Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 24, 2009
2008 Obama Nation
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, the GOP, this is a time of deep trouble:
Sixty-eight percent of speech-watchers questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey had a very positive reaction, with 24 percent indicating that they had a somewhat positive response and 8 percent indicating that they had a negative reaction.Eighty-five percent of those polled said the president's speech made them more optimistic about the direction of the country over the next few years, with 11 percent indicating the speech made them more pessimistic.
Eighty-two percent of speech-watchers said they support the economic plan Obama outlined in his prime time address, with 17 percent opposing the proposal.
Also, all of those politically powerful people trying to get his autograph—did that happen to Bush during his first address to Congress? I'm not sure.
1
Where are the numbers on Jindal's response? I'm extremely curious, since everyone I've talked to has said either "condescending", "sounds like he's talking to a bunch of little kids", "Kenneth the Page", or "is he trying to sell some Snuggies"?
2
jindal is in a great position. we all know what happened after they counted fred thompson out this early in the game, don't we?
6
@1: I'd guess that the numbers indicate "preaching to the choir."
The choice of Jindal to give this address strikes me as a low stakes gamble. The GOP didn't have much to lose today, and this is someone who could reasonably be imagined to be the GOP's Obama (interesting biography, meteoric rise to power and fame, etc).
But, I don't think anyone who wasn't a hardcore "tax cuts will solve all of our problems and give us individual blowjobs too!" nut will have a very favorable reaction to that address. It was really uncomfortable to watch.
The choice of Jindal to give this address strikes me as a low stakes gamble. The GOP didn't have much to lose today, and this is someone who could reasonably be imagined to be the GOP's Obama (interesting biography, meteoric rise to power and fame, etc).
But, I don't think anyone who wasn't a hardcore "tax cuts will solve all of our problems and give us individual blowjobs too!" nut will have a very favorable reaction to that address. It was really uncomfortable to watch.
8
If you're going to use a scare-quote "nickname" for Jindal, go with "The Exorcist," since he once recounted participating in a spoooooky exorcism.
10
Kal Penn's facebook status immediately after Jindal's speech: "Kal Penn REALLY wants to play Bobby Jindal on SNL".
Now THAT is a good idea.
Now THAT is a good idea.
11
So the politically powerful are sucking up to the president... because they are in awe or because they seek an advantage?
12
Am I the only one who thinks that Jindal's speech was the Republicans version of the try outs for American Idol?
Also, I couldn't stop laughing when he started talking.
Also, I couldn't stop laughing when he started talking.
15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNpZ_uBOX…
This is Jindal's response, what a joke! (sorry for the closed captioned smart ass remark on the video- this goon was the only one I could find who had the full response!)
This is Jindal's response, what a joke! (sorry for the closed captioned smart ass remark on the video- this goon was the only one I could find who had the full response!)
16
The subtle whistle in Jindal's speech made me think of the puppet Cornflake S. Pecially from Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.
Jindal completely angered me with his comments about volcano monitoring. I wanted to reach through the tv and slap him. Just because HIS state lacks volcanoes doesnt mean everyone else lacks them too. What a complete and utter ignorant fool. We monitor them SO PEOPLE DON'T DIE IN A NATURAL DISASTER. Maybe we shouldn't monitor tropical storms and hurricanes???
Jindal completely angered me with his comments about volcano monitoring. I wanted to reach through the tv and slap him. Just because HIS state lacks volcanoes doesnt mean everyone else lacks them too. What a complete and utter ignorant fool. We monitor them SO PEOPLE DON'T DIE IN A NATURAL DISASTER. Maybe we shouldn't monitor tropical storms and hurricanes???
19
Every time I hear the lets lower taxes argument and everything will work itself out, I can't stop but think about the underpants gnomes from south park.
Phase 1: Steal underpants
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: Profit
I mean, try as they might, phase 2 just isn't that clear to me. Or even if it makes sense in Omaha Nebraska, it makes NO sense in New England or any major metropolitan area on the seaboard (who pay more than their fare share of taxes btw).
Phase 1: Steal underpants
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: Profit
I mean, try as they might, phase 2 just isn't that clear to me. Or even if it makes sense in Omaha Nebraska, it makes NO sense in New England or any major metropolitan area on the seaboard (who pay more than their fare share of taxes btw).
20
@29: It's simple: by cutting taxes, underperforming businesses can afford to hire more employees than they need instead of putting money away for a rainy day.
Yeah, you're right. It doesn't make sense.
Yeah, you're right. It doesn't make sense.
21
No Lee, by cutting taxes what happens in the real world. (with real rich people, real wall street execs and such take it from a person who grew up in CT.)
They take the money, and keep it and put it in their pocket. It's brilliant. By taxing the rich, they take the money and put it in pocket. Trickle down economics NOT in progress. They might invest it some more AFTER they buy a couple houses, that fancy car ... and when they are done pissing their money on material things (like all humans do ...) then they'll look at the market and see what it can do for them.
The small businesses getting taxed more, it's a crock of shit. Most of the small businesses, are rich men with lots of little hands in small venture capital stakes, using the small business loop holes to try to sock away their money in more tax resistent investments.
Ironic isn't it.
When we tax the rich more, they have to come up with more ingenious ways of investing it, hiding and thus putting more money back into the market. And not in their pocket.
Ironic isn't it ... by taxing them more ... they in turn make more money, at least in the long run, as opposed to having to scheme of ways to keep their money for the short term. In short, we keep people working for their money.
The tax code, as complicated as it is, is designed to work in the complicated and dynamic world of finance WE ACTUALLY LIVE IN. As opposed to the black and white world we want to live in, believe we live in, or whatever. It's no wonder why the gap between rich and poor has grown durring the Bush administration and we have NOTHING to show for it other than real estate to drive our economy.
Not manufacturing, not mining, not natural resources ... but real estate. I mean really, FUCK real estate. Because someone owns a pretty condo in long beach, our stocks are doing better? I mean that is nonesense.
We make and do nothing, but boast about how awesome our property is and thus we are wealthy?
I also would like to believe in underpants gnomes and unicorns.
More...
They take the money, and keep it and put it in their pocket. It's brilliant. By taxing the rich, they take the money and put it in pocket. Trickle down economics NOT in progress. They might invest it some more AFTER they buy a couple houses, that fancy car ... and when they are done pissing their money on material things (like all humans do ...) then they'll look at the market and see what it can do for them.
The small businesses getting taxed more, it's a crock of shit. Most of the small businesses, are rich men with lots of little hands in small venture capital stakes, using the small business loop holes to try to sock away their money in more tax resistent investments.
Ironic isn't it.
When we tax the rich more, they have to come up with more ingenious ways of investing it, hiding and thus putting more money back into the market. And not in their pocket.
Ironic isn't it ... by taxing them more ... they in turn make more money, at least in the long run, as opposed to having to scheme of ways to keep their money for the short term. In short, we keep people working for their money.
The tax code, as complicated as it is, is designed to work in the complicated and dynamic world of finance WE ACTUALLY LIVE IN. As opposed to the black and white world we want to live in, believe we live in, or whatever. It's no wonder why the gap between rich and poor has grown durring the Bush administration and we have NOTHING to show for it other than real estate to drive our economy.
Not manufacturing, not mining, not natural resources ... but real estate. I mean really, FUCK real estate. Because someone owns a pretty condo in long beach, our stocks are doing better? I mean that is nonesense.
We make and do nothing, but boast about how awesome our property is and thus we are wealthy?
I also would like to believe in underpants gnomes and unicorns.
22
Lee,
I reread your comment a couple times ... I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic. sorry ... and then I went on a rant
I reread your comment a couple times ... I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic. sorry ... and then I went on a rant
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (22) RSS