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.
Marco's debate performance was the equivalent of someone who is asked "what's 5 times four?", who then gives the answer "two plus two is four." Only in that case, there's no National Review op-ed shilling for the guy and reassuring readers that two plus two is four.
Rubio got beat at the debate, when challenged that all he could do was to keep citing quotes from his stump speeches, what did he do? Keep citing his stump speech.... even when it made no sense to. He looked like the puppet Christie accused him of being... Christie completely validated his claim about Rubio by Rubio’s own actions.
This attempt to spin this as the content of what Rubio said made him win, shows you miss the allegation and subsequent validation of it that Christie made.
Rubio went down, and down hard, not because he argued Obama was intentionally destructive vs incompetently destructive.. he went down because he literally went back to his memorized speech multiple times, even when it made no sense, after being accused of being nothing more than a parrot.
Rubio lost the exchange, he lost the debate, and his polling has shown it. If you wish to argue that he somehow won that exchange, then you are free to do so, even though every ounce of empirical evidence shows this to not be the case.
Rubio had his moment out of IA, and he flubbed in NH. He was beaten by Christie so many times on those exchanges, not only for the obvious, you’re just parroting your speeches, but haven’t done anything.. but on the showing up for work, etc etc etc... Rubio completely lost those exchanges. He didn’t lose them over bluster, he lost them because he proved his critic correct, in that, he cannot think on his feet, only recites memorized sound bites, and at the end of the day hasn’t really done much of anything, and hasn’t shown up for work. He literally is about as close to being a Barack Obama on the R side this election cycle. Not a new criticism for him, but it was finally delivered by someone smart enough to know how to bait a trap and watch him walk into it.
Rubio lost that debate, and those exchanges. The purpose of the debate is to get folks to vote for you, coming out of that debate Rubio’s polling went down, so, while you can try to argue that he won the exchanges, when it came to the goal of the debate appearance, he clearly lost, pure and simple.
People keep noting repeatedly that Christie attacked Rubio as a programmed candidate who keeps mouthing talking points.
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.
To elect Rubio, Christie argues, would be to invite another disastrous presidency led by an untested young man in the same way Obama was when he was elected in 2008 ( Christie of course tries to make the case that he isn’t like that ).
Yet Rubio’s important point has NOT BEEN DENTED by Christie.
Rubio’s point is not that Obama has not steered the America into disaster because he is an unprepared, untested amateur.
Rubio keeps repeating ( and that’w why the media keeps replaying it) his point that Obama is doing what he is doing DELIBERATELY and MASTERFULLY, because Obama believes in the policies that constitute what he conceives to be HOPE and CHANGE.
He is a movement leftist with a transformational agenda and an Alinskyite understanding of 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.
Therefore, Obama is not the amateur folks like Christie wants to paint him to be and wants to compare Rubio to.
THAT is what people have failed to take into account and THAT is Rubio’s point.
On this issue, Rubio is SPOT ON ( media replays notwithstanding ).
Christie proved his point quite nicely, Rubio is untested, unproven, can’t think on his feet, is untested and doesn’t show up for work... basically He is Obama 2016 on the right side of the isle instead of the left, and Rubio pretty much validated him with his actions. Rubio got completely beaten.
The argument of whether Obama is incompetently destructive vs intentionally destructive really is a no win argument... Rubio has to argue Obama is competently destructive, to make the point that he could be a competent President? That’s a foolish argument to even start to make and the fact Rubio even tried to make it, shows how just unskilled and not ready for prime time he really is.
Rubio walked into a trap, and it got him, there was no way he could have won that exchange on either of these arguments. To argue he is ready and capable he has to argue that the sitting president, is competent and capable, not a good place to go facing a Republican electorate... Hey vote for me because I’m like the current guy in some way, that you all hate.... STUPID STUPID STUPID.
Rubio lost, he lost before he even opened his mouth, because he put himself in a position that he could not win. Jeb tried to catch him on this is the past, but frankly was not smart or nimble enough to close the trap, Christie was.
Game, set, match Christie... Rubio was beat on every level.
“Trump will choose a liberal like Kasich...”
Link please. If not, then you’re a mind-reader. I’m not, and neither is this site. But you may be more comfortable here:
“Don’t sell Trump with the promise of Cruz. It won’t happen.”
Sorry, I have as much right to predict the future as you do.
I can’t understand how this became such a defining issue. Doesn’t everyone with a couple functioning brain cells know that barry and his destruction is intentional? Why bother giving Rubio any props for this, I must be missing something here.
I absolutely agree with you Bob, about Rubio trying to reach Rush by echoing his words.
RE: Christie proved his point quite nicely, Rubio is untested, unproven, can’t think on his feet, is untested and doesn’t show up for work..
I will agree with “does not show up for work” ( if Ted Cruz can show up to vote, why Can’t Rubio?) I will NOT agree with the allegation that “can’t think on his feet”. HE DID and devastatingly to Christie at that.
In fact, in the debate, other then repeating the same phrases over and over again, he made good points.
If you paid attention to the CONTENT of Rubio’s argument instead of Christi’e catch phrase: “There it is again...”, you will see that Rubio was right -— Christie want Obama’s failed presidency to be seen as the consequence of INEXPERIENCE rather than as policy-driven because they often cooperate with Obama Democrats and sympathize with a number of their policy preferences.
Rubio showed us that The logic of Christie’s championing of cooperation “to get things done” meant working in furtherance of Obama’s agenda. Notice how Christie was quite lukewarm and not vocal about Obamacare...
So, Rubio pointed to NJ’s multiple-credit downgrades — AND HE WAS RIGHT ON THE MONEY. THAT was a beat up of Chris Christie to those who paid close attention.
NJ has become one of the WORST states to do business and is the state with some of the highest property taxes to pay for their almost insolvent public retirement pension fund.
Now, if your point is that Rubio did not need to repeat his stack phrase, I will concur with you. If your point is that Christie WON the exchange ... NOPE, DISAGREE.
Rubio dealt devastating blow of his own IN FACT — TRUTHFULLY. He zinged Christie on his record and Christie never responded to it.
Rubio is 100% correct
I am not sure which exchange you watched, but Rubio did not think on his feet, he proved Christie’s point 3 times over.
He went on his 25 second Obama is intentionally destroying america soundbite 3 times in the exchange, and the 2nd and 3rd times they had nothing to do with the point he was being challenged with.
Don’t believe me, here’s the full exchange:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9OZ8xHTX7c
The first time, was part of his comments not related to anything Christie said... Christie was given the floor to state his argument about the lack of experience.. which he did...
Rubio responded and again went into his 25 second speech even though it had nothing to do with the point Christie made and put to him....
Christie responded again, and this time pointed out EXPRESSLY the 25 second memorized speech, and pointed out again, that executive and legislature are not the same types of positions. Rubio tried to deflect with some personal jabs, but then went into the exact same 25 second speech that did not address in any way the position that Christie put forward, that being a 1 term Senator with no record and some memorized soundbites does not prepare one to be president.
Christie simply pointed out the obvious when he did it AGAIN, even after being called out before that he was doing it and... Rubio again attempted to deflect and failed, and had that awkward smirk on his face, he lost this entire exchange at every level.
You can love Rubio, you can hate Christie, but there is no way, no way whatsoever you can argue that Rubio won this exchange at ANY level. Rubio is left at the end with an oddball smirk on his face, and if this had been a boxing match, Christie didn’t just score a solid hit, he left Rubio flat on his back unaware of what state he was in.
Rubio and Cruz both duck questions about their lack of experience with the "Obama did it on purpose" dodge. But it's not very convincing. Substitute some other failed president who came to office with little experience (like Jimmy Carter) and ask the same question until they actually answer it.
I saw the same video you did. It’s just that I disagree with your perception. You don;t have to send me the youtube link, I can go to it anytime I want.
Christie’s point about lack of experience being a first term senator not preparing a person for the presidency was ANSWERED by Rubio when he said that IT IS NOT NECESSARILY SO.
His point was that Obama was a first term Senator but he KNEW exactly what he he wanted and knew what he was doing and he was able to outfox the rest of the “experienced” GOP to push his agenda. Therefore, Christie’s point is NOT NECESSARILY PROVEN.
I already said that I don’t love Rubio and he is not my man. ON THE CONTENTS, Rubio DID NOT LOSE. HE MADE HIS POINT.
Rubio was right on the merits of his “Obama knows what he’s doing” talking point and the state of this country today is adequate proof of that. He managed to OUTFOX every single old time Republican in Congress to push through his disastrous agenda.
The problem, as McCarthy notes, was Rubio’s insistence on mindlessly repeating the point even while being mocked for mindless repetition, as though he couldn’t delve into the substance of it. That of course is not substance but style. I go by the former, not the latter.
Christie proved his point spectacularly... How more spectacularly can you prove your point than by PREDICTING exactly what the person you are debating is going to do, after he just did it two times in a row, and then in response to you saying that’s all he’s got, he goes and does it again. You cannot prove the point that Christie was making any more effectively and spectacularly than he did, because Rubio lived completely up to in every way, what Christie proposed he was... a relatively empty suit, with a talking point speech to parrot.
Rubio absolutely lost, at every level. Christie did not make his challenge, or counter points to Rubio around Obama’s competence, not one response or challenge to Rubio made in this exchange had anything to do with that... That was just part of the 25 second memorized stump speech he had learned to parrot. Rubio never addressed directly the challenge Christie made to him, and simply proved Christie completely right by his actions.
Christie was asked, at his first injection into what led to the exchange, was Rubio experienced enough and prepared for the job.... The question re “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on you”. Never in Christie’s response to this did he call up Obama’s competence or incompetence, but Rubio went right back to his sound bite in every exchange.... Christie fully pointed out exactly what was going on.... he called it 100%... and what did Rubio do? Even after it had been pointed out by Christie? He again went back to the exact same memorized sound bite, even though again Christie did not offer any information or query over Obama’s competence or incompetence... Rubio was a skipping record, even when he was called out for being one he still went back to the old hat.... That’s not thinking on your feet.
Rubio won nothing in that exchange. Rubio did not think on his feet at all during that exchange, not one time. He went back to the same sound bite even though at no time was that sound bite relevant to the topic at hand. Had Christie in some fashion in any of this exchange discussed Obama’s competence... He challenged Rubio’s experience being appropriate for the presidency... Rubio flubbed every aspect of this exchange...
He didn’t think on his feet, he just kept going back to the soundbites he’d memorized, even after being called out for it.... Christie scored a complete KO on this, there is no argument that can be made that Rubio won this exchange on any level. He continued to parrot repeatedly lines that had no relevance to the topic at hand, and even after being called on it, he didn’t have enough where with all to stop himself from doing it again.... That’s not a fast on your feet thinker, and its not someone who’s ready for prime time.
I am no fan of either of these guys, but there is no universe or world view based in reality, that you can watch this interaction and claim Rubio won anything at any level during it.
Christie DID not prove his point spectacularly. He proved a few minor points and in doing so, exposed his own weaknesses when Rubio responded to them.
Nobody won in this exchange ( as in any debates between two flawed politicians ).
The point of Christie’s jab was that a freshman senator is too inexperienced to successfully advance his agenda as president, which is really stupid considering that Obama’s actually done it. Marco PROVED his point and anyone dissatisfied with the direction of this country ought to know that.
Obama got the stimulus through; he got ObamaCare through; he made a dubious deal with Iran and proclaimed a dubious mass amnesty via executive action.
Claiming at this point that young legislators can’t move the ball for their team as president is like claiming that it’s scientifically impossible that the sky is blue.
Just look up! But rather than say that, Rubio stuck to his script, and as Ace noted yesterday, once you’ve seen the 25-second speech exposed it’s hard not to see it in everything Rubio says. That’s unfair insofar as all of the candidates are giving canned speeches — Christie’s famous townhall passage on drug addiction is one he’s repeated many times — but Rubio’s dependence on it under fire, when he was practically being dared to say something spontaneous, created a filter through which he’ll be viewed going forward. Not fatal, Not to a person who LISTENED to what he said.
So Rubio correctly showed that Obama has succeeded in moving his agenda whereas so much of the rest of the party, most notably Trump, dismiss Obama’s problem as incompetence and inexperience.
The establishmentarians have to pretend that Obama screwed up because they’re complicit in his successes. They’ve worked with him, after all.
Now, if you want to put Rubio on the spotlight for his failures you can point to WHAT HE DID IN THE SENATE ( not this particular exchange ).
Rubio, first and foremost was on the Obama-friendly Gang of Eight bill and to a lesser extent in lending rhetorical support for the disastrous intervention in Libya. (McCarthy notes both of those in his piece.)
If Rubio knew all along that Obama had bad intentions with his policies, why did he cooperate with him on anything, let alone major initiatives?
But Christie DID NOT mention that at all when he should have. So, there are no winners in this exchange. Certainly NOT CHRISTIE.
So, we are both no fan of either of these guys, but to say that Christie delivered a knockout is to misjudge the exchange (and miss Rubio’s point in favor of Christie’s ).
Rubio was correct.
“I absolutely agree with you Bob, about Rubio trying to reach Rush by echoing his words.”
Oh well, I guess Rubio overdid it. If I had to pick a second place finisher to make life easy for Trump, Kasich would have been at or near the top of the list...it was a DREAM COME TRUE last night!
Now he’s got 10 days to let the people of SC know that he’s a Republican candidate running for nomination to be President of the United States, since he has about 0.00016% name recognition down there. I wish him luck.
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.
