The Establishment should be doing all they can to help robotic Marco Rubio, as he is often described, but instead their knives are out for him. The Establishment candidates are more focused on destroying Marco Rubio than they are on defeating Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. But Chris Christie’s much-publicized attack on Rubio’s repetition of a memorized phrase may have more to do with the content than he admits.
Whether Marco Rubio’s debate performance was robotic due to repeating memorized words is relatively minor. Jeb Bush has performed horribly in debates but everyone is treating him like a contender simply because his New Hampshire performance was better. Barack Obama’s delivery was either fantastic or unimpressive (depending on whom you ask), but it had virtually nothing to do with his actions as President. He accomplished breathtaking but horrible things. His eloquence may have helped him get elected but his ideology and actions are what mattered.
Marco Rubio may have been less than impressive to keep repeating a talking point, but his statement was absolutely true and applied to Chris Christie’s stupid criticism.
Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world. That’s why he passed Obamacare and the stimulus and Dodd-Frank and the deal with Iran, it is a systematic effort to change America.
And implemented pre-amnesty by executive order—though Rubio couldn’t afford to mention that.
Chris Christie was claiming that ideology was irrelevant and that the problem with Barack Obama (and robotic Marco Rubio) was that he was merely a first term senator. Rubio’s reply was direct and on target. Barack Obama’s problem wasn’t inexperience but ideology.
Christie was impressive in sounding like the issue of experience was something to get excited about. Typically, establishment types don’t want voters to ever get really excited. As Murry Rothbard wrote in the 1990s,
It is important to realize that the establishment doesn’t want excitement in politics, it wants the masses to continue to be lulled to sleep. It wants kinder, gentler; it wants the measured, judicious, mushy tone, and content, of a James Reston, a David Broder, or a Washington Week in Review. It doesn’t want a Pat Buchanan, not only for the excitement and hard edge of his content, but also for his similar tone and style.
I think this, as a general rule, is right. It helps us understand why Trump is so loved by some but hated by others. Christie, however, tried to make use of that tone and style. He tried to get the audience excited.
But for what?
Does he really think that the populace is going to get excited about someone with a lifetime of involvement in politics? Christie offered nothing but a claim that only people with a longer history in government should be trusted with the presidency. He even dared to claim that Rubio was inferior to Joe Biden!
Chris Christie is full of hot air. People don’t want experience because they know that is probably another word for corruption. The amazing popularity of Donald Trump and Ben Carson (no political experience) and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (first-term senators) over the crew of “moderate” establishment governors speaks for itself. Christie may have gotten applause from the debate audience and the pundits, but claiming Barack Obama’s problem is inexperience rather than ideology will be recognized by most GOP voters as stupid. Marco Rubio may not have spoken well, but what he said resonates with conservatives.
The real problem faced by Rubio is explaining why he used to talk about Barack Obama the way Christie does.