Deep bench update: The unaccomplished Marco Rubio

Posted: February 16, 2016 by watsonthethird in 2016 Presidential Campaign, Current Events, Politics, Rubio-Land, The Deep Bench
Tags: , , , , , ,

I got a chuckle out of this article the other day. It seems that even Rubio’s Senate colleagues and fellow Republicans can’t think of a single thing Rubio has, er, accomplished. Rick Santorum appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, where host Joe Scarborough, who seems to be in the tank for his pal, The Donald, asked Santorum a simple question.

Asked repeatedly to name a single one of Sen. Marco Rubio’s accomplishments while serving five years as a U.S. senator representing Florida, Rick Santorum – who just endorsed the GOP lawmaker after bowing out of the presidential race himself on Wednesday – struggled to come up with any during an appearance Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Santorum floundered right off the bat when asked to list Rubio’s “top accomplishment” while in office. “Well, I mean, I would just say that this is a guy who’s been able to, No. 1, win a tough election in Florida and pull people together from a variety of different spots. This is a guy that I think can work together with people,” he said. “That’s the thing I like about him the most.”

Yet host Joe Scarborough didn’t ask which personal quality of Rubio’s Santorum liked the most. He asked for just one standout accomplishment – so he pressed the former Pennsylvania senator again: “So he can win, but he’s been in the Senate for four years. Can you name his top accomplishment in the Senate, actually working in the Senate doing something that tilted your decision to Marco Rubio?”

Santorum danced around the question for a second time, concluding that “I guess it’s hard to say there are accomplishments” when a junior senator is working in a government “where nothing gets done.”

“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski called the exchange with Santorum “disturbing.”

Meanwhile, Scarborough brought up the fact that Republicans have been in the Senate majority for the past two years, and asked for a third time: “Can you name one thing that he’s passed in the last two years?” eventually pleading with Santorum to “like one accomplishment – just one, just one – that Marco achieved.”

Santorum then blamed President Obama for Rubio’s lack of accomplishments in the Senate, saying “he spent four years in the United States Senate being frustrated like everybody else that nothing got done, and then you can’t point to him and say nothing got done and therefore he has no accomplishments. The problem is we have a president who doesn’t work with people.”

Eventually, however, Santorum did offer an example of a Rubio achievement, albeit a vague one.

“Well, I know he included something that went after the insurance companies in the most recent omnibus. He fought for that, to stop bailing out insurance companies. That’s one thing I’m familiar that I just saw recently, ” he said. “But – and again, he was on the campaign trail and accomplished that. The bottom line is there isn’t a lot of accomplishments, Joe, and I just don’t think it’s a fair question to say.”

Oh. It’s Obama’s fault. And Rubio was on the campaign trail and, you know, didn’t have time to actually accomplish anything. Also, it’s not fair to ask about Rubio’s accomplishments. Got it.

  1. rustybrown2014 says:

    Well, this is the party of personal responsibility. And Obama was totally unqualified to be president, and we can’t blame Bush for the consequences of his disastrous presidency, and if hypocrisy were fatal we’d never have to worry about Republicans again.

  2. rustybrown2014 says:

    Giddy over the positive outcomes that are likely to transpire after the tragic passing of Justice Scalia, I’ve been trolling b4v, and what a clownshow it is! My favorite was Ama posting a release from the Smithsonian that noted because the Eocene (roughly 46 million years ago) was perhaps 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today’s temperatures and certain plant species seemed to thrive at that particular time that translates to some kind of “gotcha” contradicting the prevailing climate science on global warming. Hmmmmm? I’m positive she got that abortion of an idea from some lunatic right-wing website that caters to the uneducated lard-eating faction of our great country because can’t imagine Ama scouring and analyzing data from sources such as the Smithsonian on her own. Nevertheless, presenting this information as a “gotcha” displays an alarming, though not unfamiliar, ignorance of basic science.

    Of course, masochist that I am, I posted a polite rebuttal to her ignorance, but was summarily deleted as a violent, threatening, ignorant, smelly, and likely syphilitic disruption to the serious political discourse they’re engaged in.

    • I saw that comment a little while ago. It’s just mind boggling that she’s reaching back 46 million years ago as if that somehow proves that the weather changing is just a normal thing and there’s nothing to worry about. Does she not know that human beings didn’t exist 46 million years ago?

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        I think it’s their oblivious stupidity that keeps me spittin’ in the wind over there. It’s like I can’t really believe people like them exist or at the very least they aren’t sincere in their fucked up beliefs. It’s like poking some weird, stupid monster with a stick…

  3. rustybrown2014 says:

    I’ll post this here because it’s so funny. Mark says:

    “Once again – divorced from Reason, all we get is Rationalization. It’s funny to see Progressives argue against God because God is the source of the Reason they are trying to use to prove there is no God!”

    He calls that logical fallacy “reason”? He’s simply using circular reasoning, begging the question. After hundreds of years trying to justify his fictitious magical creator, THAT’S the best he’s got? Oy! No wonder atheists and agnostics are the fastest growing spiritual affiliation. It just amazes me that Mr. Theologica doesn’t realize how objectively idiotic his argument is, but then again so are all attempts to prove the existence of God using reason.

    • I think that really is the best he’s got. It’s like a little hack that, once accepted, allows an entire world view to be built upon it.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        “It’s funny to see Progressives argue against Leprechauns because Leprechauns
        are the source of the Reason they are trying to use to prove there are no Leprechauns!”

        That makes precisely as much sense as Mark’s statement. No more, no less.

      • It’s also amusing to read about their supposed knowledge and certainty regarding what progressives believe and how they behave. It is doubly impressive given that they have pretty much sworn off talking to anyone who they think might be a progressive, both in their Internet lives and in their real lives.

  4. 02casper says:

    I have yet to met anyone who believes half the things Mark seems to think all liberals believe. Seriously, is there anyone alive who believes in abortion on demand?

  5. rustybrown2014 says:

    I found this post by Ama (seconded by Spook) very strange:

    “This is pretty embarrassing for Donald Trump.
    At the Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski hosted town hall, last night in South Carolina, Brezezinski read a quote about a candidate who:

    “is considered a political outsider by all the pundits. He’s tapping into the anger of the voters. Delivers a populist message. He believes everyone in the country should have health care. He advocates for hedge fund managers to pay higher taxes. He’s drawing thousands of people at his rallies and bringing in a lot of new voters to the political process. And he’s not beholden to any Super PAC.

    She then asked, “Who am I describing?”

    To everyone watching at home, the answer was obvious: Bernie Sanders (that was who she was talking about). Trump’s answer, however? “You’re describing Donald Trump.”

    One commenter said: The look on Trump’s face at the end is priceless.”
    Another said “You mean this look?” showing a Trump who looks stunned.”

    Now, what exactly is the embarrassment here? Obviously, the initial inference is that Trump has just been placed alongside Sanders ideologically, a fatal no-no for Republican candidates. But a moments thought reveals that this is but a cheap ploy and one could carefully select and edit a list of traits and positions that would apply equally to ANY two candidates no matter how ideologically extreme. So the issue must be with the content of the list. Actually, no matter how you slice it, this could only be “embarrassing” for Trump if the ideas presented in the list were embarrassing ones to hold. But they’re not. Trump freely admitted to the characterization because it was a good characterization, at least according to the overwhelming majority of American voters including ALL rational people.

    So for the sake of clarity, the folks at b4v should just cut to the chase and admit that they: favor political insiders; are not concerned with whatever is making voters angry; are not populist; don’t believe everyone in this country should have health care; believe hedge fund managers should not be taxed more; believe drawing large crowds and bringing in new voters is somehow a liability for a candidate; and a candidate should be beholden to one or possibly more Super PACs. Talk about revealing your true colors!

    I think that’s a winning message for them, and they should run with it.

  6. 02casper says:

    Rusty, I agree.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s