[Assam] ECSTACY
Chan Mahanta
cmahanta at charter.net
Wed Feb 25 08:19:06 PST 2009
At 9:44 AM -0600 2/25/09, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>C'da,
>
>The good things one can say about Bobby J is that he is supposed to be
>'apolitical' in LA and possibly the most intelligent person LA (maybe even
>the GOP) can offer.
*** I would have hoped for that to be the case Ram. That would have
given him a whole lot more credibility.
But read what the very moderate but thoughtful Republican David
Brooks had to say about last night:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/jindal-response-nihilism_n_169806.html?view=print
LEHRER: How well did he do?
BROOKS: Not so well. You know, I think Bobby Jindal is a very
promising politician,
and I opposed the stimulus package - I thought it was poorly
drafted - but to come up
at this moment in history with a stale, "government is the
problem...we can't trust the
government"...it's just a disaster for the Republican Party.
The country is in a panic,
now. They may not like the way the Congress passed the
stimulus bill. The idea that
government is going to have no role in this...in a moment
where only the Federal
government is big enough to do stuff...to just ignore all
that and say government's the
problem...corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending - it's just
a form of nihilism. It's just
not where the country is, it's not where the future
of the country is. There's an
intra-Republican debate: some people say the Republican party
lost its way because
it got too moderate, some people say they got too weird or
too conservative.
He thinks they got too moderate, and he's making that case.
I think it's insane. I think it's a disaster for the party. I
just think it's unfortunate
right now.
>The GOP is trying desperately to do a makeover. Their reposnse to a Black
>President is a Michael Steele, a Bobby Jindal, and a blowhard like Michelle
>Malkin. Basically, the GOP is made up of mostly White, Bible-thumping, and
>from the backwaters of GA, LA, TX, AZ, TN, MS, with Conservative principles
>(which applies only to others, never to themselves) - they think they have
>to get someone like Bobby J.
*** But look at the hypocrisy of it all. On the one hand they tout
PRINCIPLES and on the other they are
trying to be 'me-too' Democrats, by pandering to blacks, browns and
women :-). Michael Steele, is hardly an intellectual heavyweight.
About Sarah Palin less said the better.
I am no well-wisher of Republican ideology or a friend of the party.
But it will be good for the country to have an intelligent,
progressive, constructive and effective opposition. Surely the
Republicans don't seem to be able to forge that opposition at the
moment. But I guess a progressive Republican is an oxymoron to begin
with at the moment.
>As far as Bobby and the Indian diaspora - I talked to a few people:
>Basically, the desi crowd wants an Indian (Dem or GOP), or even a Sahib
>married to a Desi in some high political office. In Houston, we have a City
>Councilman (GOP) married to a Desi. Because of the Desi factor, Desis of all
>hues voted for the Councilman. This Councilman's base is: GOP + all Desis.
*** So much for the desi-brain trust :-)!
That however is not entirely true Ram. Most of our next generation
are really thoughtful voters who don't go just for ethnic identity.
Your description however fits to a tee what the Daily Show's
resident-desi makes fun of--the FOBs like us. That is why I am
looking forward to see his view of the Jindal debacle last night :-).
>Some years ago, a sitting senator (I think from LA), a democrat, got
>defeated because the Desi crowd launched a big campaign against her (she
>said something lousy about desis to set it off).
>
>>And for the desis looking for one of their own in the White House
>
>Thats a long shot. But, one's imagination can run wild... what if a desi is
>elected Prez: Will the Sorkar be run like the desh? Gives you a warm, fuzzy
>feelin :)
>
>--Ram
*** Ouch! That would be very scary. But I don't think we have to
worry about that from the likes of Jindal or our next gen.
c-da
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>> At 11:52 PM -0600 2/24/09, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>>
>>> Bobby Jindal is normally a pretty good speaker - but look at what he was
>>> up
>>> against:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *** I thought so too. He does present himself well and usually speaks
>> convincingly on the subject. But my exposure to Jindal is very cursory.
>> Never saw a full speech or a discussion on the TV circuits where he was a
>> major participant.
>>
>> So, I was horrified by his performance last night!
>>
>> I realize that no matter who or how good a speaker or intellect one is, to
>> compete with the like of a President Obama last night, is, at the very
>> least, a tremendously challenging task, as far as the SHOW part of the task
>> is involved.
>>
>> But what about the SUBSTANCE part? Could Jindal have not been expected to
>> do MUCH better than how he did on the substance of the Republican rebuttal ?
>>
>> There was a lot of hype from the Republicans on how Jindal wrote his own
>> speech ( Obama like) and how it was vetted by the leadership luminaries like
>> Michael Steele ( heh :-)), Mitch McConnell ( new blood :-)) and who helped
>> him fine tune it ( that ought to have been a giveaway). What Jindal
>> delivered, was almost sophomoric. I could not believe how much of it was a
>> poor repeat of what Obama spoke about minutes earlier. Then there was this
> > incredulous example of his policeman friend's story about governmental
>> ineptitude and bureaucratic bungling, compounded by the Bush admin's.
>> horrific failures in the Katrina response to support the old and tired
>> conservative arguments against GOVERNMENT ! Who was he thinking he was
>> speaking to? Where was all that intellectual acuity of the Rhodes Scholar?
>>
>> Either his speech was thoroughly stymied and diluted by the veteran vetters
>> or he/they just did not really have any ideas beyond repeating the same
>> old tired mantras of tax-cuts and tirades against big-government. And if
>> the substance was that weak, they needed at least a stellar orator to
>> deliver it.
>>
>> I have to give him high marks, however, on not thoroughly discrediting
>> himself like the Rush Limbaughs of the right by sounding to be the strident
>> obstructionists and acknowledging why the Republicans have lost the
>> confidence of the people.
>>
>> We realize that style alone ought not to be the measure to judge a speaker
>> by. Jindal was handicapped on style and personal charisma. But he could
>> have and should have been able to make a difference on substance.
>>
>> I was watching MSNBC. And guess what? As Jindal was walking in, someone
>> exclaimed with the mikes on, Oh God! That was very bad on CNBCs part. But
>> being a visual event, one could not ignore the fact of his processional
>> being that of an awkward, nerdy, high-school kid's. That was sad. And to
>> add insult to injury, the Republican audio-visual team really blew it, when
>> they filmed him in dim light, against a darkened, haunted-house like
>> background of the Governor's Mansion, where his dark complexion almost
>> disappeared into the background. The final straw was that artificial grin
>> at the end of his spiel, that made him appear like a cartoon character.
>>
>> No wonder then, those who were hoping to see Jindal as the Republican
>> Obama, were in for some shock. And for the desis looking for one of their
>> own in the White House, I guess we will have to wait a little longer. I
>> can't wait to see what the desi-decoder will have to say in The Daily Show
>> with John Stewart in Comedy Central :-).
>>
>> *** I agree that Republicans ought to go ahead and accept Sarah Palin as
>> their leader. That will be good for the country and would serve them right
>> :-).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> A charismatic President, who is probably one of the best orators
>>> (Presidents) the US has had for a long time. Add to that that the
>>> Republicans have been branded as the party of 'NO', and are in the wrong
> >> side of history.
>>>
>>> And then he made a statement that LA did not get Fed funds - and it was
>>> all
>>> private & state funds after Katrina. The fact though is that LA did get
>>> something like 181 Bill $ Fed funds for Katrina.
>>>
>>> His speech was more like 'he also spoke' and not much more.
>>>
>>> What Ed Rollins ought to have said was if Palin runs, then it is actually
>>> excellent for another Dem term. For the Reps. their best (long) shot is
>>> someone like Jindal, and not a loon like Palin. GW, Chenney, and their
>>> dream
>>> team have done the GOP in at least for another 8 years.
>>>
>>> --Ram
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What did you all think of the Republican response delivered by Bobby
>>>> Jindal?
>>>>
>>>> Republican political consultant Ed Rollins' tongue-in-cheek comment that
>>>> it
>>>> was a good night for Sarah Palin was telling :-).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 9:33 PM -0600 2/24/09, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mukul da,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, it was a fantastic speech. I am surprised that the speech was
>>>>> broadcast in India too. I mean, they pay to a address of the President
>>>>> to
>>>>> the jt. session of the Congress.
>>>>> On a side note, GW Bush is slated to start speaking for a fee, March
>>>>> 17th
>>>>> (to a select group of people). I wonder, how much anyone is willing to
>>>>> pay,
>>>>> to listen to someone who is unable to put together a complete, coherent
> >>>> sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Ram
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:56 PM, mc mahant <mikemahant at hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If USA had general Election tomorrow -Who would get 99% votes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wish I could speak like he did -and the dream-better than Jack
>>>>>> Kennedy's!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> For the freshest Indian Jobs Visit MSN Jobs
>>>>>> http://www.in.msn.com/jobs
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> assam mailing list
>>>>>> assam at assamnet.org
>>>>>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>> assam mailing list
>>>>> assam at assamnet.org
>>>>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> assam mailing list
>>>> assam at assamnet.org
>>>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> assam mailing list
>>> assam at assamnet.org
>>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> assam mailing list
>> assam at assamnet.org
>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
More information about the Assam
mailing list