Brooks: Jindal's Do-Nothing Path "Insane" For GOP.
I am pleased to note that Jindal's response to Obama's speech has been recognised as "just a disaster" for the Republican party.
That was David Brooks talking. And, as he states, it is further proof that the Republicans simply don't get the hole that they are currently in. They continue to argue that "big government" is the problem and appear to be utterly unaware that, with that speech, Obama has moved the goalposts. He isn't doing what Clinton did, he isn't essentially accepting their argument and debating over how it best be achieved, he is utterly rejecting their premise.
That's why Jindal's response was so pathetic. Indeed, it was so pathetic that even Fox News couldn't defend it.
The Republicans need to recognise that Obama has moved the goalposts. At the moment, they seem utterly unaware of that fact. This is exactly what I expected to happen before the last election, and it is why I predicted that the Republicans were heading for years in the political wilderness. The language that they have relied on for the past thirty years - big government bad, deregulation good - simply doesn't fit with the times.
Their message is fatally flawed, and yet they seem unable to readjust. Reaganism, and the simplistic answers it offered, is dead. It will take the GOP a long time to accept that fact, and therein lies their problem.
4 comments:
"For every complex problem, as the wise man once said, there is a simple solution, that is wrong."
Never has that statement been truer than in regards to David Brooks. Why such a waste of air is so often referenced is beyond me. He brings nothing to the table. Ever. At best he is a walking public opinion poll of the wishy-washy.
I think Jindal was the 2012er crazy enough to deliver the rebuttal to one of the greatest orators of our time. Even on a bad night Obama is a tough act to follow. I think the Republican party is broken, and more than in the usual way.
I think the Republican party is broken, and more than in the usual way.
I agree SP. I think they are, at the moment, utterly f#cked. And, from what Jindal said, I think they are moving even further into their comfort zone - "we lost because we weren't right wing enough" - which I regard as suicidal for them.
That depends by what you think right wing means. Republicans could still come back together in a hurry if Obama loses luster and they find a core that the various factions can stomach. Looking in as an outsider I see the paleocons as their natural center. They offer an alternative to globalism, seek religious high ground, and have a semblance of fiscal responsibility. None of the other factions like them, but they are seen as the lesser evil, which in politics means you just got the job.
The paleocons would be infinitely more acceptable than the neo-cons, but I simply don't think the base of the party would find them acceptable. If I think of Ron Paul as their best hope, I would have to say that I think he is too sensible for them. They seem to see politics as an exercise in rage and hatred and bile.
I think the party is going to engage in a bitter war and that the lunatic fringe of the party will win through.
That was certainly the message I took from Jindal's speech.
Post a Comment