Brian Watt · November 18, 2012 at 8:00pm
Bobby

In response to Mitt Romney's analysis of why he may have lost the election -- specifically, that the President was successful in promising to bestow financial gifts on various constituent groups -- the Governor of Louisiana has remarked on CBS (correction CNN) and on Fox News Sunday this morning that the Republican Party needs to stop talking down to voters and stop being ... wait for it ... the Stupid Party. 

So, let me get this straight. It's not acceptable to call into question whether voters fully comprehended the consequences of their actions in their desire to hold onto or get more government handouts, further bankrupting the nation while ignoring the vast historical evidence about the failure of socialist policies and states that have brought rampant poverty, misery, and destitution to their people? But, for Governor Jindal, it is quite acceptable to call those who did comprehend that "stupid?" Gee, thanks for not talking down to us, Bobby.

Jindal went on to say that Republicans need to be more civil in the way they conduct their debate with the opposition. Hmm ... let's examine that, shall we? Was it Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan who were uncivil? Were their surrogates and supporters uncivil? Or was it Barack Obama, Joe Biden, the Obama campaign, their surrogates, and their supporters who accused the Republicans of being racist, homophobic, anti-women, murderers, and (in the case of Paul Ryan) gleefully pushing the elderly over a cliff in a wheelchair? Yes, by all means, let's be more civil. 

Jindal further added that the Republican Party needs to be the pro-growth, pro-middle-class party and let the Democrats be the progressive, big government party. But what's missing from this equation? Would it be uncivil of Republicans to mention that an unrestrained and growing federal government has the unfortunate consequence of stifling, frustrating, and quashing the private sector and entrepreneurs? That espousing support for entrepreneurs and small business doesn't necessarily result in smaller government unless one is insistent that big government needs to severely downsized and confined only to its constitutionally-allowed mandates? Dare we mention that? Or would that be too condescending? Wouldn't want to be all uncivil. Of course, I'm not very smart ... but with the Governor's help I know I can work on that.

Comments:


Pencilvania
Joined
Sep '12
Pencilvania

I don't see how it could possibly be wise for Jindal to say the 'stupid' line publicly.  He might be a good governor but as a politician, hoo boy, such a comment is just ripe for picking out of context. 

I wish people could discern that all the 'uncivil' polarization in the US now is directly caused by government putting its big paws where it shoudn't be.  Government grabbing your health care, government grabbing your church, government grabbing your Twinkies for pete's sake.

(That last one is literal, not a metaphor for a CoC vioation.)

HVTs
Joined
Oct '10
HVTs

Conservatives: have you not yet figured out that the Republican Party isn't the best home for you?  It might be your only home, but it isn't the one you need.  Its leaders will continue to insult you and call you names . . . it's what Republican leaders do as soon as an election is over, right up until the Primaries. Get over it or move on.  Sometimes homelessness is the only option.

jetstream
Joined
Dec '10
jetstream
Judithann Campbell: We are all members of the stupid party, including Bobby Jindal ...

I'm not.  I had been a life long Republican until I finally realized that the GOP is not the party of small constitutional government or free-market capitalism and it certainly is not a champion for the legacy of the Reagan Revolution. 

The GOP apparatchiks are all soulless power brokers and the GOP is a rusty hollow hulk.  So, I changed parties, the Tea Party is the only known fountain head for restoring the America of my youth.  If the Tea Party can't form a functioning viable party, we are probably doomed.  It's our children and grandchildren who are the real victims of the GOP establishment.

Lucy Pevensie
Joined
Nov '10
Lucy Pevensie

I may be biased, because I've been a big Jindal fan for a while now. But I think you're misrepresenting his comments.  This is how the HuffPo describes them:

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments -- enough of that,” Jindal told Politico. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”
Jindal told Politico Republicans should “stop being the stupid party” by working to embrace a larger group of constituents rather than becoming the party of "big anything."

I think he's saying that we're stupid if we don't try to reach every voter with our message, and that the voters can and ought to be trusted to understand real conservative ideas.  Where's the offense in that?

EThompson
Joined
Dec '11
EThompson
Jojo: There goes Bobby Jindal, right along with Chris Christie.  I think they have both decided resistance is futile. · 2 hours ago

Let me chime in with my favorite class warfare argument; it is common knowledge that Mitt- the wealthmaker- wasn't  exactly popular amongst his political brethren to begin with. The electoral defeat now gives everybody a legit chance to pile on that 'know-nothing' rich guy.

The GOP isn't the stupid party- we're the naive party- with all the right principles minus chutzpah and a Lee Atwater to sell them. Republicans are truly intimidated by the "masses."

Edited on November 18, 2012 at 8:47pm
Pilli
Joined
May '11
Pilli

Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."  Republicans may be very smart but they sure can do "stupid" really well.

ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer

Severely Ltd.

ConservativeWanderer

We'll see. People have come from ignominy to the nomination before

Conwan, weren't you the one that wrote that Corey Booker wouldn't be the Dem Presidential nominee because of the remark defending Bain in the face of Obama's attack? Apologies if I'm mis-remembering. · 33 minutes ago

I also wrote (in the same thread, as the comment you mention, in fact) that the way the GOP picks their nominees is markedly different from the way the Dems do it.

The GOP goes by "well, he's next in line." As in, Reagan in 80 after losing the nomination in 76, Bush I after serving as Reagan's Veep, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, the latter two coming back after not receiving the nomination in a previous contest.

The Democrats look for the "new, fresh" candidate. Clinton, Dukakis, Kerry, Obama... these men came from relatively unknown (except to political wonks) positions to win the Democratic nomination.

Therefore, comparing the possibility of Booker getting the nod from the Donkeys and the possibility of Jindal getting the nod from the Elephants is like comparing... well... donkeys and elephants!

Edited to add link.

Edited on November 18, 2012 at 9:06pm
BrentB67
Joined
May '12
BrentB67
HVTs: Conservatives: have you not yet figured out that the Republican Party isn't the best home for you?  It might be your only home, but it isn't the one you need.  Its leaders will continue to insult you and call you names . . . it's what Republican leaders do as soon as an election is over, right up until the Primaries. Get over it or move on.  Sometimes homelessness is the only option. · 25 minutes ago

No kidding.

Rawls
Joined
Oct '12
Rawls

Whether or not he is, let's assume Jindal is correct (I think he is).

What could his messaging look like during a campaign, and would it work for the demographics we need to convince in order to win?

Edited on November 18, 2012 at 9:19pm
Instugator
Joined
Aug '10
Instugator

tabula rasa

 We all know Mitt lost and we also know he is no longer (if ever he was) the voice of the Republican party. 

That is what I was missing - I am not going to harsh on Mitt - I think he would have been enormously better for the country, but apart from the book and being in the race, how did Mitt advance the Republican (if not conservative) agenda? Did he do more than go to CPAC?

tabula rasa

I think the criticism was substantively wrong--but worse, it was a dumb thing to say. · 1 hour ago

Edited 55 minutes ago

I gotta go with TR here and the comments above - the problem in the race wasn't civility - it was failing to answer the more outrageous accusations (even if the answer is to ridicule them - the charges need to be answered and with panache.)

Paul Dougherty
Joined
Feb '12
Paul Dougherty

I would say that both Jindal and Romney were inaccurate in what they were trying to communicate. I am not ready to throw either out of the Republican (moderately conservative) party, yet.  Romney is missing the point when he does't realize that it is not the "goodies" being received, but how those goodies are viewed. A better way of phrasing is that too many people are directly dependent on a solvent Big Government. It is not just welfare or other transfer payments. The list also includes those (myself) who are employed by a government agency. Too many people are counting on a expanding budget.  A lot of these people feel entitled to this money, because they are entitled to a portion of this money. 

  Two years ago, a smaller yet similar disconnect between voter and principle was on display here in Alaska. When Sen. Murkowski lost her primary to challenger Joe Miller, it brought to the surface some unappealing truths in the Alaska voter. The problem wasn't that the electorate thought Joe miller couldn't do the job, but that the fear was that he meant what he said. We talk a good conservative rhetoric, but (con't)

Paul Dougherty
Joined
Feb '12
Paul Dougherty

(Con"t from #31)

when faced with the immediate uncertainty of loss of federal transfers, Alaskans found comfort in a lot of tertiary faults in candidate Miller. Examples:

  A local "conservative" talk show host showed open disdain and hostility toward Mr. Miller for mentioning his military service and Bronze Star in advertising. Apparently this is gauche and crosses some sort of line.

  Another line of attack was that Mr. Miller received farm subsidies related to farm property in Kansas. A hypocrite of the first order.

 Et cetera, et cetera, petty and inconsequential all.

 Mr. Miller's real crime was to be an actual threat to the stream of dollars that Alaska obtain's through the congressional teamwork that we are used to.  Romney suffered the same character assassination on the national level, and for the same reason. When the forward momentum of growing U.S. transfer payments are threatened, it will take more than a intellectual argument to convince against immediate interest.

BrentB67
Joined
May '12
BrentB67

ConservativeWanderer: Let me ask everyone here this:

If Jindal turns out to be the 2016 nominee, are you going to vote for him, or sit at home? · 3 hours ago

The nominee for what party? I think the republican party is going to be a non factor or look very different than it does today.

I have nothing against him and would definitely consider supporting him.

Robert Lux
Joined
Nov '10
Robert Lux

Instugator

tabula rasa

I think the criticism was substantively wrong--but worse, it was a dumb thing to say. · 1 hour ago

Edited 55 minutes ago

I gotta go with TR here and the comments above - the problem in the race wasn't civility - it was failing to answer the more outrageous accusations (even if the answer is to ridicule them - the charges need to be answered and with panache.) 

EXACTLY!

Romney is one of the most thoroughly decent human beings to ever run for office -- thoroughly decent by any standard, in fact. One should always  be aware that one's greatest virtues can also end up being one's greatest vice (or undoing, or diminishment).  

It's the problem I have with most Republicans.  

Paul Dougherty
Joined
Feb '12
Paul Dougherty

I have the ability to find fault in anyone, if pressed. The real skill I need is to be able to overlook faults for an overall bigger ideal.  I think it is an important thing for an effective national leader to have a 50% +1 majority at the least. I think the final vote should be between two candidates. If I have to vote for the "lesser of two evils", so be it. 

Edited on November 18, 2012 at 10:25pm
show AIG's comment (#36)
AIG
Joined
May '12
AIG

Jindal may not be right on everything he said, but he's got a point. I may not be able to think of a more apt word to describe the Republican debates, for example, where each candidate tried to outdo the other on how much they were going to give it to China, on how many they were going to deport, on how much their opinions on contraception mattered, etc. And of course, we had the self-described "true conservatives" picking the most big-government candidate on that stage (not Mitt, the favorite before Mitt)

 Conservatives: have you not yet figured out that the Republican Party isn't the best home for you?

The problem here is that we refuse to accept the fact that "conservatism" is a paradigm. It is not a prescription for opinions on every topic. People who treat it that way end up accusing anyone who disagrees with them on a topic as not being "true" enough. The end result of this sort of extremism is not pretty. The truth is you can't tell me what a conservative ought to think, and I can't tell you. 

Culture Heretic
Joined
Sep '12
MsApprehension

I guess it's human nature to ask "why".  Romney is right. Obama lied to and bribed certain demographic groups. The amnesty and Sandra Fluke groups were the most obvious. I worried that it would be a close contest because of those panderings by Obama.  I still believe the Obama Team specializes in disinformation--not just propaganda--but disinformation. The propaganda is aimed at his constituents. The disinformation is aimed at us of the GOP. It's not clear to me how Obama attempted to win the votes of the Independents. I suspect they're the group who stayed home. Awaiting more stats to come out on that--and NOT stats from the Obama people. Right now the Marxist Stream Media is crowing about their brilliant wins.  After Romney made his remark the  MSM pounced on him, as they did throughout the campaign. They are the group that won the election for Obama. GOP'ers don't need to join the MSM & pile on. Jindal, and Christie and others should have kept their mouths shut publicly. It's too soon for anyone other than candidates to critique how he or she lost their contest. 

EThompson
Joined
Dec '11
EThompson

Robert Lux

Romney is one of the most thoroughly decent human beings to ever run for office -- thoroughly decent by any standard, in fact.

Right back at ya... EXACTLY!

John Walker
Joined
Oct '10
John Walker

The Republican party is no longer, and arguably hasn't been for decades, the home of those interested in individual liberty, civil society, and the rule of law.  Gov. Jindal is just the latest of those to hew to the statist consensus where the fat middle of the indoctrinated votes lie.

Have you visited National Review Online recently?  The pop-ups whacking you in the face—the down-market advertisements—the sidebar celebrity trivia.  This is why I was so irritated at Ricochet disclosing my private E-mail address to their spam contractor (constantcontact.com).

To my mind,  Mark Levin has it right when he argues that the Republican establishment must be replaced by constitutionalists or else the existing party needs to be supplanted by one willing to dismantle leviathan in favour of individual liberty.

Culture Heretic
Joined
Sep '12
MsApprehension

http://www.therightscoop.com/zonation-to-conservatives-win-the-culture-and-you-win-the-country/


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In