Bobby Jindal was speaking for...? Himself more than giving the republican rebuttal.

*
Guys and Gals that are thinking of running for the presidency in 2012 and we all know who you are (though I'm sure there will be more as we go) please stop campaigning. We're sooo tired of your campaigning. 2012 is too far away for us to have to listen to you jockeying for media attention constantly, incessantly. Stop talking all the time. Please. Just stop.

Having had some time to think about it now, I appreciated the tone of Obama's speech last night.
He really seemed to try to explain how the stimulus would be implemented and what it was trying to do.
I thought it was a good speech, making strong points. I might not agree with everything but it's taking us forward.
The republicans seem to think that government should stay out of this. Ouch. Who else is going to help everyone? The wealthy CEO's out of the goodness of their hearts?

Now I have no idea how the republicans pick what rep will be the rebuttal speaker to represent them after the president's address, but it should have been someone other than Bobby Jindal. I understand that it's the "other side's" time and that they don't agree on many points but seriously is there any doubt that Bobby sees himself as presidential candidate in 2012. What the hell did we need those personal stories from him? This wasn't supposed to be Bobby's time to make his own case for HIS political future, it was to give the rebuttal to what Obama said in his speech. To make good alternative points, to make sense which he really didn't.

In contrast:
Obama seemed presidential, straightforward, informative and serious. He was lively, thoughtful and made very clear some of the things he is trying to accomplish and how. Other than certain folk like Limbaugh we want Obama to succeed and appreciate being treated as adults once again. Not the secretive, furtive, closed door politics we've gotten used to.

Jindal did not seem all that ready for the large public stage. He stares at the camera without looking around or hardly blinking and seems oddly uncomfortable for someone that believes in what he's saying. Grandstanding plain and simple at the wrong time and place I'd say. I've noticed in all the videos I've seen of Jindal recently he has two modes: he either talks fast and furious or slow like he's explaining something to a child. Tonight seemed to be in the condescending parental tone. Ugh. A little too patronizing for me.

Jindal: "We also need to address the crisis in health care. Republicans believe in a simple principle: 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. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients - not by government bureaucrats. We believe Americans can do anything - and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens."

Um, what exactly is "universal access" to "affordable health care" like what? Not one single concept was offered that made sense. The only health care decisions being made by doctor's and patients are ones that are specifically "allowed" by your plan, which just so you know Bobby: care get's approved or turned down by the plan NOW. Not to mention that people without insurance, or a job, get turned away or receive lesser care in emergencies. Yay. If the republicans want people to turn to them they better come up with realistic alternative plans that can be explained as to why they are better.

American's need their government now more than ever.
Extreme unregulated capitalism has not been working.

Still not happy with politicians but at least this group is trying to help the middle class (or what's left of it.)
G'night,

Laura
*

Rupert apologizes, Obama rallies the public and Bristol is criticized... endless barrage of news loops.

*

Watched Obama's speech in congress tonight and Jindal's "rebuttal" afterward... (we should support the president but...)
Need to absorb it a bit, maybe tomorrow I'll have a better feel for what I really think.
It was indeed a good rousing speech. I imagine the republicans wish Obama wasn't as good at communication.
The lines are being drawn in the sand and the country be damned... question is what do we all do?
We back our president just like we backed GW even if we didn't really like him.
Still I need to absorb all the information and rhetoric. It made my head hurt tonight.
*

Also saw Bristol Palin's interview with Greta Van Susteren where she states that she thinks that abstinence only isn't realistic at all for teenagers... Coming from a young person in her situation it would seem a reasonable enough statement. She is speaking from her own experience. However, the National Abstinence Education Association takes exception to that. They are far more fundamental in their abstinence beliefs. So we're once again on the debate of abstinence vs birth control availability to teens (or hell even information never mind available contraception)
If teens have sex (and they have throughout the generations, not just this one) before marriage then I want them to avoid unwanted pregnancies and especially potentially life changing, life threatening diseases. Is that too much to ask?

Anyway I was thinking that if there's a National Abstinence Education Association out there that espouses no sex until marriage (or death if you don't get married?) then is there somewhere out there a National Masturbation Education Association that promotes the safe release of sexual tension without actual sex to avoid pregnancy, etc.? (doubtful anyone actually needs this education in reality but you never know.)
I don't know if there is or not because I didn't really want to google masturbation groups... but to even things out there should be one, eh? Like, Ying and Yang or Matter and Anti-Matter.
I doubt the anti-abortion/anti-contraception/pro "just say no" abstinence groups would approve of it anyway but-

Hey just wondering...
*

That cartoon I saw in the NY Post and mentioned here previously got picked up and created quite an uproar the last few days.
The first response from the paper which was totally inadequate to say the least, wasn't really an apology or any admittance of a mistake in printing the cartoon. So today, days later, Mr. Murdoch tried to make amends to their readers and everyone else that saw it and thought it was horrible.
He stated, "Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted." There's more but that's the important part. Is it sincere? Well who knows.
So what is the word of the day for Mr. Murdoch? I'd say FEAR...
The written word in newspaper format is under duress as it is. There's question whether some papers will go out of production over the next few years. In this climate a threatened boycott and very bad press for a paper that represents a city as diverse as NYC could be a game changer for the Post. Bad press at a bad time.
Hence, we get a more adequate apology from the person ultimately responsible for the paper, the owner.
Still, I can't figure out what the hell they were thinking in the first place.
How could one be so dumb as to not find that tasteless, racist and violent? I hope they chastised the editor.


*
On that note-
G'night,

Laura
*