Debate consensus.. Christie "ripped open Rubio's soft underbelly"
Not long after the conclusion of the GOP debate in New Hampshire, Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican Party, was sitting in a booth at JD's Tavern in Manchester, a favorite watering hole for journalists, pundits, and political tourists, and he was shaking his head. A reporter had told him that she had just heard from Marco Rubio's camp. The once-surging presidential candidate had two hours earlier become the goat of the night, after he robotically repeated talking points in response to Chris Christie's fierce attack that junior senator from Florida was nothing but an inexperienced empty-suit legislator whose best asset was his ability to deliver memorized rhetorical flourishes—that is, to robotically repeat talking points.
Responding to Christie—and proving his assailant's point—Rubio had multiple times recited a prepared line in which he slammed President Barack Obama for purposefully ruining the United States. This was Rubio's emperor-has-no-clothes moment. And after the debate, he dared not enter the spin room to explain his broken-record impersonation. But his advisers, up until now one of the most savvy teams on the GOP side, quickly developed their post-debate spin. They were telling reporters that the debate demonstrated that Rubio was so committed to criticizing Obama that he would seize every opportunity to do so. At the bar, when Steele heard this, he laughed sadly. "No, no, no," he said. "It was a major blunder."
That's how most of the professionals saw it. Even on Fox News, which had been Rubio-friendly turf, his screw-up was the headline of the night. Like a wolf, Christie had pounced and ripped apart Rubio's soft underbelly. (Christie had been practicing this assault earlier in the day.) And the politerati watched in amazement at Rubio's implosion (that word seemed to be the consensus description in the swanky Google-sponsored media filing center at the debate). Now there's no telling how New Hampshire voters—especially those still-undecided, late-breaking voters—will respond to this. They're a volatile and fickle bunch, as likely to be swayed by a non-controversial moment (say Ted Cruz speaking about his half-sister's death from an overdose) as an exchange deemed uber-significant by the press crowd. Yet it's hard within the media bubble not to see Rubio's brain freeze as a helluva plot development.
Candidates do rise and fall as media creatures. Rubio placed third in Iowa, and became the story of the week, as political journalists focused on him as the new break-out candidate. At a town hall meeting in Derry on Friday, his supporters marveled at the large number of camera crews trailing the Florida senator. The presence of this horde gave the Rubio backers the feeling that their man Marco did indeed have momentum. And in the political-media echo chamber, this has a self-reinforcing aspect: candidate dubbed hot by the media receives more media attention and the chance to become hotter. The narrative was Rubio gaining an edge in the so-called establishment lane of the race and being in the position to pull away from Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie. (During that appearance, Rubio recited his well-polished stump speech, which included the riff about Obama that he would repeat four times at the debate.)
----
Post "Marcobot," the media tale is quite different. Is Rubio ready? Is there any there there? Can this guy think on his feet? Does he have the smarts to be president? He can expect the press to keep a watchful eye on his words and note his penchant for repeating a series of well-honed lines. (Which is, after all, what a stump speech is.) What this means is that Rubio's best asset could turn into a liability. Of all the candidates, he is the smoothest.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/can-marco-rubio-reboot-after-robot-gaffe
= new reply since forum marked as read
