%-40% for Republicans. That’s the way it is, that’s really not going to change for — I get 38% of the vote in Colorado in a poll running in the governor’s race — so what the heck, what does that tell you? If Tom Tancredo can get as much as George W. Bush did — we have to try to appeal to them on the basis of family values issues and all the rest — immigration is not the issue that they find most compelling. And in fact, we can get a lot of people on our side by upholding the rule of law. And when you come here legally, you have great advantages and you shouldn’t lose those advantages to people who come here illegally.
But there was a noticeable decline in McCain’s share of the vote, when compared to George W. Bush’s –
But he lost more in white males than he lost in Hispanics! But if you look at the percentages –
So you ascribe it more to a national shift than —
We lost Hispanics for the same reason we lost white males, white females, soccer moms — you know, it was no greater — the percentage was no greater in other categories.
I’m an American University student who attended your speech the other night. As we both saw, there were several student protesters that were there not to listen, but to speak. Do you think that it’s possible to get through to such students, and how?
No. You’re not gonna get through to them, but there are, I think, students there who I believe, uh, heard at least part of the message, and to the extent that they were willing to, um, to the extent that you come in there with even a marginally open mind, I hope I was able to at least make them think a little bit about this topic, and that was the purpose. You don’t change people’s minds, especially after they have been force fed that from the cult of multiculturalism for however long they’ve been in school — 13 or 14 years of education — in that environment, you don’t change people’s minds in one speech. But what I hope I could do is make a few people think twice about the possibility to make people see that what I say has nothing to do with race, but because I believe in all my heart that we have issues in this country of major importance that have to be discussed and debated, and to the extent that they allowed me to do so without constant interruptions, I am greateful to them and I respect the fact that they did that. I know what happened the minute I started to leave — there was all this noise — but there had to be people that saw through that. I think so.
You, of course, are known nationally as a staunch proponent of Western values, a tough immigration stance, and national sovereignty. Who, if anyone, would you say, has been passed the mantle in Congress?
Steve King, from Iowa. Ted Poe, from Texas — and that’s probably it, actually.
We are Race42012, after all — any early prospects that look promising to you?
No. No. I mean, I endorsed Romney when I got out of the race — but what we are desperately looking for is a leader, and that means not just a person who has the right ideas, but someone who can actually articulate them. I was very disappointed the other night to see Bobby Jindal not articulate them. He has all the substance in the world, but he didn’t have the style — and unfortunately, you need both in today’s political arena.
…
Romney is the best one we have going for us right now, but I want you to underline right now. But in this business, tomorrow could mean a completely different stage to look at.
Most people may already know about this, but I didn’t see it addressed here in a post: a lawyer representing Guantanamo detainees claims that “abuse of prisoners” has increased since Obama’s inauguration:
Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike.
While these practices certainly deserve our disgust and abhorrence, I can’t help but wonder what the MSM would have done if this occurred with Bush in office… I feel terribly for the soldiers guarding GITMO, who do so with the knowledge that after their brave service, some of the detainees, who threaten our nation’s security, will soon re-enter public life.
Next, Jake Tapper gives a breakdown of Obama’s tax increase proposals for the ten years beginning in 2011. Some of the parts that I particularly revile:
- $118 billion – capital gains tax hike
- $5.3 billion – excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
- $3.4 billion – repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
- $13 billion – repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
Increasing capital gains taxes is one of the worst things Obama can do to instill confidence in the markets. The excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas will hurt consumers. And Obama takes us farther away from energy security by reducing incentives for energy companies to increase production. All in all, too much redistribution and not enough pro-growth initiatives.
The Washington Post and Erick Erickson of Red State provide some commentary on Mike Huckabee’s activities and reception at CPAC. One part of Huckabee’s speech that impressed me, as reported by the Post:
He [Huckabee] said the free market should be permitted to engage in creative destruction to restore the economy to equilibrium.
That provides an encouraging sign that a guy with questionable fiscal conservative bonafides really does “get it” when it comes to the counterproductive effects of government intervention in the economy.
And finally, here is the Afghanistan strategy proposed by none other than Henry Kissinger. I’ll try to identify his key points:
- “Heretofore, America has pursued traditional anti-insurgency tactics: to create a central government, help it extend its authority over the entire country and, in the process, bring about a modern bureaucratic and democratic society. That strategy cannot succeed in Afghanistan — especially not as an essentially solitary effort.”
- “Reform is a moral necessity. But the time scale for reform is out of sync with the requirements of anti-guerrilla warfare. Reform will require decades; it should occur as a result of, and even side by side with, the attainment of security — but it cannot be the precondition for it.”
- “Military strategy should concentrate on preventing the emergence of a coherent, contiguous state within the state controlled by jihadists.”
- “In the rest of the country, our military strategy should be more fluid, aimed at forestalling the emergence of terrorist strong points.”
- “…the United States should propose a working group of Afghanistan’s neighbors, India and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Such a group should be charged with assisting in the reconstruction and reform of Afghanistan and establishing principles for the country’s international status and obligations to oppose terrorist activities. Over time, America’s unilateral military efforts can merge with the diplomatic efforts of this group. The precondition for such a policy is cooperation with Russia and Pakistan.”
- “Pakistan’s leaders must face the fact that continued toleration of the sanctuaries — or continued impotence with respect to them — will draw their country ever deeper into an international maelstrom. If the jihadists were to prevail in Afghanistan, Pakistan would surely be the next target — as is observable by activity already taking place along the existing borders and in the Swat Valley close to Islamabad.”
I was wondering if posting a not-strictly-political item about the media would be appropriate, especially for my first post at R4’12, and then Kavon posted two media-related items. Now the question is not whether it’s appropriate, but whether it’s overkill.
Oh well. First the intro. I’m not really new here, I’ve been commenting for a while as BobH. Here’s my quickie bio:
Bob Hovic is a marketing consultant with an international practice, based in the metro Chicago area. He has had three books published dealing with his area of specialization. Bob is a widower with two adult children.
Though raised in a thoroughly Republican family, Bob began his political activism as a left-wing Democrat in the Vietnam era, before becoming disenchanted with the authoritarian tendencies of the left and joining the Libertarian Party. “I might still be a Libertarian,” Bob says, “if they were simply more realistic and more focused on accomplishing things, rather than fighting lost causes.”
Bob considers himself a conservative with libertarian leanings, but above all a pragmatist, often quoting Otto von Bismarck: “Politics is the art of the possible.”
In part for business reasons, but also just because it interests me, I follow the media (and especially newspapers) fairly closely. And it’s certainly been interesting of late. Today’s most interesting news (besides the death of the Rocky Mountain News, which has been expected for a while), is that Rupert Murdoch wants to buy some more papers, including the New York Times.
It seems pretty unlikely to me — Murdoch already owns the Post and two TV stations in NYC, which means he’d need Justice Department approval to buy the Times (forgetting the other barriers). Can you imagine a Democratic DoJ approving the sale of their favorite paper to one of their favorite villains?
Buying the LA Times from the bankrupt Tribune Co. seems a lot more likely.
Something not brought up in the linked article is that the San Francisco Chronicle is for sale, too (Hearst says they may shut it down if they can’t find a buyer). Wouldn’t it be fun if Murdoch bought a paper in SF? You wouldn’t be able to see the Golden Gate Bridge for all the exploding heads.
The special election to fill the House Seat of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is looking good for House Minority Leader Jim Tedisco (R) to turn this into a pick-up:
LOUDONVILLE, N.Y. — A new poll from the Siena Research Institute shows Republican Jim Tedisco leading Democrat Scott Murphy in the race for the recently vacated 20th Congressional District seat.
The Assembly minority leader has a 46-34 percent lead over the North County businessman, according to the poll of likely voters.
Tedisco’s lead is just 12 points in a district with a 15-point Republican enrollment edge and he has only single-digit leads on issues critical to voters. The district includes Dutchess, Columbia, Delaware, Greene, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren and Washington and Essex counties.
The Democrats and Scott Murphy have got a big gap to close and only 33 days to do it.
Becoming the first major newspaper to close in a decade, they will publish their final edition tomorrow.
In a sign that their minority status and growing disillusion with the Obama Administration may be awakening Conservatives them from their slumber, Fox News had more viewers in February than CNN & MSNBC combined:
Fox News was the ratings leader during prime time and total day during February 2009 — its 86th month on top. FNC averaged more Total Viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time and total day.
FNC had nine out of the top 10 programs in cable news last month in Total Viewers. The O’Reilly Factor was #1 for the 99th consecutive month, and was up 33% in Total Viewers compared to February 2008. The other top programs included Hannity (up 38%), Glenn Beck (the 5pmET hour was up 100%), The FOX Report with Shepard Smith (up 30%) and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (up 24%).
On the Record also reclaimed the lead in the 25-54 demographic, up 4% year to year. At 7pmET, FOX Report was up 28% in the demo, The O’Reilly Factor was up 44% and “Hannity” up 34%.
FNC’s third newly launched show, “Special Report with Bret Baier,” was up 38% in Total Viewers and the demo compared to last year. Baier’s new program, Beck’s and Sean Hannity’s solo hour at 9pmET beat CNN and MSNBC combined in Total Viewers during their respective time periods.
Hat-Tip: Conservative Grapevine
More than a month has passed since George W. Bush left the White House. In his wake, Bush left endless controversy, ongoing uncertainty, and a stockpile of sticky options as we push forward. Despite all of his faults, Bush will be remembered for his handling of the war in Iraq beginning in the dark months of late 2006 and early 2007. The drastic changes that have transformed the desert nation are truly astonishing. Through it all- through the mismanagement, the thoughtless loss of civilian life, the terrifying patterns of ethnic war- we now see the light at the end of the tunnel. And for this, I will always maintain respect for the former President. As for Bush’s Defense Secretary (and now, Obama’s), Robert Gates, and his top general, David Petraeus, nothing can be said to measure their heroic status.
While America finds itself in a deepening economic crisis (one that has rightly diverted our minds from issues abroad), news from Iraq is more promising. Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s supporters posted strong gains in recent provincial elections, evidence that Iraqi civilians increasingly back the notion of a strong central government devoid of deep sectarian divisions. Whether right or wrong, Maliki has been rewarded for establishing and maintaining order over the past two years. Of course, Iraq has a long way back yet. Basic services such as electricity and running water remain a luxury in many areas of the country. Baghdad cannot present a united and resolute front until it can legitimately represents every civilian, no matter they Sunni, Shiite or Kurd.
This in-depth article describes the cautious optimism taking a hold in Iraq. Life is slowly returning to pre-war normalcy, with the sectarian barriers (both physical and emotional) constructed since 2003 gradually falling away. Although many Sunni citizens worry that an American pullback will result in new bloodshed perpetrated by the Shiite-dominated government, Sunni political gains in the recent elections coupled with the growing strength of the Iraqi army quell these concerns.
America’s continued success in Iraq hinges on our military’s ability to maintain the trust of local populations. The genius of Gen. Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy is its emphasis on establishing order, protecting the population and sustaining a viable community, while avoiding large-scale violence. The “Surge” worked because the soldiers became part of the population- they took a stake in the well-being of the Iraqi people. In turn, the insurgency was depleted because the average Iraqi placed his trust in the hands of the American and Iraqi armies.
Now, more than seven years after the first bombs found their targets in Afghanistan, President Obama has asked General Petraeus to work his magic once more. The president has ordered more than 17,000 additional troops to the conflict that has grown worse in recent months. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan (yes, it’s part of the war, too) teeter on the edge of failing states, plagued by corruption, increasing violence and an inability to control vast swaths of their own land. As Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters are gearing up for their spring offensive, you must wonder if America has one last push in her. In the midst of economic distress, can the United States pull off a few more miracles in the Middle East?
Sadly, Afghanistan and Pakistan are entirely different creatures than Iraq. Tactics that were successful in Iraq will not always work in the more rural and underdeveloped nations to the east. But, in the end, I rest assured knowing that Petraeus is calling the shots. There’s always hope.
MSNBC has an article on the upcoming CPAC which starts today, and notes:
The Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, which begins Thursday and extends through Saturday, is really the first true GOP cattle call for the next presidential election.
Romney, Huckabee, Sanford, and Pawlenty all have prime-time speaking slots at this year’s conference. The article notes two notable absences: Jindal and Palin.
If this really is the first true cattle call, though, then it must be time for the first ever – and way too early – Intrade market update! Intrade currently lists 20 folks whose contracts are trading above zero. Here is the baseline, then, heading into the longest primary season ever:
| Rank | Name | Value | Movement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Romney | 25.0 | — |
| 2 | Jindal | 20.0 | — |
| 3 | Pawlenty | 19.5 | — |
| 4 | Huckabee | 16.5 | — |
| 5 | Barbour | 15.5 | — |
| 6 | Palin | 14.0 | — |
| 7 | Gingrich | 12.0 | — |
| Sanford | 12.0 | — | |
| 9 | Giuliani | 10.0 | — |
| Huntsman | 10.0 | — | |
| Thune | 10.0 | — | |
| 12 | Crist | 9.9 | — |
| Thompson, F | 9.9 | — | |
| 14 | Bush, J | 6.0 | — |
| 15 | Lieberman | 5.5 | — |
| 16 | Petraeus | 5.0 | — |
| 17 | Cantor | 2.5 | — |
| Pence | 2.5 | — | |
| 19 | Perry | 2.0 | — |
| 20 | Johnson | 1.0 | — |
An interesting side note: Jindal was actually ahead of Romney with a value in the 28-29 range until his speech Tuesday night.
And as for the general election:
Have at it!
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.
Ok, so this wasn’t what I was thinking of for my first post. However, when I ran into this, I couldn’t resist.
Analysis time:
Net result? The guy’s a jerk for putting the sign up and refusing to bring it down. It’s message is upsetting to many people, but that’s no excuse to deface private property, end of story.
Elections have consequences, folks. More of this kind of thing is on the way if the GOP doesn’t turn it around and start winning elections. They won’t start winning again unless they quit trying to throw each other overboard and start growing the appeal of the party. Want the sign to come down? Win elections.
In 1897, a 23 year old Winston Churchill published a paper entitled “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric”. In it, he singled out 5 qualities that make up good rhetoric. Because last night went so poorly for young Mr. Jindal, I’m going to try to systematically apply these qualities to Jindal’s speech, while contrasting it with a historically known “good speech”. That speech is Ronald Reagan’s famous “A Time for Choosing”. I’ll start with Churchill’s second quality: rhythm. Here’s how Churchill described it:
The sentences of the orator when he appeals to his art become long, rolling and sonorous. The peculiar balance of the phrases produces a cadence which resembles blank verse rather than prose.
I’m going to focus on the variation of syllables spoken per second. Since sentences are largely not breaking points in a speech, I decided to make what seemed like “natural” breaks. For instance, here’s how I separated a passage of Reagan’s speech:
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people (break). But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations (break). For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism” (break). Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century” (break).
I’ve recorded the number of syllables spoken, and the amount of time spent speaking, in between the breaks. I’ve then used simple division to come up with the number of syllables spoken per second in each section. Here are my results for the beginning chunk of the Jindal speech (until just after he finished that sheriff story):
5.15, 4.64, 5.3, 5.23, 4.93, 4.85, 4.54, 3.67, 5.08, 4.75, 5.29, 4.4, 4.8, 4.78, 5
Here’s maybe an easier to understand format; think of rising and falling action in a play or film:
Steady, Falling, Rising, Steady, Falling, Steady, Falling, Falling, Rising, Falling, Rising, Falling, Rising, Steady, Rising
Here’s the first of two Reagan excerpts in the numerical format:
4.22, 5, 4.67, 5.06, 4.25, 5.55, 6.14, 4.75, 4.13, 5, 4.83, 5, 5.63, 5.31, 4.18, 5.1
Now in the rising/falling format:
Steady, Rising, Falling, Rising, Falling, Rising, Rising, Falling, Falling, Rising, Falling, Rising, Rising, Falling, Falling, Rising
Here’s the second Reagan excerpt in numerical format:
5.31, 5.33, 5, 4.53, 5, 7, 4.89, 4.43, 6, 5.2, 4.88, 4.27, 4.25, 3.4, 4.88, 2.71, 4.65, 5.2, 3.87
Now in the rising/falling format:
Steady, Steady, Falling, Falling, Rising, Rising, Falling, Falling, Rising, Falling, Falling, Falling, Falling, Falling, Rising, Falling, Rising, Rising, Falling
Looking at the 3 data-sets you’ll notice a few things. First, you’ll notice that Reagan has fewer “Steady’s” then Jindal does. He’s always varying the rhythm of his rhetoric. Jindal is just flat at various points. Next, you’ll notice that Reagan’s Rising and Falling action is just…well, neat. He’ll go back and forth between rising and falling speech, and then start to rattle multiple falling’s off in a row. In other words, he’ll slow his speech down, gradually until he hits a sort “connecting” moment (these are the warm moments that Reagan has). He’ll then, start to gradually speed up again, reaching greater heights until he hits a summit, or a “forceful” moment (think “there is a price we will not pay, there is a point beyond which they must not advance). He’ll mix it up in this vein, so he’s always alternating “connecting” moments with “forceful” moments. The action progresses the way one would expect action to progress: it has the air of excitement. There’s another important thing you’ll notice if you look at the actual numbers. Reagan doesn’t simply vary his rhythm; he hits very high highs (7 syllables per second at one point) and very low lows (2.71 syllables per second at one point). Even when Jindal varies his rhythm, he doesn’t have anything like this range. Furthermore, Jindal rarely varied his speech gradually: instead it went from rising, to falling and back again, without building towards anything. This may explain the “sing-songy” feel that some folks noticed. It would seem then, that Churchill’s first “quality” seems to reflect a real fact of rhetoric: varying rhythm in a certain way helps create memorable, exciting speeches., while failing to vary it can result in disaster.
Continuing on my previous post, I have to clarify something. Because I agree with Jon Huntsman that the Republican Party lacks ideas, it doesn’t mean I agree with Huntsman’s proposals, indeed I don’t. But his criticism of our party at the Congressional level is legitimate as far as it goes.
What I think the Republican party must do is come out with a Conservative Reform Agenda. In the words of Sarah Palin, we have to put government on the side of the people, move government from being master and savior to being a servant.
So, how could we do this? Here’s what I think a true agenda for reforming our country would look like:
1) Reform Government
A broad category , but it’s vitally necessary. We have to trim the massive folds of unrelenting ugly fat from government by:
a) Eliminating or consolidating redundant agencies.
b) Devolving power to the states to create more efficient management.
c) Outsourcing Certain Government functions to the Private Sector when it will make good sense to do so.
d) Selling off unused federal assets.
e) Pinch every penny of federal dollars until it screams.
f) reform Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.
2) Abolish the Current Federal Tax Code
If you actually get rid of the income tax code, you get rid of a ton of lobbying and corruption. You unshackle the American economy from the load of $350 billion spent on nothing more than compliance with this tax code.
3) Abolish the Campaign Finance Code
The whole McCain-Feingold/post-Watergate attempts to regulate and control political speech are unqualified and complete disasters that serve only to protect incumbents, discourage people from running and require politicians to spend all of their time fundraising.
Remember McCain-Feingold was supposed to end the corrupting influence of money in politics? Has it? Look at the last election. Obama’s half billion campaign blew right through the myths of BCRA. Enough!
Let full disclosure be the law and let’s end this sham. If you want more ethical government, choose people of high character, not limit the pool of potential candidates to the well-connected and wealthy.
4) Term Limits for Members of Congress
I remember when attending a 1994 Senate debate between Senator Conrad Burns and Missoula lawyer Jack Mudd, the topic of term limits came up and someone from the audience said, “Politicians should be limited to two terms: one in office and one in jail.”
Perhaps, we don’t need to be that draconian, but if there’s anything that’s messed our country up more than a Congress that serves forever, I don’t know what it is. Back in the 1990s. After all, I reasoned, if we replaced those nasty with Republicans, we wouldn’t need term limits. What a sap I was!
We have learned the lesson of Lord Acton, power corrupts and absolute corrupts absolutely. In the time of the founding Fathers, no one imagined someone spending 40 years in Congress as Charlie Rangel has done.
How radically have we changed to career politicians? All of the 25 longest serving members of the U.S. Senate served in the 20th century, not a single one completed record longevity during the 19th century, eighteen of those twenty-five didn’t start serving in the Senate until after 1940.
These offices are public trusts meant to be held for a season, not forever. When you get people in Congress who are of the mind that their career will last forever, you get arrogance and you get a ruling class that cares more for itself than for the people. Let’s limit the House to four consecutive terms and the the Senate to two Consecutive terms.
5) Pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring a Balanced Budget and granting the President a Line Item veto.
These are things most states have in some form and there’s no compelling for the federal government not to have it.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Gov. Jindal spoke with Meredith Viera on the Today Show this morning:
Where was this Bobby Jindal last night? One of the biggest problems that Sen. McCain faced in Election 2008 was his ability to read from a teleprompter and present a convincing speech. Arguably, his communication skills proved to be his downfall. Last night, Gov. Jindal had the same problem. Like Sen. McCain, Gov. Jindal is wonderful on the fly. He has an extemporary speaking style that has impressed the masses and thus has moved himself to the forefront of various issues facing the Republican party and the country. Now, if Mr. Jindal has the fire in his gut to run in 2012 or 2016, he’ll have to spend many hours with a speech coach and force himself to start giving more speeches from a teleprompter. People became enamored with Mr. Obama in the most recent election because of his ability to communicate a basic message with passion and verve (even when the message was remedial or intangible). If Gov. Jindal can take the content of the speech he gave last night and learn how to deliver a speech on the level of some of our great leaders, we could have a President Jindal someday.
