Opposition responses are usually terrible. Why do people do them? Are they ever not bad?

[Occam Bandage]

Bobby Jindal was epically bad, from his singsongy little voice, to his on-off accent, to his bizarre "disaster warning systems are dumb let's cut taxes" message. But as wonderfully terrible as he was, we haven't done a whole lot better. Sebelius pretty much took herself out of VP consideration with her flat, dishwatery response. Kaine was awkward and dull. Pelosi and Daschle weren't any better the year before that. Really, the only decent one I can think of in recent history was Jim Webb, and he had the advantage of getting to tee off against an horrendously unpopular President during a time when the entire nation wanted little more than to kick his ass (an advantage Sebelius also had, but botched). And God, let's not forget Johnny Mac's green-screen disaster of a preemptive-response to Obama's primary-victory-night speech.

The reasons why responses suck are obvious: you have to go on after the President, who has all sorts of pageantry, camera angles, and applause to liven up his speech. The President sets the direction of the nation in a positive, broad, and platitude-driven way, and you get to get to stand up in a little room in dead silence and explain why that guy who was talking for the last hour and a half was mostly good but didn't have it quite right.

But yet leaders in both parties seem to insist that these events, which seem to serve little better than the signoff into irrelevance for the poor politician given the 'honor', make a good launching pad for their party's heaviest hitters and brightest up-and-comers. And so every time a President gives a major address, the opposition party sends up their best prospects to take a shit all over themselves and their public image. Why? Are there any recent examples of this actually working?

[Wickerman]

1. I recall some really bad ones

Didn't Steve Young do one that really bit and pretty much stop his career in its tracks?

I don't recall any good ones off the top of my head.

[Occam Bandage]

2. Pretty much. All bad, no good. But yet people still do them. nt

[navarth]

3. I personally have never seen a good one.

[MiniMe]

4. I thought that Jim Webb had a pretty good one in 2007 or 2008

That was pretty much the only decent one I've ever seen.

[Jack Sprat]

5. I think it's possible to present a good opposition

argument if you offer significant alternatives. Indeed, Webb gave an excellent one in recent history. The reason Jindahl's appeared so awkward was that Pres Obama gave such an energetic talk to a nation starved for optimism. Jindahl called for more integrity in Washington on the heels of one of the most corrupt administrations just left office. From his own party. He called for tax cuts, but Pres Obama had just offered an almost immediate tax cut to the great majority of Americans. Then too, he offered up Katrina as the example of government inefficiency, after Bush had gutted FEMA's budget and appointed a horseman with no experience to lead it. I almost felt sorry for him. The Republican Party used Jindahl to take the licking that most of their hierarchy were too cowardly to take. Boehner should have taken that beating, not Bobby Jindahl.