Image 01 Image 03

The “crazy-ing” of Marco Rubio begins

The “crazy-ing” of Marco Rubio begins

Marco Rubio is on the short list of Republican presidential contenders for 2016.  Of course, that’s a long way away, so who knows if he remains on the short list.

So Rubio’s a target even more so than in the past couple of years. Every question in every interview is a potential land mine.  There can be no off-the-cuff remarks.

The motus operandi will be to “crazy” him, the long-standing tactic used against Republicans and particularly people like Rubio who sprang from the Tea Party movement (something he doesn’t wear on his sleeve very much) or who occupy that most reviled place in the mainstream media, religious Christians. 

The Strategy of Crazy was used against the Tea Party in 2009-2010 and continues to this day.

I knew something was up when I saw this tweet:

Here’s the full quote:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

It’s a fairly political answer, a nod to scientific and religious views.

Needless to say the nod to religious views has the left blogosphere gonig wild, via MemeorandumNew York Magazine announced:

Marco Rubio may be the future of the Republican Party, but his views on science appear to be stuck somewhere in the seventeenth century.

 Andrew Sullivan (who of course pursued the Trig Palin was Sarah Palin’s son theory to the bitter end) wrote:

But when your party base is fundamentalism, your grip on reality is always going to be a little slippery.

Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine tweeted:

Republican candidates, if they have learned nothing this cycle, need to anticipate these questions, and to be able to defend their answers.

You don’t actually need to be crazy to be crazied.

One misstep — which I think Rubio avoided — is all it takes.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Funny how the Left mocks “anti-science” on the right. yet embraces homeopathy, acupuncture, rolfing, Freudianism, pyramid power harmonic convergence, arthritis bracelets, Feng Shui, and all the other nostrums of the past 100 years.

And to add to that list, there’s the most ridiculous one of all: Scientific Socialism.

Nate Silver said the other day, “I believe in intellectual progress – that we, as a species, are gradually becoming smarter.”

So I suppose that’s Darwinism on steroids, the idea that a species as a whole is getting smarter after a few generations of progressivism. Maybe he can explain why so many Americans don’t share in those mysterious progressive genes. Or maybe he just takes the average IQs of “The Smart People aka Progressives” and averages them against conservative troglodytes.

    They also believe in following rainbows, despite the fact that a pot of gold has never been discovered. That has resulted in the death and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people in the last century alone.

He will be “Palinized.”

    William A. Jacobson in reply to karen. | November 19, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    Yes, that’s the term I was searching for!

    That’s what they’re going to try to do. They kept it up for nearly four years with Palin until she said “no mas”… and even then, if she announced a run, they would have done all they could to destroy, and she is still standing. If Rubio is serious about running, he needs get Sarah Palin on retainer immediately.

    When, oh, when will we ever learn? The correct answer is, “I am focused on helping the private sector create jobs, reforming the tax code, reducing the debt and balancing the budget. What does your STUPID question have to do with any of these concepts? Maybe add, “YOU FUCKING MORON.”
    I apologize to the group for my choice of words, but I am so frustrated because we never seem to learn how to properly answer a STUPID question.

      You can’t exactly do that when you’re giving an interview to a non-political magazine like GQ, answering questions about your taste in music, and giving your opinion on the relative merits of various rappers. The point of such interviews is to get an insight into the subject’s profile and personality, not just his politics. I think he handled it reasonably well.

Andrew Kaczynski was on “Red Eye” a few nights ago. It was his first appearance. It should be his last.

The guy couldn’t say something even mildly funny if his life depended on it. I’ve never seen a guest on the show so completely bereft of wit.

Greg Gutfeld was off that night, on his book-signing tour, I believe.

Needless to say, it was the worst episode of “Red Eye” I’ve ever seen. Even Andy Levy, filling in for Gutfeld, was joking about how badly the night was going … [pointing to his earpiece] “I’m being told to move on to the next topic because our viewers are laughing too hard.”

Yeah, they wanna crazy our guys. Hit ’em back with how unfunny/looney/hateful/unhip/illogical they are.

Andrew Kaczynski, as a TV wit you’re a joke.

The rotten media will let “it’s above my pay grade slide” with no follow up or question.

You pay attention to Andrew Sullivan? Dude…

“I’m not a scientist, man.”

End of subject. He didn’t say, “I’m not the Pope.”

Somebody now needs to ask Kaczynski: “How does borrowing trillions reduce the national debt?”–which is after all the position held by the President of the United States.

Conservatarian TX | November 19, 2012 at 4:37 pm

It was a pretty good answer, but he should have left it at ” I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.”

Leftist politicians will never be asked this question, to the person who askes these types of question should be dismissed as an idiot for asking it. (Or, turn the question around to show the leftists as the extremists they are.)

Of all Newt’s bad qualities, taking it to the media hacks was definitely one of his major strengths. Any conservative/Republican looking to run for office could learn a thing or two from him.

    And rap music has what to do with the economy? This wasn’t a policy piece. It was a profile piece, a fluff piece, and you can’t give your opinion on Eminem and NWA and then suddenly remember the economy as soon as you get asked this question.

They need to have a school where Conservatives and Republicans (close but not the same) can be trained in the art of gotcha.

I heard this today and I thought: why doesn’t Rubio look the guy in the eye and tell him he’s playing gotcha with bs questions like that and if he answers a couple of Rubio’s questions, he’ll answer his. The Rubio should have asked him:

What party are you registered with?
who did (do) you vote for usually?
How does your personal politics square with you supposedly being an unbiased report of facts?
Don’t you have a problem with other journalists who let their politics influence how they report on events?
Why did you ask that question?
What answer were you expecting?
If I answered 5,000 years, how would you report that compared to if I said millions of years?
Do you believe in God?
Are you and atheist?
Do you believe that people who believe in God should not be allowed in politics?

You get the picture.

these guys get up there in front of reporters and it’s like they’ve never watched a tv new program in their life. Do they honestly think they’re going to be treated fairly? or the same as a Democrat? Do they?

Are they that stupid?

they need to stop worrying about upsetting the reporters with their attitude and start getting in their faces over gotcha questions.

It works for every politician that does it. No matter how squishy they are, if they get in a reporter’s face they get applauded by the right. We see it so rarely.

    LukeHandCool in reply to jakee308. | November 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    “They need to have a school where Conservatives and Republicans (close but not the same) can be trained in the art of gotcha.”

    Most definitely!

    jasond in reply to jakee308. | November 19, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Turning the tables on the questioner is worth testing, but since the questioners also control editing and the sound bites and footage they air it ain’t gonna be easy.
    Without doubt the repubs need to develop a new strategy for handling the media. If you can embarrass the media a few times maybe they’ll back off their one sided game.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to jasond. | November 19, 2012 at 7:14 pm

      That’s why you tape it yourself, post the videos on-line and make sure all your supporters know you posted it on-line. If they don’t agree to allow you to record simultaneously with their interview, you decline the interview.

Hmm, if I said he took Rubio out of context that wouldn’t even cover it. The “quote” Kaczynski uses doesn’t include ellipses where he cuts a sentence and a half, and restructures a partial sentence to make it appear as a whole. I believe there’s a word for that: Dishonest.

I wonder if these elitist morons know that the “Big Bang Theory” was first promulgated by a Catholic cleric.

It would be fun to question them on it…

    I didn’t know that. However, I am not surprised. Most religious people distinguish between articles of faith and physical phenomenon. They do not perceive a conflict between their religious convictions and mortal existence. The physical realm is meant to be analyzed, understood, and exploited. In fact, I believe that God directed just that.

    In the meantime, remain on your best behavior, and make the most of your life. Matters of divine concern are left for the post-mortem. At which time atheists will learn the truth or revel in oblivion, and agnostics will be pleasantly surprised or neutrally dead.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to n.n. | November 19, 2012 at 9:45 pm

      The only after life I know of is the memory left on earth .

        How do you know you’ll be remembered? By how many? For how long?

        Not much of an afterlife. Not only that but what proof do you have that we exist as we perceive ourselves?

        The brain can see things that isn’t there react to stimuli that isn’t there. Hear, taste touch, all of it and no actual stimuli present.

        How do you know your memories are yours and not some other creature dreaming you?

        Existence is taken on faith. we wake up each day and take for granted that a giant flaming ball of gas will be in the sky to light our way. Or that 2 tiny cells can merge and create a human child from that merger.

        Miracles are all around us yet you disbelieve one of the lesser ones.

          Well said. From my agnostic point of view, claiming definitively that there is no god is as ignorant as the medieval claim that there is no life on other planets. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. But for a committed leftist, when it comes to questions about a god, “the science is settled.”

When you have a willfully corrupt media purposely misquoting republican politicians to make them seem radical or stupid combined with a naive public you get a 6%-8% voting advantage out of the gate for democrats.

Is it possible to have an effective rapid response team for republicans?

Is it possible to go on the offensive against individual “journalists” who practice this deception and successfully call their own honesty into question?

Is it possible to educate the electorate on a daily basis instead of carpet bombing with the truth 3 months before an election?

    Ragspierre in reply to jasond. | November 19, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    Isn’t that being Breitbart? So…yeah!

    InEssence in reply to jasond. | November 19, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    The rich have spent a lot of money to have the power to set public opinion. They have systematically put that together for several hundred years. It is probably impossible to take that ability away from them.

As the Professor says, they will definitely try to crazy Palinize Rubio. He’s their worst nightmare.

What blew my mind was talking to a number of hispanic people I work with. Lovely, hard-working people who are quite conservative in temperment and how they lead their lives. Most don’t follow politics too closely and have just voted Democrat out of tradition.

Most hadn’t even heard of Rubio when I brought him up.

None of them had heard of Governors Martinez and Sandoval, nor Ted Cruz.

I look forward to these leaders helping the Republicans to make inroads with hispanics.

LukeHandCool (whose fondest friend from his childhood days is a girl he’s known since elementary school. On Facebook she revealed to all of us classmates that she’s had a crush on Luke since she was a little girl. Always a cheerful, salt-of-the-earth, girl-next-door type, she is now a lawyer representing abused and neglected children. She’s probably the most popular person on Facebook among our classmates. She revealed to Luke in a private message that she is a Republican … but she refuses to talk politics on FB. But one day on FB, when the new governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, was sworn in, she told on FB how she attended, and, before things got started, he saw her and crossed the room to talk to her. They used to share an office when they were both starting out. Our lefty classmates didn’t seem too happy about this story of the Republican hispanic governor and her. But I loved her story. And, if the Professor ever needs a way to contact Gov. Sandoval, Luke would be happy to put him in touch with Luke’s “stalker” as she likes to call herself)

Seems to me there is a lot more anti-reading comprehension on the Left then there is anti-science on the Right.

So, what is the correct answer to the question: “How old do you think the Earth is”?

[…] The New Narrative: The “crazy-ing” of Marco Rubio begins.The New Narrative: The “crazy-ing” of Marco Rubio begins. […]

It’s far older than 6,000 yrs old but still younger than our National Debt.

The correct answer is:

“You should stop trying to divide people. We’re supposed to be one nation, united. You should be ashamed of yourselves for creating divisions and trying to appeal to anti-religious bigots. Do you have any relevant questions, or is fomenting hatred and division your entire agenda with this interview?”

BannedbytheGuardian | November 19, 2012 at 5:39 pm

He is ‘ not a scientist ‘. Bullshit. He is trying to be a legal weasel.

As a Florida Senator he must represent his state & his answers reflect the state curriculum . After all he is a grad of Florida university & speaker of the House for several years. As such he was in a position to not only know but to influence the science curriculum.

Why cannot he do his job ? Why does he ffeel his own personal beliefs matter ? He is there to further the interests of Florida.

I say Ditch him . He is a fool.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | November 19, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    To the thumbs downers. Rubio is putting his own ambitions above the responsibilities he was voted in for. 2 years as Senator & he is running for President.

      Your comments show a complete ignorance of the current political process. You may not like the process we have, but it’s not going to change, so conservatives need to learn how to employ it effectively. Rubio is good at it and is getting better; he still has a ways to go, but he looks very promising at this point. The liberals know this and will go after him aggressively.

      He’s not running for anything yet. He’s just putting his name out. When else should he do that? And it’s good for the party no matter what he decides in a few years. For that matter, suppose he’s already decided to run, why shouldn’t he? In 2016 he won’t be two years into a senate term, he’ll be completing it; isn’t that a perfect time to run for president, if he should choose to do so? If not then, when? (Personally I’d rather he serve a term as FL governor as well, before attempting the presidency. He’s young, and has time. But that’s my preference, not something he’s obligated to follow.)

    Banned, sometimes you can be such an idiot. Yes, he does represent his state. In what possible system of logic does that lead to the proposition that he must “represent” the state school system’s curriculum? How can anybody get from there to there? Why should he care what’s on that curriculum, let alone agree with it? They could be teaching Das Kapital in FL schools; so f—ing what? Would he then have to pretend to be a Marxist and prattle on about the labour theory of value?! And that, you think, is his job?!!!! You must have been licking cane toads or something, cobber.

“Republican candidates, if they have learned nothing this cycle,”

Have they ever learned anything in any cycle? Or, rather, have they learned anything other than what the MSM declares is in their own best interest to learn?

Rubio and all the rest continue to play the game and cede to the rules of the game designed and enforced by the media. That is, they yield to the illusory power of the media as “inquistor,” and to the terms of the inquisition. Rubio gives all his power away in the process. He has no obligation to answer these stupid questions. Rubio could just as easily respond by asking the inquistor, “how do you think economies grow?”

But we have learned nothing. Why would we start now?

    Ragspierre in reply to raven. | November 19, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    Nonsense! Reagan was a crazy, stupid, out-of-touch guy who wanted to take Grandma’s cat food and Crazy Jimmy the homeless guy’s heater grate.

    This is the standard Collectivist tool box. They’ve been doing it for decades.

    It does not matter in reality what conservatives are and do. The narrative will always be the same.

    Remember the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas?

And Dems think the earth began in January of 2009.
Glad you brought this up Prof. I mentioned it at the Tip Line when I noticed the somewhat “gloved” slam from a couple of sites. Election is barely in the record books and the liberals will begin the selling of Rubio as some backward nut job.
When the question we should be asking a place like TPM is what does it have against Latinos? Why are you singling out Rubio and attempting to be critical of his religious background?

We tried to “crazy” Uncle Joe Biden, but he was too far out in front of us……

    jimzinsocal in reply to paddy. | November 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Biden. Someone mentioned asking Biden the same question but wed have to remind him what planet he was on.

Science is a faith necessarily constrained to a limited frame of reference. Any observations or inferences made outside of that frame are religious, or, more charitably, philosophical in nature.

A lot of people routinely attribute supernatural abilities to science which exceed the bounds of rational thought. They should be careful to not corrupt science — the only objective methodology — as they develop their secular cult. There is no better system of thought and practice available to exploit our world in order to improve the human condition.

I thought social issues were not supposed to influence politics. Not matters pertaining to evolutionary fitness or any other “trivial” concerns. It’s strange that these special interests persist in integrating their articles of faith, especially when they do not engender positive progress. I can’t help but wonder about their motives.

    Ragspierre in reply to n.n. | November 19, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    There is no example of blind faith greater than undergrad science classes. Virtually everything you are taught is something you never have the opportunity…or inclination…to challenge empirically.

      First we gather evidence, then we analyze it. People who have been in existence longer clearly have the advantage and the unscrupulous men and women use that as leverage to manipulate a consensus. The irony is that religious people are not predisposed to coercion, and, as I have stated above, have a healthy curiosity of their environment. The Jewish and Christian religions actually encourage appreciation of their God’s creation. There is no inherent conflict between their faith and an objective reality.

Republicans are too corrupt, spineless, and treacherous to stand up for themselves.

Fact of life #1: the Democrat machine controls the graft and corruption piggy bank.

Fact of life #2: No Republican politician will ever say anything truly bad about a Democrat or the media. They want to get invited to cool parties and get graft crumbs from the big people’s corruption table.

Fact of life #3: As a nation, we are doomed. Nobody but us listens to the conservative media, nobody in “our” party has any interest in standing up to the Democrats, and anyone who tries is immediately destroyed by fire from both sides.

I still have the bitter taste of crow in my mouth so this might come out bitter. It worked to take down Sharron Angle, Todd Akin and Richard Murdock. It took out 3 presidential hopefuls when Chris Mathews asked “who doesn’t believe in evolution.” Gawd, isn’t there one Republican…..just one, than can answer this question and not look like a total freaking moron? It’s not that hard of a question….

    jimposter in reply to elbogz. | November 19, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    Suggested response: Well Chris, after watching your program I am starting to believe in de-evolution.

    CalMark in reply to elbogz. | November 19, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    Gingrich did.

    And the panicked Establishment (along with their enablers at National Review, American Spectator and such as Limbaugh and Hannity) gleefully took him out.

    Can’t have a conservative spitting in the eye of the beast. “It might offend moderates,” meaning, “A guy who has a history of delivering on conservatism might get elected, and end our corruption gravy train.”

Remember when abortion was above Obama’s paygrade?

Simple question for lefty politicians:

Is evolution compatible with the Torah/Bible/Koran?

It is a gotcha question. Propaganda arm of the DNC called media cannot wait to Palinized a viable contender for 2016.

Good for Marco Rubio to sidestep the question. The media wallowing with contempt and hatred against a not card carrying commies.

The correct answer? “It’s between 100 years old and 4 billion years old. You see I look at years the way Democrats look at spending. A billion here or there doesn’t matter.”

The Demorats feel Rubio, like Cain/Palin/Bachmann in 2012, is a threat to their political base. Losing a few percentages of one of their “voting blocks” means they lose the election. 2012 was a good example.

They are up to their dirty tricks in an effort to damage Rubio before he gains traction or momentum in their perceived monolithic Hispanic base.

Hopefully Rubio has the backbone of an Allan West. By sidestepping the question Rubio is showing his finesse in the polical ring.

Rubio/West would be an awesome ticket for 2016.

    “Hopefully Rubio has the backbone of an Allan West.”

    If Rubio has backbone he would openly admit his ineligibility. If, despite his unatural-born citizenship status, he is interested in the presidency or vice presidency, he would openly request the courts to resolve the question. After all, SCOTUS’s ObamaCare decision demonstrates that the court can be relied on to scrap the Constitution frequently.

    “Rubio/West would be an awesome ticket for 2016.”

    Even if Rubio were a natural-born citizen, the Constitution requires the P and VP candidates reside in different states.

      Milhouse in reply to Skookum. | November 21, 2012 at 3:13 am

      If Rubio has backbone he would openly admit his ineligibility.

      Bulldust. Go peddle your kooky theories elsewhere. A pig-ignorant yokel like you has no business prating about the constitution.

      If, despite his unatural-born citizenship status, he is interested in the presidency or vice presidency, he would openly request the courts to resolve the question.

      What a moron you are. Don’t you know that courts can’t give advisory opinions?

      After all, SCOTUS’s ObamaCare decision demonstrates that the court can be relied on to scrap the Constitution frequently.

      It shows nothing of the kind, not that any such scrapping would be needed in this case, since his eligibility is clear except to gullible fools like you who’ve never actually read the constitution in your lives but think you’re experts on it.

      Even if Rubio were a natural-born citizen, the Constitution requires the P and VP candidates reside in different states.

      And there you go proving it. Find me where the constitution says that. You won’t find it because it isn’t there. It doesn’t exist. But you wouldn’t know that because you’ve never read it. But now we know how to evaluate your earlier claim about his eligibility. A fool who thinks the constitution bars citizens of the same state from being president and vice president may think all sorts of other bizarre things. Joe Biden thinks the vice president’s constitutional role is in the executive branch; and he thinks it says that in Article 1; he also thinks the VP’s only role in the senate is to break ties. You and he must have gone to the same course on reading things in the constitution that aren’t there.

“Marco Rubio is on the short list of Republican presidential contenders for 2016.”

Why? Per natural law and Supreme Court precedent, Rubio is not a natural-born citizen; thus, per the Constitution he is not eligible for the prsidency or vice presidency.

    Milhouse in reply to Skookum. | November 21, 2012 at 3:19 am

    “Natural law”?! Do you even know what that term means? Or are you just using it because it sounds good? How could natural law have anything at all to say on the categories of USA citizenship? Rubio is a natural born citizen, and is eligible for the presidency. That doesn’t mean he should run. I don’t think West should run either. I’d like a presidential candidate to have executive experience, which neither of them have yet. But one day they might, and then they should run.

As a Christian and a conservative I believe in theistic evolution-a finely tuned theistic universe, a personal cause of the universe and a theistic objective morality.

I fully accept the big bang theory. I see the first two chapters of Genesis as poetic true myth. But this does not mean that the rest of the Bible is poetic myth. The lives of Jesus and many others are recorded history.

The litmus question was a test to see if Rubio was on the side of “reason” and science. It was also used on Romney.

I believe in God and accept the theory of evolution. I see no conflict there. The earth is 4.54 billion years old. Everything points to this. Christians need to review the evidence and not cling to the literal Creation story of Genesis One and Two.

I suggest reading Francis S. Collins’ The Language of God.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to Sally Paradise. | November 19, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Did your straw man evolve from a straw hominid, Sally?

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Sally Paradise. | November 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    That sounds like the sound position to take.

    Those that don’t believe in God should still “believe” in the Bible. Thousands of years of wisdom from a civilized society, packed with lessons on how to deal with men that become corrupted with power, valiant men that take on Goliaths, evils that occur to society when the law is used as a weapon, the evil forces that can burn us up from within, etc.

    “Blind” devotion to any religion perhaps should be reviled, but the civilized man that would rule us should understand our constitution, and grasp the message of “our” Bible, whether they worship God or not.

    But more probing questions should be asked of our president, given his mentor’s devotion to the radical beliefs of Rev. Cone, who taught the white man is the devil. Obama has been true to that core Marxist teaching, including a push for a black socialist utopia.

    This link has a lot of resources which link Obama to his religion, the Weatherman, Marxist connections …

    The left’s misdirections to evolution or racism should be used to question the accuser about Obama’s racist religion, on “redirect”.

Kaczynski is apparently too stupid to realize that his deceptive cut-and-splicing creates a complete non sequitur, not merely a fundamentalist statement.

[…] This was not a mistake, nor was the question asked out of genuine curiosity for Rubio’s answer. This is what William Jacobson correctly calls the the “crazy-ing” of Marco Rubio. […]

Democrats are anti science. They think we have plenty of money, debt is not a problem. They think if you tax income at 80% instead of 20%, you’ll collect four times as much money. And they think business builds itself, as long as it has a road nearby.

They think CO2 is a pollutant and that man causes global warming climate change. Be prepared to put your “carbon tax” money into Obama’s collection plate. The EPA will impose it by fiat. That is pure religion, and Obama wants everyone to give fully.

Obama’s black liberation theology Wright church supported the communist Sandinistas and were anti Catholic. Maybe that should also be pointed out.

Maybe an answer like “church beliefs are special and sacred, like Obama’s religion is, even though they believed in damning America, supporting communists, and they had a revolutionary soldier on their altar instead of Jesus, in central America. Have you ever asked him about that?”

The crazy religions of AGW and liberation theology are where those crazy questions should always be redirected. And I’m still curious about what Obama meant when he said we need an internal force as strong and as well funded as our military.

    I like your comment about roads. I always remind democrats that the Soviet Union had good roads too. So roads weren’t the problem–the problem was that the country was run by a “you didn’t build that” philosophy.

BannedbytheGuardian | November 19, 2012 at 10:35 pm

Rubio ought to have asked Jill Kelley.

She crashed his $1000 fundraiser this week & got a prized pic.

Yes she tilted her big horse head .

This is considered a Legal Blog? NO?

someone explain to me why the constant cheerleading and coverups by the Mass Media can’t be construed as payment in kind?

And if so, why can’t they be sued for violating Federal Election Laws? I know that reporting is covered by the first amendment which is why I’m asking; when does so called reporting cross the line into advocacy? Can it ever cross that line? Have the mass Media done so or ever done so?

People don’t seem to understand that all those billions raised by Romney and Obama; where did it go? To whom did it go to? Mass media as far as I can tell. Some for other smaller media events etc. printing flyers and signs but the majority of the political donations contributed goes to the TV and entertainment media.

Am I wrong here? Why doesn’t anyone sue their asses?

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to jakee308. | November 20, 2012 at 5:33 am

    I like your willingness to put something else out there.

    I am not quite up to your premise but the money trail has been overlooked . I would like to say MCCain did it on 84 million . Romney must have had about. 800 million for less votes.

    Ds at least were supporting a machine zeroed in on paying / soliciting battleground. GOTV. it was a scramble but it paid off .

    I would not be donating to the GOp until I got some answers for the wasted 700million.

    Milhouse in reply to jakee308. | November 21, 2012 at 3:28 am

    Perhaps you’ve heard of Citizens United? It affirmed what was obvious to everyone, that corporations have the same right as individuals to advocate the election or defeat of anyone they like, and no law may prevent them from doing so. It’s not a campaign donation, and thus subject to regulation, unless they’re taking direction from the candidate.

Most of us accept earth age to be 4.5 Billion years or so. At the same time we are able to recognize millions of people might accept religions understanding of something less as symbolic perhaps. I think most christians can live comfortably with what we might call duality. My objection in Rubio’s case is the obvious gotcha question intended to paint him as some flat earther.
Likewise I might be critical of say a “magic stone” that has superpowers once visitors to Mecca plant a liplock upon the object.
But I again am able to live unbothered by their belief.

When we cut thru all the bs and reduce the beliefs to what they represent? Explain to me, like Im a 4 year old how a President that suggests we solve our fiscal mess via prayer is any different.

Adoration for Marco Rubio outside of Florida where we know him is inexplicable. Marco Rubio is a protege of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Jeb Bush. Run by the Bush machine. He is not qualified intellectually or otherwise to be President. I voted for him for Senator because the alternative was Crist.

I object to both Jindhal and Rubio kicking a man when
he is down; the piling on of Romney after the loss of the election.

I also object to the corrupt media’s depiction of repubs platform as being not incusive to blacks/hispanics, etc.

Then I object to the repubs trotting out of two minorities,
Jindhal and Rubio, to go on the talk circuit criticizing Romney as a response to media comments. Additionally, I
object to Rubio backtracking after getting flak for his comments about Romney.

And for added measure, I object to Chris Christie, mostly
on any level, in particular, for his hug-a-bear actions with Obama a few days prior to the election.

I guess I object to all of them acting like morons.
Another four years of this? OMG! I will never make it.

Now Rubiowill be labelled an ignoramus because he couldn’t even answer this simple a question.

He should have said “on the 31st of July at 5am, in any year that you choose, since you seem to know the answer! What?? You asked me a question to which you DON’T know the answer? Not much of a journalist, are you?”

Enough with the kowtowing to liberal media! As the Wise King Solomon said “Answer NOT a fool according to his folly!”


The current scientific estimate is 4.54 billion years ± 1%.

Ragspierre: Virtually everything you are taught is something you never have the opportunity…or inclination…to challenge empirically.

Any decent undergraduate study will include lab work.

It’s easy to verify many fundamental scientific findings. You could measure the Earth’s size just as the Greeks did. You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen to determine their ratio. You might take a walk to study local geological formations and to compare to geological surveys, maybe find a few fossils. Drop a pen and a book and see which hits the ground first, or use an incline as did Galileo. Determine the period of a pendulum. Even breed pease to verify the basics of genetics.

    Use a microscope and count the animalcules in a drop of pond water, or look at the cell structure of a leaf. Peer through a telescope and look at the planets and their moons.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | November 20, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Try approaching my assertion from a truly critical-thinking POV.

    I recall my Organic Chem. instructor telling us the model he was teaching was known to be flawed. It was the best they had.

    Ever seen an atom? An electron?

    Would you allow a huckster to tell you something, and then give you a recipe…his recipe…for “proving” it was right? In our chemistry classes as undergrads, isn’t that what we do? In our labs, do we ever actually “experiment”?

    Now, do not mistake my statement earlier. Science is rational, and we know…or think we know…a great many things because we have found models…or mechanisms…that explain our material world. I never challenged that, or its value. I merely pointed out that most of us at that undergrad level of learning accept what we are told on pure faith.

[…] The “crazy-ing” of Marco Rubio begins; indeed, Liberals Begin Their War on Marco Rubio. […]

[…] in the Comments section of a post at Legal Insurrection, commentators fulldroolcup and n.n explain this condition very nicely: Funny […]

Ragspierre: I recall my Organic Chem. instructor telling us the model he was teaching was known to be flawed. It was the best they had.

“All models are wrong …but some are useful.”

Ragspierre: Ever seen an atom?

We can infer the elemental nature of matter from experiments, such as by splitting water. We can infer the atom from Brownian Motion.

Ragspierre: An electron?

Individual electrons can be detected with a cathode ray tube.

Ragspierre: In our chemistry classes as undergrads, isn’t that what we do? In our labs, do we ever actually “experiment”?

It’s called hypothesis-testing. If the Earth is round, then going south will change the angle of the Sun’s zenith at the solstice. We can then use this difference to calculate an approximate size for the Earth.

Ragspierre: I merely pointed out that most of us at that undergrad level of learning accept what we are told on pure faith.

Perhaps, but your original point also concerned opportunity. Many fundamental scientific findings can be easily verified. It doesn’t take a huge amount of equipment to observe animalcules or extraterrestrial moons.