Why Bobby Jindal Must Call Jay Leno ASAP

There was only one phone call Bobby Jindal needed to make on Wednesday--and that was to Jay Leno.

The Republican Louisiana governor utterly botched the GOP response to President Obama's address to Congress. In the White House press briefing room on Wednesday, reporters were cruelly joking about Jindal's performance, noting he had gone quickly from a political rising star to a black hole. "He made Sarah Palin look good," one said. Another quipped, "No doubt this was a strategic attempt to lower expectations--and it succeeded wildly."

The reviews have been universally awful. Even on the right. David Brooks called Jindal's speech "insane." Rightwing blog Little Green Footballs huffed, "Bobby Jindal...seemed to be trying for the same 'inspirey hopey changey' theme as the Big O, but came up with almost no specifics about anything at all....[T]the most specific point in his speech was the slam against volcano monitoring. And that came across as ignorant to me, and pandering to the anti-science far righties." Fox News commentators put it down:

BRIT HUME: The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.

NINA EASTON: The delivery was not exactly terrific.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Jindal didn’t have a chance. He follows Obama, who in making speeches, is in a league of his own. He’s in a Reagan-esque league.… [Jindal] tried the best he could.

What's an exorcist-loving, young Republican to do in response?

Jindal ought to steal a move from Bill Clinton and seek salvation on Leno's set. In 1988, Bill Clinton, then a little-known Arkansas governor, delivered the keynote address at the Democrats' presidential convention. It was a horribly boring speech. He droned on for what seemed like forever. And when he began his summation and said "in conclusion," the audience cheered. He immediately became a national punchline. But Clinton moved fast to stop the bleeding. He joked with reporters about his terrible performance, and he quickly booked himself a spot on Johnny Carson's show. (For you youngsters, Carson hosted The Tonight Show before Leno.) Sitting next to Johnny--after Carson gave him a very, very, very long introduction--Clinton engaged in self-ribbing and made good sport of his abysmal performance. Four years later, he was elected president of the United States.

Clinton was a survivor who turned a lousy moment into an entertaining bit. By doing so, he showed he was in touch with reality and could pivot accordingly. (Of course, some might say that Clinton was able to pivot too easily.)

Can Jindal pull as deft a move? At this stage, Leno is his best bet. And if he can get on the show before Saturday Night Live takes its shot, all the better for him and his now-less-than-brilliant political career.

How Food Policy Gets Made: Finland vs. the US

Matt Yglesias has a post up contrasting how the creation of health policy differs in Finland and the United States. Here's his description of Finland's process, as it pertains to school lunches:

...in 1999, parliament passed some legislation guaranteeing a nutritionally balanced school lunch. So the National Nutrition Council wrote some guidelines dictating that a properly balanced lunch would feature fresh or cooked vegetables covering half the plate, a starch (potatoes, rice, or pasta) covering a quarter of the plate, and meat or fish or a vegetarian protein alternative covering the remaining quarter.

...what's crazy about it is the way it happened. Parliament felt children should eat a well-balanced meal, and so guidelines were written by a government agency and then implemented. Like magic!

By way of contrast, here's an example of how food industry lobbyists hijack the system in the United States, courtesy of the very good American News Project:

The next issue of Mother Jones, which is either on newsstands near you or will be soon, is on how to fix food. Most of the content is not online yet, so if you want to read more you'll have to settle for this conversation we had with Michael Pollan, a longtime MoJo contributor who has more neat ideas on reforming food policy than just about anyone.

Core Principles

AP reports on Barack Obama's plans for financial regulation:

In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday afternoon, the president offers no specific regulatory framework, but calls for "core principles." Among them are consumer protections, accountability for executives and a regulatory plan that covers a broad series of financial transactions that have escaped regulation in the past.

Atrios says Obama is "making the right noises" here, but I'm not quite so sure.  Consumer protections are fine, but frankly, not really central to what caused the financial meltdown.  "Accountability" for executives is mush.  They're already accountable in most meaningful senses of the word.

That leaves a "regulatory plan that covers a broad series of financial transactions that have escaped regulation in the past" — which is fine but could mean pretty much anything.  What's the core principle here?

I know everyone is probably tired of hearing me say this, but I wish Obama would talk more about a real core principle: regulating leverage more effectively, and doing it everywhere and for all types of securities.  This isn't easy, especially when you need to get practically the entire world on board, but more than any other single change it would force financial institutions to be more responsible; it would make future asset bubbles less destructive; and it would fundamentally put a stop to the casino atmosphere and outlandish paydays that have permeated Wall Street over the past decade.  If we really wanted to get ambitious, we might even try to set up a countercyclical regime that increased capital requirements in good times and lowered them during bad times.  But regardless of how the details turn out, if our new regs are driven by a core concern for regulating leverage, they'll do some good.  If not, it's likely to be a repeat of Sarbanes-Oxley: lots of good intentions, but not much bang for the buck.

Jim Bunning, Please Don't Go Anywhere

Jim Bunning, the slightly daft Republican Senator from Kentucky who revealed over the weekend that he knows exactly when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will die, is threatening to sue his own party if it supports a primary challenger against him in his 2010 reelection campaign. Bunning, who is 77 years old, is (1) so old and (2) so peeved at his own party that he is apparently willing to say anything about anyone. Check out this broadside against fellow Republican senator John Cornyn, who controls the GOP party organ that oversees Senate racess:

"I don't believe anything John Cornyn says. I've had miscommunications with John Cornyn from, I guess, the first week of this current session of the Senate. He either doesn't understand English or he doesn’t understand direct: 'I'm going to run,' which I said to him in the cloakroom of our chamber."

That is fantastic. I hope Bunning is around for seven or even 13 more years, launching attacks on everyone who crosses him. Now that Ted Stevens is gone, the Senate needs a new curmudgeon.

The First Dog

The Obama family has apparently settled on the type of dog they want:

First Lady Michelle Obama told People Magazine that the the family wants to find a rescue Portuguese Water dog.

....But the name is still a source of familial tension in the White House."Oh, the names are really bad. I don't even want to mention it, because there are names floating around and they're bad," Mrs. Obama said. "I think, Frank was one of them. Frank! Moose was another one of them. Moose. I said, well, what if the dog isn't a moose?"

As I recall, my mother pretty much let us kids name the cats when we were young.  This produced inspired names like Meow (my sister's doing, I think), Tippy (white tip on her tail — at least until the day I slammed a door on it accidentally) and Butterfly (a huge black cat who may have been the least butterflyish animal ever born).  But you know, they all seemed like pretty good names to us.  So if the Obama kids want to name their dog Moose, I say let 'em.

Democracy in the Middle East

PIPA's latest survey of attitudes in Muslim countries is out, and for the most part there are few surprises.  Long story short, most respondents don't approve of attacks on American civilians (though they largely do approve of attacks on soldiers), but that's about it for the good news.  Broadly speaking, they don't like the U.S., don't like our presence in the Middle East, and think al-Qaeda's goals (if not its methods) are admirable.

The chart on the right demonstrates the depth of our problem.  Virtually no one believes that the United States truly supports democracy in Muslim countries, and who can blame them?  We don't — and all the airy talk in the world won't change that.  Only genuine change will.  Marc Lynch:

The most important starting point is to recognise that American policy is the most critical issue. No amount of public diplomacy will convince Arabs or Muslims to embrace American actions they detest. The Bush administration’s conception of public diplomacy generally involved putting lipstick on a pig — attempting to sell policies formulated in isolation from their likely reception. Even when public diplomacy officials had a seat at the table, they have had little influence on shaping decisions.

Improved public diplomacy from Obama — including his still unscheduled big speech in a Muslim capital — will be valuable, but only if it's accompanied by policy changes as well.  Getting out of Iraq will help.  Seriously engaging in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will help.  And supporting democracy more consistently will help.  But if the PIPA poll is accurate, it's going to be a long, hard slog.  There's a helluva lot of ground to be made up.

Supreme Court Puts Kabosh on Vibration Monument


Bad news this morning for Summum, the Utah religious group famous for its mummification practices. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, rejected the group's arguments that the First Amendment required the city of Pleasant Grove to install a Summum monument displaying its "Seven Aphorisms" (Number 3: Vibration) in a public park. Summum had argued that because the city had accepted a Ten Commandments monument for the park, rejecting the Summum monument violated the group's free speech rights. A lower federal court had agreed with the Summum, but the justices in Washington were clearly swayed by arguments that a favorable ruling for Summum would open the door to a "parade of horrors" in public space everywhere.

The Summum clearly had a sympathetic case, especially to stalwart believers in the separation of church and state. But they weren't helped by the very real example of Reverend Fred Phelps, the infamous head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Phelps, who runs www.godhatesfags.com, wants to erect a public monument in Casper, Wyoming depicting Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998. The caption would read, "Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998, in defiance of God's warning 'thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.'" If the Summum had prevailed, Phelps might have, too. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that picking and choosing monuments for a public park was not the same thing as deciding who can and can't speak in a public place, as Summum had argued. Alito said "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" requires a different analysis.

My home state of Utah no doubt breathed a sigh of relief at the news, as Summum has spent years tormenting city officials across the state with its proposed monuments, largely as an effort to get rid of the many Ten Commandments monuments in public parks. Today's decision finally puts an end to the campaign, which really is too bad. As a journalist, you always have to root for the story, and this one, where a group that mummifies pets goes up against elected officials who are mostly members of a faith that once practiced polygamy, is pretty good.

Coleman vs. Coleman

I haven't been following the Minnesota Senate recount very closely, but apparently Norm Coleman still has no intention of abandoning his Ahab-like quest to retain his seat even though he lost the election:

Republican Norm Coleman on Tuesday refused to rule out an appeal if a three-judge panel rules against his challenge in what he called “the race that never ends.”

....Coleman said his lawyers will wrap up their arguments by the end of the week, and he expected a ruling to come down in a “couple weeks.” If he loses, he would not say whether he would try to appeal a ruling with the state Supreme Court.

“I’m not ruling it in or ruling it out, let’s see what the court does and hopefully they’ll do the right thing,” Coleman said. He added: “This process already is Tolstoy-esque.”

Considering that Coleman is the guy primarily responsible for this Tolstoy-esque state of affairs, his complaint here is a little rich.  Still, as much as I'd like to blame him for this whole mess, I'm not entirely sure I can.  Speaking purely as a layman, what really appalls me about all this is how slowly the courts are moving.  Are the issues really so complex that things can't be expedited a wee bit?  Are Minnesotans really bound and determined to make Florida look like a model of efficiency and dispatch?  What's going on with these guys?

Obama and the Banks

I mentioned this briefly last night, but I want to highlight this short passage from Obama's speech again:

I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government — and yes, probably more than we've already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade.

The first paragraph starts us off with some excellent populist banker bashing.  You can almost feel the pitchforks and torches in the air.  But it's just a carnival barker's trick designed to misdirect.  In the second paragraph, delivered so quickly you could be forgiven for missing it, we get the substance: "This plan will require significant resources from the federal government — and yes, probably more than we've already set aside."

Bottom line: we intend to keep shoveling money into America's big banks.  But we don't really intend to get anything for it.

Here's the best interpretation I can put on this.  Obama knows that he's very likely going to have to nationalize one or more banks over the next few months.  But he also knows that talking about it openly is disastrous.  Like it or not, it just is.  So the only way for it to work is to deny, deny, deny right up until the day you stop denying.  Then you make a clean sweep: you take over whichever banks you need to and give the rest a firm, credible clean bill of health.  And everyone can get on with business.

Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.  But I hope this is what's going on.

Jindal's Jaw Jaw

Greg Veis on the political world's Mission Impossible:

Is there a more dangerous assignment for a rising party star to accept than a State of the Union rebuttal?....In all the heated discussions last summer about who Obama’s running mate should be, whenever Kathleen Sebelius’s name came up, people would talk about how impressive it is that she’s a strong Democratic voice in a conservative state and that she has true policy credentials--and then they’d say, But did you see her rebuttal? Similar deal with Tim Kaine, who was plagued by his dead fish performance in ’06. Gary Locke, Obama’s likely next pick for Commerce, gave such a bad speech six years ago that it’s a breathtaking act of charity that he’s been allowed to talk in public, in front of other people, with cameras around, again.

And it's not just rising stars who bomb at this assignment.  Remember Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in 2005?

This was why I didn't bother listening to Jindal's speech last night.  I figured he was doomed no matter what, so why bother.  But I've since watched it and — well, holy cow.  What a train wreck.  Aside from the bizarre decision to follow one of America's most sophisticated speechmakers with an address that sounded like it was meant for a class of third graders, it didn't even make sense.  It wasn't the government that restored New Orleans after Katrina?  Tell that to the taxpayers who forked over $200 billion.  We need to spend less during a massive recession?  You betcha.  Republicans stand for universal access to affordable healthcare coverage?  Huh?  Now is not the time to dismantle our defenses?  Who's proposing that?  And the usual lie about the stimulus bill funding a train from LA to Las Vegas got even more baroque in Jindal's telling, morphing into a mag lev train.  Is that supposed to make it sound even worse?  Or what?

Yeesh.  Even the Fox News bobbleheads couldn't stomach this stale repetition of Club for Growth talking points.  Who can blame them?

And as long as I'm picking on Jindal, who picked out his tie, anyway?  Was it supposed to kinda sorta match the stripes on the American flag next to him?  Or was it just a colorful candy cane?  Or what?