President Obama delivered an unofficial State of the Union address Tuesday night, and so far it's received fanfare. On Ragan.com, Ian Griffin, a speechwriter in Silicon Valley, called it a “fine, workmanlike” speech.
And then there was the Republican response by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a celebrated politician eyeing the national stage. Gov. Jindal blamed government for the nation’s current woes, and insisted government is not the answer to our problems.
So how did his speech go over? Not good, say pundits on the left (no surprise) and even some on the right.
David Brooks, a conservative-leaning columnist, told PBS’s Jim Lehrer that Jindal’s speech went “not so well.” Brooks also said this:
You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very promising politician, and I opposed the stimulus package … but to come up at this moment in history with a stale, “government is the problem...we can’t trust the government” ... it’s just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic now. They may not like the way the Congress passed the stimulus bill. The idea that government is going to have no role in this ... in a moment where only the Federal government is big enough to do stuff ... to just ignore all that and say government’s the problem ... corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending—it's just a form of nihilism.
Nihilism—in other words, anarchy.
Those delightful scamps at the blog Gawker had a different take on Jindal. “Bobby Jindal’s rebuttal to the president’s Congressional address tonight sounded creepily like a monologue from Kenneth the Page, 30 Rock’s bewildered hillbilly,” Ryan Tate wrote for Gawker.
Was it really as bad as Brooks and Gawker insist? Or does this have the taint of liberal media bias?