"“The fact of the matter is Jeb has no foreign policy experience,” Rubio said. “He has no foreign policy experience and was governor a long time ago. The world has changed a lot in the last 10 years. Foreign policy has changed a lot in the last five years. No one on that stage has more experience or has shown better judgment or has shown a better understanding of national security threats than I have.”
This is the story that Rubio and his admirers like to tell, but it’s quite misleading. It’s true that he has some experience being on the Foreign Relations Committee that Bush and most of the other candidates don’t have, but considering how often he has skipped out on his job in the Senate that isn’t as significant as it sounds. Besides, Kasich could plausibly claim to have more experience on these issues than Rubio from his many years in the House. This argument may work against Bush, but it nonetheless exaggerates how much experience the senator has.
As for having better judgment and understanding, that’s not at all obvious. More so than any Republican candidate still in the race, Rubio was on board with Obama’s foolish military intervention in Libya, which helped to destabilize Libya and its neighbors for the last five years. [my emphasis] That not only calls his judgment into question, but it would make him uniquely ill-suited to face Clinton in the general election. He may not be alone in his supporting reckless actions in Syria that risk war with Russia, but that by itself shows that his judgment is worse than that of at least a couple of his rivals. Any Republican candidate unwilling to risk an armed confrontation with a nuclear-armed major power over Syria has already shown that his judgment is better than Rubio’s."
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): I don’t know how you know he knows what I said on Univision ’cause he doesn’t speak Spanish. And second of all, (LAUGHTER) the other point that I was–
(FOREIGN LANGUAGE NOT TRANSCRIBED)
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): This is– look, this is a disturbing pattern now, ’cause for a number of weeks now Ted Cruz has just been telling lies.
Somebody needs to fill in the blanks. Cruz said: "Ahora mismo, díselo en Español si tu quieres" which roughly translates to 'Right now, say it in Spanish. If you want.' link
This is great polemic. An atheist approaches Rubio with a well considered question. He is nice enough but the snark and irritation are strong in this one. He has a question that signals and positions, of the sort that some atheist like to talk about, that goes: honestly, when it gets down to it, why should silly superstitions be allowed muck up our rational scientific sanity? Why should materialists be made to suffer spiritualism in government? Atheists are a growing unserved group, you know. We love science.
Rubio is also prepared with well considered answers. Very prepared. Actually, Rubio has several well considered prepared answers. These are subjects he's already written about, already spoken about at length and repeatedly. He's recalling what he's already spoken at length about to various groups. He's picking position papers previous speeches and tacking them together, deciding which rehearsed speech to tack on next and deciding which direction to go and deciding when to stop. He could keep going. He talks a lot.
Do you think this changed the guy's mind? YouTube commenters pick up where the unseen gent in the video started. That is, back at square one. Everything Rubio says here means nothing to them. To them, everything Rubio says is just more annoying superstition and Rubio is quite silly for pursuing it.
And since we're talking past each other and repeating our basic statements I'll restate something the YouTube commenters skip over. Rubio did this poorly with a question: where do they [our rights] come from? They don't bother answering and this is critical because it puts man in place of God. The founders believed our rights come from God and therefore they are inalienable.
Without God then our American rights would come from man and therefore they are alienable.
"A surprising focus on Senator Marco Rubio’s shiny, stack-heeled ankle boots, first noted in a desultory Twitter post on Monday by a New York Times reporter, has grown over the last few days into one of the weirder firestorms of the presidential campaign, with rival candidates and the news media all adding tinder to the flames.
...On “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough called the footwear “shagalicious.” Vanity Fair played a “guess the brand and cost” game. New York Magazine’s The Cut compared Mr. Rubio to Harry Styles, the One Direction heartthrob. The Daily Mail twinned him with former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, a noted clotheshorse.
In the end, Mr. Rubio’s campaign told Politico that the boots actually came from Florsheim. Judging by the shoemaker’s website, they look a lot like the Duke style (cost $135)."
...The Tampa Bay Times asked Rubio's team for the records in June and again in early October. A top strategist, Todd Harris, said Tuesday they would be released soon, possibly within the month, but declined to answer questions about what they might contain.
As speaker of the Florida House, Rubio was one of about a half-dozen lawmakers given Republican Party of Florida credit cards. During the Senate race, the Times/Herald obtained Rubio's statements from 2006 and 2007, showing he routinely charged personal expenses, from a $10.50 movie ticket to a four-day, $10,000 family reunion.
...Rubio defended use of the card; the minivan, he said, was damaged by a valet at a political function and the party paid $1,000, half the insurance deductible. Items that were personal were paid directly to American Express, he said, though records show that did not happen on a monthly basis. After reporting by the Times/Herald, Rubio did pay the Republican Party of Florida $2,400 for plane flights he double-billed to state taxpayers and the party.
Charlie Crist, Rubio's opponent in 2010, tried to make the spending an issue, but Rubio rode a tea party wave to blow past the then Republican governor, the start of national attention that has propelled him into the presidential race. Through it all, Rubio has refused to provide credit card statements from 2005 and 2006.
...In his 2012 book, Rubio did not mention flooring [for his East Miami home]. "I pulled the wrong card from my wallet to pay for pavers." He attributed the family reunion expense in Thomasville, Ga. — a celebration of him becoming House speaker — to a mistake by his travel agent, who used the wrong card.
...Now questions are resurfacing. During the GOP presidential debate last week, a CNBC host ran down Rubio's history and asked if he has "the maturity and the wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy."
His response avoided the question. "You just listed a litany of discredited attacks from Democrats and my political opponents, and I'm not gonna waste 60 seconds detailing them all."
The next morning, television commentator Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, said he was "stunned" moderators let him off the hook instead of pointing to records. "And yet everybody's going, 'Oh, Marco was great.' No, Marco lied about his financials."
That is how this clip is promoted most places, parts of it are everywhere. Most clips are half this length. The first portion is interesting I think by the two women doing what the CNBC debate moderators did. The exact same thing. They cannot help themselves. Their questions are typical attack questions. Statements as questions. Questions that include statements. The "people say... and the newspaper prints..." form. And they do say, and they do print. There is nothing inappropriate with the question, the point is they are always framed as if approaching a Republican with a ten foot pole and poking it, contrasting so sharply with any other guest, take randomly, say, Roman Polanski, and compare. Notice also Rubio ignores the first woman's question and answers something else, what he wants to talk about.
She repeated Bush's failed attack and repeated a local paper agrees. Is it a fair question? He answers he's not going to attack anyone.
Other female voice, like a squeaky cartoon mouse, "But did you make that a personal attack against Jeb Bush?"
See? That is all these people are capable of. It's childishly ridiculous. Obvious and plain to all. So commonly unhelpful the portion is snipped off for being too incidental. This part doesn't contribute to the point at hand, this first part only shows PBS limitation, it shows PBS is capable only of this, it cannot be anything else, PBS doesn't even know what you're talking about, it does not compute, "What is this bit about us fish being wet? Why do you discuss strange ideas like that with nonsensical foreign words?" So they just clip it out in favor of the good part, the juicy part, Rose not comprehending Hillary's pant suit is on fire and spawning brushfires as she passes. It doesn't matter what Rubio says, Rose is impenetrable. His mind will refuse what that horrible Rubio face is saying, a million mental fibers spring forth and overwhelm the invading virus to engulf and expel it.
So the two women's questions combined are a mess, in the exact same way the debate is a mess. In miniature. So common it's usually snipped out of the video when presented. Then Charlie Rose messily wedges his way into the mess, the mansplainy way wavering, "We-e-e-e-ll you did call Hillary Clinton a liar."
Rubio restates what all conservatives say repeatedly as if chipping at granite with copper tools. They are asking about the previous night debate. Rose's greeting to Rubio included the debate. Rose's first question is debate-related the ladies' two debate-like questions are debate-related. Rubio's answer is debate-related. Rose, being liberal in possession of a fluid liberal mind reaches here and there pouring, pooling, it flows to the low spots and collects there he cannot stay on the debate. His mind flowed to Clinton. Rubio said he intends not to attack rather to tell voters what he is about, and Rose's mind pours beyond the debate, he cannot focus. Rubio said he won't be critical of other candidates. He attacked my candidate. Attack Rubio. "We-e-e-e-ll. (repeats) Well, you did call Hillary Clinton a liar... Senator. You called Hillary Clinton a liar." Rose repeats.
Rose is gravely offended by that and it shows on his face and that is good.
Imagine greeting a guest angrily, Welcome to PBS.
Skip to 1:25 for Rubio delivering the goods. He holds forth solidly undistracted throughout while Rose persistently interrupts, as liberals do when they're hearing something they don't like hearing, they shut it out, resist, vocalize their resistance sentence by sentence, they see where the sentence is going and STOP it as psychological defense and Rose cannot help himself as liberal debate moderators cannot help themselves either, as no liberal can help them self. They don't interview, they interrogate, they poke and jab, but with eye protection and ear protection and helmet and hazmat suit because none of the three PBS panel can accept the words coming out of Rubio's mouth. Their ears cannot hear it. Their brains will not process it as real data. This face on the screen is not even a person. It's foreign material, too dangerous to accept honestly, thus Roses' pure resistance.
"You know CIA was changing their assessment during that time ... zone.
If you're calling her a liar, that she perpetuated a lie, then why would she do that? What was her motive?
So you are saying that Hillary Clinton LIED because she wanted to help Barack Obama with his reelection campaign
Do you deny the CIA was sending different information as they assessed it, that they provided different information to the leaders of our government?
Without violating
David Petraeus..."
Sputters to an end with conservative point of view delivered excellently unheard and unprocessed by the PBS panel. 100% rejected.
This interview fits precisely the template of that CNBC debate. Considered a template, this video is Banksy sprayed across every conversation of my present day life. Everybody I know is liberal and this is how they think and speak.
For your pleasure: Charlie Rose Pushes Back Against Rubio's False Claim that "Hillary Clinton Lied About Benghazi." To whomever, thank you for uploading this to YouTube, bless your heart, you're helpful.
"[Chip Felkel, a South Carolina Republican strategist who isn't affiliated with any campaign,] said, "If Trump-mania subsides, you’ve got to have a mechanism and a structure...I think you’re being risky if you don’t put a structure in place."
...The quarterly report released Thursday shows Rubio's doing just fine in terms of cash-on-hand at the moment -- he's sitting on $9.7 million cash-on-hand for the primary season, trailing Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz and Bush in cash heading into the last three months of 2015. (Frontrunner Donald Trump has pledged to primarily self-finance his campaign)...
...There's little margin for error for a candidate who isn't cash-flush — after Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada vote in February, there's a burst of Southern primaries on March 1, and then the do-or-die Florida primary on March 15 — a map that will require a more vigorous
fundraising operation than Rubio has showed so far.
..."With 54 full-time staffers, our campaign team is smaller than some other presidential campaigns," Rubio's website reads, describing a "lean" operation. "That means we rely heavily on volunteer support whenever possible."
..."The right message coming from the party’s best messenger is as effective a turnout machine as anything you can put together," said Sadosky. "I can also say that Conservative Solutions PAC stands ready to provide the support needed to ensure that Marco’s message is heard by voters in the early states.""
How important are New Hampshire and Iowa in the grand scheme? It seems likely that Trump or Carson will be the winners, so is Rubio keeping his powder dry against the time of Trump's or Carson's possible decline? Might it work better for Rubio to hang back and "make an entrance" as the time draws nearer? According to this article, Rubio has spent three weeks combined in Iowa and New Hampshire, while badly trailing Christie has spent an entire six weeks in New Hampshire alone.
According to a search of the Miami-Dade and Duval County court dockets, the Rubios have been cited for numerous infractions over the years for incidents that included speeding, driving through red lights and careless driving. A review of records dating back to 1997 shows that the couple had a combined 17 citations: Mr. Rubio with four and his wife with 13. On four separate occasions they agreed to attend remedial driving school after a violation.
Twitter has a #RubioFacts hashtag trending...
I heard that, once, he ate a piece of pizza, chucked the crust and grabbed another piece of pizza. #RubioFacts
Left the faucet running while brushing his teeth. #RubioFacts
Bogosian is performing an excerpt from Wake Up and Smell the Coffee for a school benefit.
Writing for the Observer, Ken Kurson tells us Bogosian gave up acting in order to become an historian. Ken is reading Bogosian's book on the Armenian genocide while eating lamb gyros at a narrow Turkish restaurant on 9th and 43rd Street. Later Kurson discusses the book, Operation Nemesis in Bogosian's apartment. The book is about a plot to get revenge on the architects of the Armenian genocide. Kurson says Bogosian's writing is notable for creating bitterly funny characters rather than exhaustively researched tomes leaden with footnotes. Their discussion is about Bogosian's immigrant grandparents and the depth of the family's inherited psychology of impending doom.
Do you think your grandparents' trauma seeped into your life?
Oh, absolutely. This is a topic that’s becoming bigger and bigger; what happens is you develop these fearful populations and they give their kids the gift of being fearful. Marian MacCurdy just came out with a book on the topic, and she said that when she was small and wanted to go out to play, [her father] would say, “don’t go out.” And she’d go, “why?” and he goes, “Well, something might happen.” Half my family looked at things that way.
That sounds similar to the Meitivs couple in their modern Brooklyn neighborhood with their so-called free range children, a modern urban Child Protection Services type label for otherwise normal children enjoying undisturbed psychologies in ordinary times and places. But, Man, that is it funny, "Don't go out!"
In that moment I'm reminded of the boy with his grandparents waiting outside in line for King Tut exhibit. I chatted it up with the four elders in the group while the boy remained silent. I told them I lived right there and pointed. It's an easy one minute walk over. Suddenly the boy became talkative telling me directly and animatedly about how he can walk all the way down here from where he lives up there on the hill at Washington, all the way up there by Whole Foods. Amusingly, the grandmother interjected on my behalf, "He could probably walk that far when he was your age too." Meaning me. Of course I could walk that far and still can, but it did seem odd for a boy to be wandering around alone that far from his home with no purpose other than pure wandering. As an adult I felt a pang of protective shield come out of myself.
And I'm also reminded of Molly Shannon describing her upbringing. Her father thought everything she came up with was just great, every absurd girlish adventure was fantastic by him. He eagerly listened to all of it and fully supported her adventuring no matter what. As a girl Molly stowed away on a plane and ended up in another city. She had a proper fun adventure. I forget what all that involved but Molly's dad was fine with it, and look how normally Molly Shannon turned out, she'll comically throw herself against a wall just for laughs, then fix her dress and smell her fingers.
Back to Bogosian's interview, Kurson says, "You write in your book, 'it is one thing to wish harm on one’s enemy, but it is a very different thing to step up to someone, put a bullet in his brain and watch him die.' Do you think you’re capable of such violence?"
I am, given the right circumstances. What happens on the day when chaos hits the city and everybody wants to get out of town at the same minute, and needs to get into the tunnels and needs to get over the bridges? I wouldn’t put it past myself to do whatever I needed to do to protect my family.
And then strangely, this: "Did your study of retribution change your view of the death penalty?"
I’m against the death penalty because I’m a member of Amnesty International and we categorically are against the death penalty because we consider it a form of torture. If there was a way to, I guess, make a decision about the death sentence instantaneously, like the minute it came (claps), the guy’s dead, then, O.K. But when you put somebody of death row, you’re torturing them.
Killing them, no problem *clap* death row, now there's a problem because that's torture.
This concludes the post on Eric Bogosian, his interview and his book about retribution.
All of this is on a page at Observer that keeps refreshing to an item about Marco Rubio when he was in High School dancing onstage as a Chippendale performer. The photograph recently emerged. He did talk about this in his book half way leaving out the part that people find interesting. It's not really Chippendale, they just look similar. They're actually vying for title of King Cobra, the school symbol. He didn't win, but if I read that correctly eventually the winner married Rubio's sister.
"I want to see who they blame now for the economic collapse and lack of freedoms that we have in Cuba," dissident activist Yoani Sanchez wrote on Twitter following the White House announcement.
"For a government that denies economic freedom and property rights it seems clear that the changes proposed will first benefit the state apparatus," said Jose Daniel Ferrer, leader of the Cuban Patriotic Union dissident group in Santiago, the island's second largest city. "Only in the medium or long term will we know the effect on the Cuban people."
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Tuesday said that he opposes the budget agreement reached by Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), calling the deal "irresponsible."
"We need a government with less debt and an economy with more good paying jobs, and this budget fails to accomplish both goals, making it harder for more Americans to achieve the American Dream," Rubio said in a statement. "Instead, this budget continues Washington’s irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in and placing additional financial burdens on everyday Americans."
The speculation, among tea party faithful, is that Boehner wants to clear the deck for negotiations on amnesty. The speaker has made up his mind to pass amnesty, and, the budget battle would only get in the way of that.
