Recently anointed Republican “golden boy”, Governor Bobby Jindal, was severely criticized by members of both political parties for his response Tuesday night to President Barack Obama’s first address to a joint session of Congress. Although many Republicans had high hopes for Jindal after his appearance on NBC’s Meet The Press, his speech fell far short in the areas of both style and substance. In the face of dire economic conditions in America and in the face of overwhelming public opinion that emergency economic relief is desperately needed, Mr. Jindal criticized the government’s economic relief plan and threatened to reject some of the money allotted to his State. At one point Governor Jindal retreated back to the same old tired Republican mantra that more tax cuts for the wealthy were what was need to cure what ails America. In general, Jindal came across as amateurish, sing-songy, and over simplistic in both his approach and his solutions. Conservative columnist, David Brooks, summed it up well when he called Jindal’s arguments “insane”, and tone deaf to the serious economic challenges facing America.
Up until recently, the Republican Party has been searching desperately for a fresh face to help redeem the much discredited party’s image. Consequently Bobby Jindal, a Rhodes scholar and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, was the party’s choice to deliver the high-profile task of rebutting President Obama’s address to Congress. Although Mr. Jindal represented a new face for the Republican Party, he also represented the outdated and debunked ideas of arch-conservatism, the same ideas that drove America to the brink of financial ruin during eight years of the Bush Presidency. If this is the best candidate that the Republican Party can look to for leadership, then the Democrats should have no concerns about losing their Congressional majorities any time soon.
The “voice of conservatism” and the self-appointed “grand inquisitor” of the purity of the Republican Party is ex-drug abuser Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Limbaugh felt obliged to staunchly defend Governor Jindal on his radio show Wednesday, threatening all Republicans who may go after the governor in any way. It is sad, but unfortunately true, that any Republican who does not fall in lock step with Mr. Limbaugh’s ultra-conservative way of thinking is doomed to political ex-communication. If the Republican Party is to once again regain the trust of the American people it must soundly rebuke the voices of arch-conservatism such as Limbaugh, Jindal, Hannity and others. Governor Jindal is the first sacrificial lamb of the arch-conservatives. I wonder who will be next?
Tags: Hannity, Limbaugh, Republicans
Dear Cherlock,
At some point now that the Democrats are in power you have to do more than bash the opposition. For example explain to us why taxing those who work and giving to those who don’t will increase our work ethic and make us prosperous.
[Translate]
Dear Paul,
It’s certainly true that income taxes come from those that actually work and make income. It’s also true that much of those taxes go to support those unable to work, or those who have been laid off from their jobs. I suppose we could just let the poor and the unemployed starve to death so that the employed could feel real “ethical” and “prosperous”. Somehow, however, that doesn’t sound much like the America I know.
[Translate]
You were polite to PJ, i suppose you have to be in your job. I don’t have to be.
I was wondering if your simplistic notion of “taxing those who work and giving to those who don’t” was written by a moron for morons. Just wondering. Society is comprised of a large minority who cannot contribute much to either wealth generation or society building. Apart from the sick, the mentally impaired, and the very old, we have to accept in some degree many who are angry and turn to crime, or lazy and turn to welfare, television, the internet etc. In other circumstances most of the latter two groups would have been contributors, even if minimal, but everyone has to live.
Nowadays millions of clever, balanced, effective, virtuous people can generate much more wealth than they need and are happy doing it. They can share this wealth with the less effective, and in doing so create a society that is more attractive to almost everyone. There will still be crime and anger, and even you Mr Johnson do not want to know what I would do with this dangerous residue.
[Translate]
Dear Bob,
The key point in your response is the sharing of wealth (i.e. social welfare) helps to create a society that is attractive to almost everyone. The alternative to this is oftentimes a society where there are the fabulously wealthy and the dirt poor. Many years ago I travelled extensively throughout South America, where the few wealthy capitalists, government officials and land owners lived in heavily guarded fortresses surrounded by a vast sea of grinding poverty. Those people that had wealth lived in constant fear that their wealth would be taken away by the undeserving masses. Social welfare is price that the wealthy must pay to live in peace
[Translate]