Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Does Marco Rubio Know What He’s Doing?
Maybe saying Marco Rubio is clueless is a little harsh, but the most recent did debate did confirm a lot of my fears about him, even if his chief critic was blatantly hypocritical.
The issue of readiness to be the president came up, leading to an exchange between Marco Rubio and Chris Christie in which Christie intimated that Rubio is just a Republican version of Obama. But what really sunk Rubio was his endless repetition of the same talking point. He even responded to Christie pointing that out by repeating the same canned lines again. I imagine it must have been very painful to strong Rubio fans. But pretending it doesn’t bring a serious flaw to light won’t make that flaw vanish.
The problem with Rubio is that he’s a good public speaker, but that doesn’t automatically translate to presidential ability. It’s been clear from watching his past performances that he cuts and pastes parts of his stump speech into debates. The question that mattered was whether he was able to do that so eloquently because he knew what he was talking about or because he was well-trained. Last night was significant evidence for the latter.
It was especially devastating for Rubio because it spoils his greatest comparative advantage. It wasn’t just a “Maybe Marco doesn’t get monetary policy as much as he’d like us to think?” moment, it was a moment many people will remember when they’re next tempted to nod their heads in agreement with him as he waxes eloquent.
He was like the kid at the Science Fair who delivers a great presentation for a great project, but gets so flustered when the judges ask questions that it soon becomes obvious the parents did the project for him. It is far more discrediting than just forgetting what your fifth step was.
That said, all of them have the same problem with canned sound bites over real knowledge. In fact, the great irony was that Christie was bashing Rubio’s repetitiveness while looking into the camera and telling people that governors are way cooler than senators — the skit he does every single time he has the chance.
If we want to fix politics, we have to look beyond the appearance of skill to discover if the skill is actually there. In the end, procedural democracy can’t function in a world of 140 characters. When candidates are bashing talking points as a talking point, we need to spot that, too.
Published in General
CBA, thanks for the great links. I agree with you that Rubio gave impressive and articulate answers on all three questions.
The problem is not that the content is wrong. It is that it was clearly rehearsed and canned for the debate, and the fact that he repeated it 5 times no matter what came at him, even when he was being criticized for repeating it. He had to show that he was a good public speaker because he is smart on the issues, and not because he was trained well. A dysfunction like that suggests it is the latter.
He is obviously right in the statement; and it would have been a good concluding statement. But his inability to move beyond his prepped statements is a problem.
Remember that the GOP has changed tremendously in the past Eight Years. So every candidate is going to be either wrong on the issues because they are from an older GOP, a flip-flopper because they changed their minds with the GOP, or a Freshman who wasn’t around in the old GOP.
Admittedly risking some armchair keyboard quarterbacking here, Rubio’s “mistake” was simply a weak or missing parry before the riposte between the 2nd and 3rd repetition.
Before the 3rd go ’round, had he added, “Chris, look, it’s not my place to give you winning campaign advice here but your attacks on me make you look desperate. You’re suggesting that all Senators that become Presidents ‘don’t know what they’re doing’ and trying to paint me with the same flawed brush. I think the American people know better. The evidence is clear that Obama knows exactly what he’s doing and I don’t mind saying it again: the damage he’s done to this country has nothing to do with his perceived lack of experience as a Senator — [then proceed to repeat the rest of his bullets for the 3rd time].”
But, with all due respect, it’s gotta be tremendously nerve wracking even for a seasoned, well-coached candidate, to have to endure one of those things.
Wait… are the other candidates saying that Obama is not deliberately fundamentally transforming the United States? Is this observation unique to Marco Rubio?
Mitt Romney always said Obama was a nice guy who was just “over his head.” I did not think the current field held that view.
Here’s Rubio at the CFR in May. The speech was ok, but if you seek a way to dispel some of the doubts about him then watch the Q&A starting at the 24:30 mark.
Agreed. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. What Obama has done and continues to do cannot be adequately explained by stupidity. Rubio is right on the substance in this.
I wholeheartedly agree with Marco Rubio when he said that Obama knows exactly what he is doing and I was very disappointed when Trump contradicted him and said that Obama was “merely” (my word) incompetent. However, on second thought, maybe this is part of Trump’s grand strategy to paint ALL politicians regardless of political stripe as incompetent and present himself as the ONLY competent alternative. If so, I think I understand the reasoning: There’s no point in muddying the waters by talking about “good competence” vs “bad competence”—such a distinction would be lost on most Americans anyway. Keep it simple, keep it consistent. Yeap, sounds about right.
It was always going to boil down to about 3 candidates before we vote here in SC but this morning I’m wishing it was Perry, Jindal, and Walker.
Maybe I’d be sick of them by now too.
So basically I don’t think any of them are ready to be president. John Kasich has the best resume, if bullet-points on a list are qualifications. Too bad we have to worry about these things called policy and philosophy.
Rubio has a better case for his experience than he chose to make. I think he doesn’t want to talk about it as much because he doesn’t want to sound like the governors listing off past political achievements. That’s not been selling this year. It didn’t matter at all in Iowa. He’s arguably the most ready on foreign policy, which is arguably the one area where past preparation and knowledge matters most.
Problem is everyone knows about Gang of Eight. So when he doesn’t talk about the other stuff in his record it makes it look like there’s nothing else there. And the other problem is right now he’s running in New Hampshire, and evidently a bigger chunk of voters there do care about resume bullet points.
Rubio repeating his point wasn’t necessarily a problem, though it wasn’t enough. The problem was repeating it in the exact same words with the exact same intonation, so completely that it seemed as though the video had rewound. That’s what turned it into a clip that will haunt him forever. Not disqualifying. But a big stumble at a big moment.
The first and only time I saw Reagan personally he was an ex governor and not yet running for president. He gave his set speech, then answered every question with a short sub paragraph of the same speech. Not a word varied. His people then told us subsequently to keep our briefing short because he was jet lagged from his trip and tired. I was totally turned off, thought him an empty old man. He did fall asleep (but I almost did as well and I was in my early thirties and not jet lagged. ) After Carter I voted for him with reluctance and then again with enthusiasm. What matters is that it is the right speech and that it can be given with inspiration and that he believes it. Perhaps as important, do the people around him believe it. I worked on program in which our Assistant Secretary was able to blast away the bureaucratic and special interest driven objections by insisting Reagan wanted the core of the thing exactly as we designed it. We designed it to conform with a free markets and the rule of law. Reagan hadn’t insisted on anything but we knew what would work and what was consistent with the new President’s views. So does Rubio sincerely believe what he says and does he have back bone. I don’t know. I believe Cruz does and he’s my first choice. But Rubio’s flustered performance doesn’t bother me.
Winner of Saturday night’s Republican debate — Hillary Clinton.
I think this has been the core of Rubio’s campaign philosophy. I think Cruz struggles somewhat with the second phrase as he comes off a little wooden at times in his delivery. I’m almost lock step with him ideologically, but Rubio is close enough and has the ability to inspire with his rhetoric and style. Cruz has grown significantly through the process, and that speaks highly of him.
The “King,”
Problem with Cruz is the miles of video tape showing flip flops on ethanol (his current claim to fame), legalization, Snowden, metadata, defense, . . . If you are going to be holier than thou, you have to really be pure. Cruz is not. And Hillary ’16 will mutulate his purity in a New Jersey minute. He will come off as waffler who quotes the Consitution as he chooses and not when it does not fit.
This is the risk when someone goes the “one true conservative” or “one true” anything route. Bernie is questioning Hillary and she is defending that she is “progressive.” But, there is plenty of tape where she says she is moderate. This is what candidates do – run right or left and then tack to the center. Ted unfortunately has left a trail of sound bites that will undermine his claim on the base, alienate the GOP whom he vilifies and turn off the Independents.
He is cannon fodder for the comedians as well – SNL is already lampooning his endorsement from God. Not good when you become the caracature you want to be.
Agreed on Cruz’s weaknesses. He’s second only to Trump in ready made parody. Rubio is hard to attack on such things. They’ll have to attack him on substance, and on things like the issue of life he stated plainly that he’d rather lose the race than be wrong on the question. It frustrates me a little that such a declaration has been lost under the coverage of his handling by Christie. It was a bad moment, but it should in no way be a defining one.
If I had to be defined by the worst moments in my life I could never leave my house.
Does everything Marco Rubio has said and done to that bad stretch of one debate and everything he says and does after just get cancelled out…Marco butchered a part of the Republican Primary debate in New Hampshire and even though Rubio is easily the most viable conservative candidate we must now throw him overboard and support who…Trump? Cruz? Christie? Jeb? Kasich? Gilmore?????
This will blow over, it’s a blip in a long campaign
I’d love to know what Rubio’s prep was like. Did he have something ready? For example, that “repeating talking points” could’ve been turned very easily on Christie: “I was a Federal prosecutor” is in nearly every one of his answers. Also, why didn’t Rubio press home to the main point: what one believes is as important as experience?
At the risk of bringing up another Rubio meme, it’s now water under the bridge. If I were him, I’d poke fun at the repetition in an ad, then make his point about Obama.
Amen. So frustrated that Rubio didn’t press this point home. Obama shifted the policy terrain with a few key laws, enabled further transformation through the administrative state, screwed over our allies, and then dug in his heels for six years.
Ea
It should have been child’s play. Obama is incompetent in things he doesn’t care about like the Veterans or the oil spill, or protecting Americans abroad, but when it comes to the the things he cares about, like transforming America into some notion he learned as an undergraduate, he is unmatched.
Andrew McCarthy has a good analysis of Rubio’s performance at The Corner:
Yes, but not being obvious about it is a pretty key skill in a debate!
This was the point that Ace of Ace of Spades made following the debate. Christie telegraphed this attack. Rubio had to know it was coming but really did not seem prepared for it.
In my opinion this is a reasonably big failure on Rubio’s part but not a fatal wound.
True. It was a tactical mistake.
Rubio’s Gang of Eight position, doubling down on it since then, pledging to enact Obama’s immigration agenda in stages, and promising more in Spanish than he does in English, on the other hand…
I just don’t see a problem.
Rubio is offering optimism.
Nobody is prepared to be President.
Some preparation is counter productive.
I’m sick of the anger and malice of the current Republican Party. And the candidates that perpetuate it.
I’d rather lose some minor points of “conservative” dogma than have Hillary as President.
All of my key concerns are filled by Rubio. In fact, Rubio feels like a breath of fresh air after spending 7 years in an outhouse.
JM,
This is the situation that you are making clear. We are talking about the liberal media swooping in to pile on to a viable Republican frontrunner who has very good chances for November.
A governor of the state of NJ who everyone knows doesn’t have a chance in November, falsely accuses Marco of repeating himself. Apparently nobody has counted the number of times the idiot Christie has said “I was a federal prosecutor” or that “I made tough decisions as governor”. Nice tag lines but after the 3000th time it gets a little old. ABC started and WaPo have continued the fantasy that this exchange at the beginning of the debate (obviously pre-arranged by ABC) showed Marco in any negative light. They are trying to do an assassination job on Marco. Trump or Cruz people may like this but the real winner is going to be HRC.
If Christie wants to get in bed with ABC and the MSM I think he should stay there and shut his fat mouth. He stabbed Romney in the back in 2012 with his hurricane muti-day photo op with BHO one week before the election.
This idiot is criticizing Marco?
Regards,
Jim
You know what I realized this morning?
I wish Bush had done the stupid amnesty thing when he wanted too.
Every single person in this country KNOWS that amnesty is coming. I don’t care how much you claim to know otherwise, there will be something that someone is going to call amnesty.
That is a fact. And why every one of the Candidates has been impure on the issue.
If Bush had done it, two of the worst parts of amnesty would be neutralized, half the immigrants would be Republicans. And it wouldn’t be this continual club against Republicans. Which works.
So Rubio or whoever else is confronted with a problem of Republican making. And how ever they figure out to get it off the table. I don’t care, not one bit.
Republicans picked the wrong hill to die on.
I know the rule of law and all that, blah blah blah. But while we are worried about that small law breaking, Hillary Clinton has been exposing our secrets to the world and Eric Holder has been putting his jack boot on the scales of justice for 6 years! And we are completely helpless, and obsessed with amnesty.
It is a distraction from the real attack on the rule of law!
We might have staved off amnesty, good for us. But the rule of law has been damaged dramatically by the straight jacket of unbendable ideology! And it’s going to happen anyway!
As a Rubio fan, I actually found myself laughing at the third repetition. He might have been thrown off by the boos.
Stage-fright is real, I have it to (it’s the reason I’m not a lawyer). I think there’s a simpler explanation. Rubio has rebuttals -he delivered them. I did these things in the Senate, and the problem with Obama isn’t that he was a first term senator. Christie’s responses are, in that context, non-sequitors. How, exactly is “what kind of speech can I give, or what kind of bill can I drop” different from what governors do -every morning deciding what they are going to say and what law they are going to enforce. And what’s this about accountability Mr. Bridge-gate? Rubio has been raked over the coals this entire primary. Everyone, Christie included, repeats themselves.
I’ve been hit by the same style of question. Here’s the thought that goes through my mind: “He can’t possibly have said something that stupid.” Now, Rubio probably should have done what I did, which is smile and nod. Instead he went with “he must have misunderstood me -I’ll say it again.”
It was a good point he was clumsily making. He should have reformulated and restated it rather than just repeating it. But, if this is the worst knock on him, then he’s still well qualified.
I would like to see where you come up with the idea that 1/2 the immigrants would be Republican. When PEW looked at this a couple years ago they found that 31% of illegal immigrants identified as Democrat and 4% as Republican.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/