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.
What the Heck Happened to Marco?
“There is no way to sugarcoat Marco Rubio’s serious blunder at last night’s debate,” writes our own Mona Charen; the Boston Herald ran the headline, “Under fire, Marco Rubio crashes and burns”; and FiveThirtyEight begins its story on the debate with this:
We…endorse the conventional wisdom, for a change. Like most other people covering the event, we thought that Marco Rubio had a really bad night….
I had to miss the debate last night, unfortunately, but I’d assumed it could only help Marco, who seemed to be gathering strength for a strong second-place finish in New Hampshire. Jeepers. I turn my back for one little moment — and everything falls apart. (Yes, I know. It’s still early in the political year, but I’ve already reached the point at which I’ve begun feeling possessive about the whole campaign. It’s being run entirely for my own entertainment, right?)
Could somebody fill me in? What the heck happened to Marco? How bad was it? Can he recover in the next 48 hours?
Published in General
They, and you too Peter, are making a mountain out of a molehill. When I saw the repetitions, I said, now that’s silly. But ultimately all he made was a debating mistake. He didn’t change any policy or reveal a disqualifying personality quirk. He didn’t mistaken our world enemies for friends or friends for enemies. He repeated the same lines four times, of which most conservatives would actually agree. Big deal.
No one elects a president on his debating skills, which by the way, outside this faux pas Rubio is an outstanding debater. If you were electing the best debater in chief, then Rubio gets a demerit. But we are electing a president, and this is insignificant.
Agreed. I wouldn’t say a “poor debate performance.” I would say a mostly good debate with one outstandingly bad performance error. And it really was a performance error. He gave a really perfectly fine answer to the experience question at first. His statement on Obama was solid. He just didn’t have a well-prepared third and fourth answer to Christie’s repeated attacks.
And I still think it’s partly because, except for this key moment in NH, he’s trying primarily to appeal to an audience more interested in outsiders than in comparing lists of political achievements. Christie’s wrong — it’s not that he has no resume or experience. But he can’t match the governors point by point, and he doesn’t want to list “I did A, B, and C” and sound like an insider.
Thing is, for all Christie’s gubernatorial experience, he was elected one whole year earlier than Rubio. While he’s been running New Jersey, Rubio has been studying foreign affairs. The experience thing goes both ways, with advantages and disadvantages.