Noted Blogger Heads contributor and Anti-Immigration blogger Mickey Kraus termed Marco Rubio the "New John Edwards" in an email to Briebart News.
In a post today on Briebart Kaus is qouted as saying:
"“Rubio’s the GOP John Edwards,” Kaus tweeted. “Both Rubio and Edwards have the gift of gab, which only takes you so far.”
In an email to Breitbart News, Kaus elaborated on the comparison: “I remember seeing John Edwards talk in New Hampshire in ’04. Great stump speech, but even with questions he didn’t add much more. Left you feeling hungry. I didn’t admit it to myself at the time but it was a signal Edwards was a lightweight (even without the later scandal). I get the same impression watching Rubio, even when I can distance myself from his amnesty betrayal.”
Kaus’ suggestion that Rubio’s success hinges upon his reliance on carefully-crafted talking points seems reinforced by the observation of a local New Hampshire reporter, who likened Rubio to a “computer algorithm designed to cover talking points… It was like someone wound him up, pointed him toward the doors and pushed ‘play,'” the New Hampshire reporter noted.
Kaus’ observation that Rubio is able to retreat to his stump speech seems enabled by the media’s reluctance to ask Rubio challenging questions about his longstanding support of open borders trade and immigration policies."
That is a pretty interesting observation from someone who hates Trump and Cruz. It is true that FOX News in general and Megyn Kelly in particular are giving Marco tongue baths instead the rigorous questioning everyone told me that the Republican candidates have to endure at the hands of conservative media to prepare them for the general election. I saw excepts of their interview and it was soft ball after soft ball with no discussion of Rubio's work at increasing immigration levels or his support of Obama trade.
My only question is if Rubio is John Edwards is Megyn Kelly really Rielle Hunter?
I guess we have to wait for the real journalists at the National Enquirer to investigate.
26 comments:
Rubio has refused to state whether he's vote for TPP. Every other Candidate has taken a position. The media never pin him down on that.
If Megyn Kelly can shake the hands of the Flint Communist Grifter, then giving Rubio a tongue bath isn't such a bad ordeal for her or FOX overall. What's funny is that people characterized Cruz and his delivery in a kind of used car salesman way, but not that characterization seems to be rubbing off on Rubio. I wonder why.
Hey. He came in # 3. THREE! That's more than 1 and 2. That's more than 1 and 2 put together.
Three.
Rubio is not Edwards and Kelly is not Hunter.
A ≠ B and C ≠ D
R ≠ Ed and K ≠ Hn
We're talking about people here not political templates.
An aspect of Rubio reminding Kaus of somebody else in some way that Kaus can put his finger on does not make Rubio somebody else.
So no, it's too much a stretch then extending the mistake further to include another person. Why stop? Kelly's child will be the analog to Hunter's child and so on. Rubio's wife must be Edward's wife.
Especially when used to draw a conclusion from the match made between them.
Ed + Hn = marriage infidelity that destroys campaign
Since R reminds Klaus of Ed, and since Ed hooked up with Hn then:
R + K = inevitable infidelity that destroys campaign
Cute, Kaus, but no cigar. A reminding you in certain ways of B is simply that, Nothing more. Mere observation, mere feeling Klaus felt while observing. A single match between them. But it's not that interesting and writing it as such will hardly draw clicks, now will it?
Clicks being the all important currency, go ahead and state flatly that Rubio IS Edwards and suggest in other ways, possibly in ALL respects because this slippery answers that avoids depth is similar, and not just this observable character trait seeming similar to Klaus.
This aspect of Rubio reminded me of Edwards
Rubio is Edwards.
F for you, Kaus.
All such comparisons between people are rejected. X is the new Y, all are rejected. Rubio is purely Rubio and Edwards purely Edwards and understood as such. Having made the comparison and felt it, that's all there is to feel, cannot go any further with that. Let it flow through you … and … it's gone. Step back. Realize again they are far more different than similar.
There is plenty to dislike without including everybody else's craptastic comparisons between campaigning ways and minds are made up anyway. Political people are terribly silly. They have no introspection.
Thanks Chip.
What I have noticed about most of the hack press - they are terrified of Rubio. What happens if he beats the old white corruptocrats? omg - the hacks can't let that happen. Dig dig dig - he bought a boat once.
I follow Kaus on Twitter and IMHO he doesn't "hate" Trump or Cruz. However, he really doesn't like Rubio. Kaus went to a Rubio town hall and wrote an article on his impressions. As Kaus says: Was Rubio really as slick and insubstantial in this setting as John Edwards? Answer: No. He’s slicker.
a “computer algorithm designed to cover talking points… It was like someone wound him up, pointed him toward the doors and pushed ‘play,'”
Sounds like the current Teleprompter in Chief.
Want proof that Rubio is slicker than Edwards? He lies to us in English and tells the truth in Spanish. Too bad if you're not multi-lingual.
Whereas Obama reads from a teleprompter Rubio memorizes his lines. If all other things were equal I'd take Trump because he gives me the impression that he'd talk the same way to my face. Of course all other things aren't equal so I read Lem's to be reminded of that.
New Quinnipiac poll out today:
"Sanders handily beats Trump by a 10-point margin, defeats Cruz by four points and ties Rubio, with each taking 43%, according to Quinnipiac."
"Rubio is the only of the top three GOP candidates to defeat Clinton in the hypothetical match-up — by seven percentage points. Cruz ties Clinton in the hypothetical head-to-head."
"The poll shows Bloomberg largely cutting into Sanders’ lead over Trump, bringing Sanders down to 35% to Trump’s 36%, with Bloomberg taking 15%. The results are identical for a Sanders-Cruz-Bloomberg matchup."
http://fox61.com/2016/02/05/quinnipiac-poll-sanders-and-clinton-neck-and-neck/
Nobody wants the establishment's ass kicked as much as me, but that single-minded obsession is leaving Republicans with a choice between two very young totally unaccomplished conservatives or a liberal crony corruptocrat who's ego will demand extensive government expansion. I'm amazed that this is the best we can come up with in a nation so full of smart accomplished people. Maybe we need to offer a higher starting pay or a corner office.
On the Democratic side we get two dinosaurs who after decades in government also have no accomplishments. So it's proven failures, or proven excess, or unproven youth. God, I need a drink, because:
IT'S FRIDAYYYYYYYYY!
You go with the team ya got.
Look at team Democrat and think about it. A greedy careerist crony corruptocrat and an old commie. No matter how flawed our team is, it's still better.
As to the article, of course Chip is right. Pundits need to wait until they have something real to write about before they just spew out stuff.
That's my job.
" No matter how flawed our team is, it's still better."
I absolutely agree, but our team is a complete hail marry on all three of the leaders, and it just shouldn't be. Something is deeply flawed about our system, and I don't know what it is. Why don't our best people run? We don't have a single accomplished conservative who's not a politician in this whole country?
And what kind of nation still has 50% of the people who can't really see the unmitigated failure of the people on the Dems team. Whole lifetimes with nothing to show, but personal wealth or authenticity in a childish failed ideology that has lead to the death of more humans than any other.
Fear of meat grinder? I don't know. It's a catch 22. We don't want politicians to lead us, but the only people willing to step up are used car salesmen.
Reagan was once in a lifetime. He knew how to communicate, he knew how to govern.
"Fear of meat grinder?"
I think that's probably it, and it's a really crappy job. I wouldn't and couldn't do it. Too much bullshit and fluff, and hand shaking, and ceremony, etc. I don't think Trump will like it at all, unless he changes the way it's done. I don't see him giving eulogies, and the kind of speeches after tragedy that we have come to expect. He'll do great with the good news, but there is a lot of humility fake or real that is part of the job as it's been done. He doesn't seem to read prepared speeches, and that's how you get through that stuff.
April - Reagan was once in a lifetime. We have people who know how to communicate and people who know how to govern but they're too busy attacking each other to do either effectively.
Agreed about Trump, Bags. He looks bored now.
Then again he might just want to jump in a fix this mess. Enough talk already.
Who would be a great President if you could pick from all eligible Americans?
I nominate:
David Petraeus - Proven record, and would get Dem votes because he cheated on his wife and leaked secrets
Bill Whittle - I agree with him on everything, he explains things well, and looks great in a suit, plus a pilot. I love pilots.
Spirit (my German Shepard) - Proven record of being stoic, lethal, level headed, cautious, and gets Dem votes for being both black and female. Unlike Bill Clinton - house trained.
Bill Whittle/Spirit 2016.
Post a Comment