The Rubio Hand Puppet is owned/controlled/pawned by the Open Borders Elite Thugs!!!!
Rubio swings both ways!
Posted on 02/09/2016 6:46:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Sometimes you outsmart yourself. After re-watching the excruciating Rubio-Christie exchange (embedded in David's post), I can't help but think that Marco Rubio outsmarted himself -- or at least locked in on the wrong part of Chris Christie's commentary and, in the heat of the moment, couldn't let go.
In the post-mortem, it has been noted repeatedly that Christie attacked Rubio as an unaccomplished, programmed candidate. But Rubio's alleged insufficiencies were only one part of Christie's argument. The other, the actual premise of Christie's critique, was the analogy of Rubio to Obama.
Christie contends that the Obama who ran for president in 2008 was an unaccomplished, hyper-programmed, first-term senator who was utterly unprepared to be president. That, according to Christie, has caused seven years of amateur-hour governance. To elect Rubio, he thus concludes, would be to invite another disastrous presidency led by an untested young man who would be in way over his head.
This analogy to Obama, rather than Rubio's own alleged failings, was the part of Christie's case that Rubio seized on. To some extent, this is understandable: Rubio is on surer footing talking about Obama than about his own record of accomplishment, the best known aspect of which is pushing through the senate, in collusion with Obama, a bipartisan immigration bill that is anathema to the GOP base (but, by the way, would have been fine with GOP "moderates" like Christie).
Yet Rubio also had an important point: Christie's premise is dead wrong. Obama has not steered the Titanic into an iceberg because he is an unprepared, untested amateur. He has done it quite deliberately, at times masterfully, because Obama believes in the policies that constitute the iceberg. He is a movement leftist with a transformational agenda and an Alinskyite's understanding of the extortionate uses of power. Authoritarian rule, government-controlled health care, open borders, runaway spending, Islamist sympathies, crony-capitalist green energy -- these are not initiatives Obama stumbled into because he was unprepared. Obama has studiously taken the country where he wants it to go. And he has rolled over the old experienced hands to do it -- so much for amateur hour.
Obama is not the bumpkin of Christie's portrayal. But Christie is not so much wrong in this regard as calculated. Progressive-lite types like Christie want Obama's failed presidency to be seen as the consequence of lack of experience rather than as policy-driven because they often cooperate with Obama Democrats and sympathize with a number of their policy preferences.
Christie couldn't get enough of Obama after "Super Storm Sandy" -- regardless of how much it undermined Mitt Romney. At best, Christie has been ambivalent in his opposition to Obamacare -- carefully navigating between his instinctive support of it and the intense opposition of more conservative voters whom he knew he'd be courting in the 2016 GOP primaries. And while Christie is trying to appeal to conservatives as the adult in the room willing to speak hard truths about entitlements and debt spending, his record as governor is: Talk a good game but do essentially nothing about our basket-case state's structural problems. That is a big part of why, as Rubio pointed out, Christie's tenure has featured multiple credit downgrades.
The Christies of the Republican party insist that the country is in disastrous shape because Obama was not up to the job. In truth, Obama used Democratic congressional control when he had it to push through Obamacare and Dodd-Frank; ever since, having taken the measure of feckless GOP opposition, he has skillfully (albeit illegally) exploited executive power to pursue progressive objectives. Obama has been plenty up to the job as he intended the job to be done.
This reality is not helpful to a Christie, who wants to be seen as a pragmatic problem-solver willing to "cross the aisle." The logic of Christie's championing of bipartisan cooperation "to get things done" has necessarily meant working in furtherance of Obama's agenda (and, in New Jersey, working closely with Democrats -- which is how you get multiple credit downgrades). No one courting the Republican base can afford to be seen as complicit in Obama's program. So, for Christie, if Obama is to be portrayed as a failure, it's got to be because Obama wasn't prepared to be president, not because of policies Republicans have supported.
Rubio was absolutely right to make the point that Christie's portrayal of Obama was badly flawed. Unfortunately, (a) having made the point once, there was no need to repeat it twice, and (b) having infamously colluded with GOP progressives on immigration and foreign policy debacles (e.g., Libya), Rubio has trouble making the case that Christie has a motive to limn Obama as a bumbling neophyte. Consequently, Rubio appeared to be repeating talking-points about Obama to no good end, rather than connecting them into a sharp appraisal of Christie's vastly overrated record of executive accomplishment.
This was inexcusable. I hear what Mona is saying about the "wit of the staircase" -- the "what I should have said" regrets we all express after a missed opportunity. But my day job used to include appellate argument, and you never go into court without a "murder board" at which you are remorselessly drilled on the hard questions you know your adversaries and the judges are going to ask.
Nothing Christie did on Saturday night was unexpected; he's been saying these things about Rubio for weeks, and he was openly vowing there would be more of the same at the debate. Rubio had to know it was coming. Rubio, moreover, must have known that, at the undercard debate in which Christie participated a few weeks back, Bobby Jindal repeatedly zinged Christie on his record, and Christie had no effective response. (Ironically, rather than defend himself, Christie deflected by talking about Obama and Hillary Clinton).
Given these circumstances, it is just astonishing that a speaker as polished and reputedly programmed as Rubio was not ready with a devastating 90-second critique of Christie: tying him to Obama and explaining that qualifications are not, as Christie claims, merely about having executive responsibilities; they are about how you exercise executive power.
My guy in the race is Ted Cruz. As I've said before, though, there's a lot to like about Marco Rubio -- and yesterday, Kevin outlined well both the downsides and the reasons for optimism. Rubio will survive this stumble. But he'll be better for it only if he recognizes what he did wrong while remaining mindful of what he had right.
“Yet Rubio also had an important point: Christie’s premise is dead wrong. Obama has not steered the Titanic into an iceberg because he is an unprepared, untested amateur. He has done it quite deliberately, at times masterfully, because Obama believes in the policies that constitute the iceberg. He is a movement leftist with a transformational agenda and an Alinskyite’s understanding of the extortionate uses of power.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s what I immediately thought when I heard the exchange. I’m pretty sure the fat slime ball knew what Rubio meant by (pp) “It’s wrong to say Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing”. It was a real cheap shot, which Trump (surprise surprise) also took at him on that point.
Except . . . Trump yesterday said EXACTLY this about Hillary. Trump knows that Obama isn’t on the ballot. The opponent is Hillary. Rubio (and, I guess, Cruz) are fighting the last war. Trump fighting the next one.
Moreover, I’m just waiting until someone exposes Rubio on this. I would bet dollars to donuts that in 2009-10, even though he was only a FL legislator, Rubio said very nice things about Zero. They ALL did. Rush was alone is saying “I hope he fails.” So Rubio may be in for a giant “gotcha.”
...just wanted to clarify my previous and say that Rubio was not ENTIRELY correct when he said Obama “knows what he’s doing”. Because he incorrectly claimed that Obama was trying to make the US like the rest of the world. That part was/is wrong. Obama wants to (ultimately) make the US more like communist Cuba, rather than some European socialist country. The guy has been hardcore commie left his entire life.
“Rubio said several times during the attack that Obama indeed ‘knows exactly what he’s doing,’ which is trying to make the country ‘like the rest of the world.’ “
Yes, on the merits, but Rubio lost on the visuals. My wife said he looked like a little boy caught peeing in the corner.
Can I say “little boy”?
Liberal websites are interpreting Rubio’s comment as high praise, as in, “Obama accomplished a lot” and it is not clear that Rubio didn’t mean just that.
Rubio was right, Obama of course knows precisely what he’s doing - but Rubio’s still a TRAITOR and a LIAR and needs to be stopped.
Rubio came off bad because the Dems and the media simply will not allow anyone to get away with saying that Obama knows what he’s doing and he’s also pure evil...if Obama has a few things wrong, we must believe that his intentions are good.
The GOPe also got on Rubio’s case because they are TOO STUPID to understand that Rubio is right - they are simply incapable of it, just as most FReepers still trust public schools to the extent of sending their kids there - DESPITE everything they read here and hear from others.
My thought is that Rubio is trying to reach Rush, as Rush does understand that Rubio is right...and perhaps Rush may even throw more support his way...while at the same time conveniently forgetting about his TRAITOROUS leadership in the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill.
It was the way the chubby slime ball pounced on him that only made it *seem* like he (Rubio) was off base. An all-style/zero substance, shameless cheap shot.
The Rubio Hand Puppet is owned/controlled/pawned by the Open Borders Elite Thugs!!!!
Rubio swings both ways!
Rubio is the biggest Establishment threat to Trump/Cruz right now. If it takes a chubby slimeball to knock him out, so be it.
There will be no “Trump/Cruz.” Trump will choose a liberal like Kasich or even a Democrat just to shock people. You watch. Or maybe he will choose another reality TV star. No possible way he will choose Cruz. He can’t. Remember he thinks he is not qualified. He thinks he is a maniac.
Don’t sell Trump with the promise of Cruz. It won’t happen.
Rush noted that the governor candidates (Christie, Bush, Kasich) all want Obama to be portrayed as a bumbling idiot because all three of them have had to work WITH Obama.
It wouldn’t look good to say that Obama has deliberately destroyed America...and then have someone point out that they’ve worked with Obama.
Thus Christie is using Rubio to sway the argument away from evil Obama over to idiot Obama.
Christie should not be trusted.
Rubio needs to buy a thesaurus.
Can I say “little boy�
___
If Rubio’s black and you’re white, then no.
I want someone who can win. All of the candidates would be better than a Clinton presidency. I do not buy the arugment that Rubio is a moderate. It is just not the case at all. Yes, I am a social issues voter so he is really good for me. But I think he really can win. I will gladly support Ted Cruz if someone can explain to me how the hell he will ever get moderates and independents or hispanics to support him. If you really think, like he does, that millions of conservatives are out there just waiting on someone like him, then I have so sea front property I would like to sell you in Oklahoma. And Trump is such a wild card, that he really could implode in the General. He is dangerous when it comes to how he will play out in the general election. And save the amnesty crap, they are all going to do about the same thing. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t think so.
Rubio got owned by Christie at the debate... There is no spin, despite the best efforts of some, to show otherwise.
Rubio had his chance, he blew it. Looks like he may be on deck to lose to KASICH of all people... KASICH!
RE: Rubio got owned by Christie at the debate... There is no spin, despite the best efforts of some, to show otherwise.
I am not a RUBIO supporter, but I don’t see him being OWNED at all by Christie at least when it comes to the SUBSTANCE of the issues.
The entire thing is ostensibly a matter of personal perspective.
As for Kasich, the man has put his GROUND GAME in New Hampshire early on. I’d be surprised if he did badly here.
RE: The billboard
Rubio seems to be saying the opposite of that.
Rubio got slapped, if you don’t see it, then there is nothing I am going to say to convince you so. Polls show it, post debate Rubio went into free fall.
Rubio had his moment in the sun, and its now over.
Lots of folks had their ground game in NH early... don’t see them topping the polls... Rubio is looking like he’s going to lose to Kasich, his claim the establishment voters are rallying to him after IA, just got chopped off at the knees.
RE: Rubio got slapped, if you don’t see it, then there is nothing I am going to say to convince you so.
Again I will agree with you on one thing, he got “slapped” (note the quotes ) only in terms of the shouting match. On the SUBSTANCE, he was still right as this article so eloquently explained.
As a debate watcher, I am less interested in who shouts or taunts the loudest but on the CONTENT of what they say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.