Is it a time warp? Since the November election, suddenly, instead of the pasty white sneer of George W. Bush, the Republican Party seems to have a "new" face. Yes, just as they did when they brought back the three-button suit so we could all look like Dick Nixon, the GOP has taken a leaf out of Al Jolson's book and is appearing in blackface . First it was Michael Steele, now the Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. No harm in that, really, but just as vaudevillean blackface was only a facade, the new look of Republicanism is only a hasty mask over the same old party line.
The evidence is in Jindal's official party response to President Obama's address to Congress and the American people last night, February 24. [I am indebted to KCCI of DesMoines for printing the full text, which was a bit hard to find.] For starters, rather than looking forward to the challenges ahead of us, Jindal turned backward to dwell on the stimulus bill which has already been signed into law - but not so far back that he would have to mention George Bush in the same sentence as "Republican." Jindal thinks the stimulus will "saddle future generations with debt." I think it's great that Republicans are concerned about generational "theft" (as Sen. McCain calls it). I only wish they had found this religion about eight years earlier, before their President ran up a debt that's tenfold what the stimulus bill will add to it. If they had, we wouldn't need the stimulus bill. Incidentally, Jindal also labeled the bill as "corruption," which I think is quite a stretch.
Jindal also made clear he shares the old Republican predilection for dishonest fearmongering. Besides that mountain of debt, he predicts a future of "government-run" health insurance (which no one has proposed); "dismantling" our armed forces (ditto); four-dollar gasoline (a Bush innovation, if you want to declare someone responsible); tax increases on "the middle class" (which Jindal must know are not coming); and increasing people's "dependence on government" (evidently he didn't read his advance copy of Obama's speech).
The Louisiana Governor does admit that "Republicans lost [the people's] trust," perhaps the truest statement he uttered. He says they want to regain that trust, and I'm sure they do. But that's going to take more than just a little black greasepaint or even lipstick; what needs to change is the content, the solutions being offered. That hasn't happened yet; Jindal's talk contained nothing substantively new. Incidentally, it looks as if this much-bruited rising star of the new Republicanism failed to burnish his brilliance last night -- to paraphrase Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's remark to Dan Quayle, "Gov. Jindal, you're no Barack Obama."
Read on for other comments on Jindal's speech...
Marginal Gloss on Governor Jindal's Response, February 24, 2009
Note: Below, I have interspersed quotes from Governor Jindal's talk with my comments.
"Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts."
I'm not sure anyone has promised the government can rescue us. As far as Katrina is concerned, Bobby, it might make a difference if the person in charge of "the government" gave a damn. Katrina, after all, was in the hands of that guy you don't want to mention.
"Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families … cutting taxes for small businesses … strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers … and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs."
Of course! Tax cuts! Brilliant! If it didn't work from 2001-2009, try, try again. Surely it will work now?
"While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a “magnetic levitation” line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called “volcano monitoring.” Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC."
I love this passage; it's such a play to the deepest pools of ignorance and regression in the nation. I imagine this being mouthed by our former President, in his best Yale-taught Texas accent: "Hah speed rail? Never heard of it, so it cain't create no jobs. What was wrong with horse and buggy, anyway? Magic levitation, volcano monitoring? Goldurn if that don't sound lak that 'science' stuff - we better stay away from that, it ain't in the bible."
"What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?"
Well, Governor, Republicans would...and did. I guess the difference is whether you ask the kids for a loan for their education, their health, or their better quality of life; or whether you ask them for a loan to go fight a trumped-up war and maybe get killed, in order to give better quality of life to the Vice President's corporate friends.
"If it can be done in Baton Rouge, surely it can be done in Washington, DC."
I suspect it might be a little simpler in Baton Rouge, really. But let's say you're right and the parties can work together to get things done. Certainly I support that. But your party has been the obstacle; in the "new" party, will you be able to help us out with that and get them to see the voters have rejected their traditional solutions?
"...we need to increase conservation … increase energy efficiency … increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels … increase our use of nuclear power - and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home."
Like your sudden discovery of fiscal responsibility and abhorrence of "generational theft," your conversion to renewable energy is touching, but the citizens of the U.S. thank you (finally).
"No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage - period. We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. We oppose universal government-run health care."
Don't get the cart before the horse, here now. Shouldn't all Americans actually have health care, before they worry about "losing" it? Here's the monster under the bed, "government-run" health care, which no one has proposed.
"We need to bring transparency to Washington, DC - so we can rid our Capitol of corruption … and ensure we never see the passage of another trillion dollar spending bill..."
I think calling a major piece of legislation, voted on by a large number of serious men/women, "corruption" is quite a stretch, whether you agree with it or not.
"Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops."
No one has said anything about "dismantling" our defenses, or even deep funding cuts. Unless of course you happen to believe that even as the war in Iraq winds down, we should keep all those people in uniform at government expense? That would certainly be the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush approach, but please, think of something new. You say you're against "big government," and the dilemma is that funding the military is the biggest part of big government.
"We oppose the National Democrats' view that says -- the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, and empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs."
Bobby, what is a National Democrat? Again, I'm not aware of anyone - except Republicans - who talk about "increasing dependence on government." Empowering individuals and small businesses is good - I'm curious why you don't mention the Republican party's best buddies and longest-term clients, large corporations? They must be retired in Texas, with George.
"In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear - because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust - and rightly so."
You can say that again. It would have been nice to hear something about how you were planning to regain trust, but the old platitudes won't do. Put lipstick on a pig and...well, you know the rest.
Comments