Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) was supposed to be the Republican Party's equalizer. He was supposed to exploit the weaknesses of President Barack Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night. He was supposed to step into the national spotlight in the way Obama did four and a half years earlier during the Democratic National Convention. He was supposed to be the promising young face of a party that has appeared increasingly fractured over the last few years.
Instead, he swung and missed. Big time.
The 37-year-old rising star of the Republican Party addressed the nation Tuesday night, hoping to articulate his party's viewpoint in the context of Obama's hour-long address.
It was Jindal's moment to cement himself as a Republican leader — as a frontrunner for the party's 2012 presidential bid.
He certainly didn't help either his personal cause or his party's cause. His delivery alone was enough to turn off viewers: He sounded inexperienced, canned and condescending. It almost didn't matter what he had to say. Compared to the always-smooth Obama, who looked particularly confident — more reminiscent of his demeanor as a candidate than recently as a president — Jindal looked like a minor leaguer, outmatched in the game of politics.
Jindal managed to achieve one thing, however. He got both parties to agree on something, as Democrats and Republicans alike deemed the speech disastrous, childish and even insane.
Beyond the delivery, Jindal did little to promote his image as the same insightful leader who appeared on Sunday's "Meet the Press" with an articulate critique of the president's stimulus package. The Louisiana governor spent more time talking about his personal history than he did discussing Republican policy objectives. His cute anecdotes made the speech feel like it was geared toward a third-grade class.
"We oppose the national Demo-cratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government," Jindal said. "We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow."
The fact that Jindal thought this stale argument would fly during such economic turmoil is insulting. This was the same rhetoric used during the last eight years of tax cuts — a period from which the Republican Party surely wants to dissociate itself — and it was certainly not the argument Jindal's party wanted to put forth during a time in which it is trying to stabilize itself internally in order to move forward.
In contrast, Obama underscored the type of overarching vision necessary to see the country out of its economic problems.
At times, both Jindal and Obama acted as educators: Obama explained that the economic crisis did not "begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank," and Jindal tried to underscore the fundamental differences between the two parties with regard to the economy — but Obama's speech was far more policy-rich and polished.
For now, it is clear why Obama was the one standing in front of Congress while Jindal watched from Baton Rouge, La.
