Posted on 02/21/2016 10:53:17 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Let's dispel the notion that Marco Rubio did not know who he was talking to. When Rubio walked into the lobby of the Columbia Hampton Inn this morning -- conveniently the same one where the Daily Pennsylvanian staffers are posting up in South Carolina and were eating breakfast around 10:30 a.m. -- he was presumably not expecting to run into Rafael Cruz, father of presidential candidate Ted Cruz, and Cruz campaign staffer Christian Collins.
However, once he saw them he decided to have some fun with them.
"Got a good book there," Rubio said to Collins, a young Cruz staffer in a suit, about the book he was reading over his cup of coffee.
"Not many answers in it, especially that one" Rubio added tersely and walked out of the lobby without a backward glance.
Collins was visibly taken aback after being addressed by his boss' political rival. Rafael Cruz and Collins proceeded to discuss under the incident in hushed voices for several minutes.
-snip-.
UPDATE: a Cruz staffer just confirmed that the book in question was a Bible.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedp.com ...
I hear “Every answer in it. Especially in that one.”
You are a disturbed individual.
And Please spam the whole front page some more with your fantastical diatribes.
We’re so glad you stopped by, this year - after skipping all of 2015 and barely visiting between 2012 and 2014 - to tell us that Trump will never get your vote.
Precisely which Bible was it ?
I see Cruz staffer initiate contact with a wave. I'm hearing something like, "Got a good book there ?" "Yes sir." "Are the answers in there ?" "Especially in that one." What the OP wrote is illogical; Rubio's body language and tone doesn't match the proffered transcription.
Wow !
Rubio would have a complete Bible — a Catholic Bible.
The one with the Cruz staff had seven less books.
And a lot less answers.
Yeah, it just made no sense. Rubio isn’t stupid enough to say something critical of the Bible in front of a crowd of people, most of whom are operatives of the opposing campaign.
Also, lots of retired New Yorkers live in SC, so there was that.
But even with the open primary, The Donald should have done much better than he did. He was slated to win by more than 20 points to the second place finisher.
And Cruz should have came in near the bottom according to the polls.
The truth is Cruz is the only one who has beaten Trump in a head to head contest.
I truly think he says “maybe the answer’s in it...especially in that one.”
It would be possible for someone to misunderstand what was said and think he said “not many answers in there,” especially if you’re a Cruz staffer who is opposing Marco and kind of wanting to catch him doing something bad. So, I don’t necessarily think that either side did anything wrong. I think Marco said something perfectly nice (with a little bit of humor - basically reminding those Cruz staffers that they needed answers to why they came in third) which was misunderstood by someone who truly thought he heard something different.
Not only not stupid, but he was with his son and displayed no guile or body language to indicate it; check out Nita's posted video in post 106 as to the source and corruption of the OP's premise.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/once-again-cruz-campaign-caught-pushing-fake-smear-of-rubio/
If my options are:
1. Rubio is stupid enough to disparage the Bible in a room full of campaign operatives in South Carolina.
or
2. The Cruz campaign is up to another dirty trick.
I'll go with 2.
Yep, it meets the three syllable requirement, and the open lips at the beginning requirement, and makes sense in context. If true, the look on the staffer’s face, which I still see as surprise and disgust, could be attributed to feelings in the staffer independent of the words spoken. It happens here on FR all the time. “Oh, it’s him again.” That sort of thing.
BTW, my understanding is the Cruz campaign is officially rejecting the negative interpretation. That probably puts the last nail in it. That and the vocabulary of the staffer captured in the second video. Sheesh.
Peace,
SR
BTW, while I now agree with your assessment of what was said, I think the Cruz campaign problem is not the personal integrity of Ted Cruz. I’m not writing him an excuse, but I am trying hard to be fair. I think he’s relied on people who are not aligned with evangelical culture and ethos. They don’t get it, but they are in his campaign structure and didn’t get properly vetted. So they go off the reservation and try something like this, it doesn’t work out, and he gets blamed.
For the young professional political groupies that have been attracted to the Cruz campaign, these may be standard blood sport political maneuvers. But Ted has branded his campaign on appeal to the large number of previously uninvolved evangelicals, and the two don’t mix. Organizationally, he needs to fire some folks and send the message that if any unethical games are played by any of the troops, there will be swift retribution.
Peace,
SR
Smart alecky coward. Didn’t stay to talk, did he?
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.