Christie jabbed him about repeating his "25 second memorized speech." And Rubio's response was to do exactly that, again and again. All Christie had to do was say: "See, here comes the memorized speech again; that's what he does." And then Rubio did it again.
David Frum, a thoughtful neoconservative commentator and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, explained why this was so damaging for Rubio.
Politicians often repeat talking points, but they do it to emphasize their message. But Rubio's repeating the same lines four times within a few minutes "was a display of panic at a moment of uncertainty." He was faced with a new situation, "couldn't figure out what to do, and so did precisely the wrong thing."
This really called into question his readiness to be a commander in chief, who has to deal with the unexpected that demands quick thinking and wise judgment.
Frum rebutted the frequently made comparison with Barack Obama, who was also a first-term senator with little record on which to be judged. Frum says that sponsoring the Gang of Eight bipartisan immigration reform bill is the one piece of legislation on which to judge Rubio -- and, from the Republican point of view, he "got the answer massively wrong."
Now Rubio has reversed himself on that but has had trouble finding a coherent answer to why he signed on as a co-sponsor in the first place. (Of course, those who favor immigration reform think it was a good thing.) Frum raises the question of "how well he ever understood what he was doing? . . . Was he merely a personable front man? Was he outwitted by Chuck Schumer" What did he learn from what he himself now describes as error?"
Frum goes on with the comparison with Obama. "Candidate Obama in 2008 was dangerously untested yes, but he was obviously a man of profound depths. Obama had laid out his whole philosophy of life in a massive, highly self-aware and very revealing memoir."
"With Rubio, though, Republicans are asked to nominate an unknown quantity - wrong by his own admission on his most important decision. . . . Last night, they got a maybe unfair glimpse of the kind of president he’d be when the pressure was on. . . . [But] The world instantly tests new presidents. Nobody can be fully ready. But some are more ready; some are less - and less is dangerous."
* * *
That is a sobering reflection by someone whose opinion probably coincides with the more moderate, establishment core of the Republican Party. It does not bode well for Rubio's once-thought inevitablility as their man.
While I agree with Frum's analysis, there is logic in Rubio's emphasis on the point he kept repeating: "Obama knows exactly what he's doing. He wants to change this country." Why is this important to Rubio? It rebuts the charge of inexperience, which he himself is being accused of. So he's saying that it's not that Obama came in without experience and doesn't have a clue what he's doing (which all the others are charging) No, he knows exactly what he is doing; it's just profoundly wrong. Ergo, it's OK that he, Rubio, has no experience, because he will do what's right.
It's understandable that he would make that argument. But he needs to find different ways to say it so he doesn't sound like a recording machine.
On the other hand, Vox's Andrew Prokop reported a different view from a Rubio town hall full of Timberland employees, just two days prior to the debate.
While I agree with Frum's analysis, there is logic in Rubio's emphasis on the point he kept repeating: "Obama knows exactly what he's doing. He wants to change this country." Why is this important to Rubio? It rebuts the charge of inexperience, which he himself is being accused of. So he's saying that it's not that Obama came in without experience and doesn't have a clue what he's doing (which all the others are charging) No, he knows exactly what he is doing; it's just profoundly wrong. Ergo, it's OK that he, Rubio, has no experience, because he will do what's right.
It's understandable that he would make that argument. But he needs to find different ways to say it so he doesn't sound like a recording machine.
On the other hand, Vox's Andrew Prokop reported a different view from a Rubio town hall full of Timberland employees, just two days prior to the debate.
"I saw something quite different — a skilled, eloquent, and talented political performer who could expertly modify his message depending on whom he was addressing. . . . To this nonpartisan crowd, Rubio worked hard to portray himself as pragmatic, positive, and connected to working people's struggles.
"He also brought to mind Obama in 2008: the young, handsome, likable candidate who offered a new approach, and whose words just made people feel good. I felt like I was getting a glimpse into how Rubio would campaign if he did end up winning the nomination, and it seemed that he truly could appeal to a broader range of voters than most Republicans.
"Far from being robotic, Rubio came off as quite personally appealing and adept at reaching people."
So there you have it. Obviously, Rubio was the man who conducted that town hall -- and also the man who got rattled by Chris Christie. Will voters have time to let the Saturday night image and all the subsequent media frenzy sink into the overall picture?
Polls taken since that debate suggest Rubio's momentum has slowed, but there's been no precipitous drop either. In less than 24 hours, we should know what the voters say. And that will have a lot of influence on what the donors decide to do -- i.e., whether to shift from Bush to Rubio . . . or Kasich?
Polls taken since that debate suggest Rubio's momentum has slowed, but there's been no precipitous drop either. In less than 24 hours, we should know what the voters say. And that will have a lot of influence on what the donors decide to do -- i.e., whether to shift from Bush to Rubio . . . or Kasich?
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment