Honestly, I figured it was just a matter of time before violence broke out at one of the health care town hall meetings, but I didn’t realize it would be so stuperb.
The story comes from the Kansas City Star, but to avoid having the AP go apeshit on me for pasting its text here, I’ll paraphrase:
The Scene
A St Louis health care town hall meeting, organized by the Tea Part Coalition.
The Incident
A lot of he says, she says, but the end result is that a fight breaks out and a conservative man, Kenneth Gladney, is injured. He says the Service Employees International Union started the fight; they say he did.
The Aftermath: Hilarity Ensues
The unfortunate Mr Gladney, in addition to being beaten up, is also recently unemployed and has lost his health care coverage. Therefore, he will accept donations from the general public to help cover his medical costs.
On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.
What?!
This is really unfortunate wording. It implies that in order to determine whether Obama is popular, we have to throw out African American opinions to find out what real public opinion is.
In fact, I’m having a hard time finding a way to interpret this that isn’t troubling.
Sure, I’m willing to accept that a large percentage of African Americans support the President (and people can debate the reasons for this on their own time; I don’t care to address this). But how does that make him “seem” more popular than he “actually” is? This boggles me.
Can’t say I blame Rachel for being speechless. Governor Jindal squandered a huge opportunity last night with his “response” to President Obama’s address. I was a bit disappointed, too. I’d heard a lot about this popular governor; he has a reputation for wide support from the right and left, and is often mentioned as a rising star in the Republican Party.
First, let’s discuss style. Jindal sounded, to my ears, almost exactly like Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock. It was distracting, as were his strained smiles and awkward facial expressions. He came across as unpolished and, frankly, when taking into account the content of his speech, almost childish. If he’s going to give President Obama a real challenge in 2012, he has a lot of work to do.
But the important failure here is in what Jindal said - and didn’t say. There was nothing in his speech to indicate that he listened to the President’s address. This is a huge failure on Jindal’s part, since one wouldn’t have to hear Obama’s speech to predict some of the issues that would be raised. Instead, Jindal discussed, at length, Hurricane Katrina. He talked about his personal role in the unfolding crisis, but mainly focused on the inefficiencies of bureaucracy, following it up with a feel-good bit about Americans risking life and limb to help each other in times of need.
Jindal didn’t respond to the issues at hand. He started to turn the speech into a quasi-campaign speech, which might have been ok except that he didn’t really provide a path or a vision, instead relying on cliched platitudes about government vs people. I think the GOP probably regrets putting Jindal up for the response, and I think he may well have ruined his short-term chances for a GOP nomination nod.
Then again, an interesting tidbit from Politico (emphasis mine):
“Obama gave a polished performance, as usual. Jindal’s act needs a lot of work,” said John J. Pitney Jr., a political science professor at California’s Claremont McKenna College. “His basic message was sound but his language was hackneyed and his performance was wooden. Fortunately he has a lot of time to improve his delivery. In the year 2040 he will still be younger than McCain was in 2008.”
