President Obama was (what else?) presidential last night. Marco Rubio, not so much. You felt sorry for the guy, if not for the Republican Party as a whole. The only time he went left was to lunge for a bottle of water – it was almost painful to watch.
It was awkward and weird, but it was also genuine and obviously unplanned…
In that moment, there may be a measure of politically fueled schadenfreude for some, but for many more, it’s just, “Oh, oh no, oh no no, that was so uncomfortable, oh … no.” Maybe even a little, “Oh, honey.” Maybe even, “Bless your heart.”
There’s something refreshing about a moment that was so obviously not supposed to happen — it’s why blooper reels exist. It’s why debates are spent waiting for someone to say the wrong thing, even by people who don’t particularly care about the outcome. When things go awry — even in a tiny, tiny moment — the bottom drops out and the foreheads get clammy and all of a sudden, it’s interesting. It’s alive. It’s: We interrupt this impeccably produced presentation to bring you a little story we call “Humans: What Are You Gonna Do?”
In all honesty, the water gulp was just about the only part of that evening you couldn’t have known was going to happen 24 hours earlier. …[I]t was the major plot development (minor as it was) that felt like a collapse of the narrative, and the truth is, people like collapsed narratives. They feel, to use a nonword, real-er, truer, simpler, and more reflective of our experiences.
If you were a climate change denialist from Florida, you might be nervous too.
UPDATE:
6 Game-Changing Ideas In The State Of The Union
#1 by brewski on February 13, 2013 - 8:44 pm
I’d take Rubio over the Liar-in-Chief any day.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/state-of-the-union-fact-check-a-look-at-obamas-claims-87556.html
#2 by brewski on February 14, 2013 - 7:17 am
Rubio effectively eviscerates the entire fantasyland premise of Obama, and all you have to say is that he took a drink of water? Glad you have your eye on the ball.
#3 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 7:36 am
Senator Rubio has lied about his parents, saying they escaped from communist Fidel Castro’s Cuba.
Rubio didn’t respond to the President’s speech, he just delivered the standard right-wing GOP line that a majority of Americans rejected last November. Nothing he “rebutted” was actually said by President Obama.
“This idea—that our problems were caused by a government that was too small—it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.” That’s a favorite of Republicans, described by Paul Krugman as the “Barney Frank did it” lie.
Worst of all, Rubio tried to scare people into thinking they’re about to either lose their health insurance or get fired because of the ACA. Is it fair to blame government for companies so cheap they want to cut workers’ hours so they aren’t entitled to health insurance?
How to Read Body Language to Tell Someone’s Lying
#4 by brewski on February 14, 2013 - 8:58 am
“This idea—that our problems were caused by a government that was too small—it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.”
100% True.
#5 by Bob S. on February 14, 2013 - 2:20 pm
Richard,
Aren’t you the person who complains that I call you a liar when you are caught fibbing?
Yet here you are calling Rubio a liar — another sign of your hypocrisy.
From the article you linked:
Pretty flimsy “evidence” to be calling someone a liar – especially since history presents a different picture
3 years before his parents left Cuba — Fidel Castro was causing problems to put it mildly.
and
Given the turmoil of the times, many people could see that Cuba would be a battle field for the foreseeable future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution#Guerrilla_warfare:_December_1956_to_mid-1958
So, saying that his parents ‘survived Castro’ isn’t a lie, now is it?
Castro waged a 3 year effort/war to oust
#6 by brewski on February 14, 2013 - 4:53 pm
The CBO estimates that 8 million people will lose their employer provided health insurance. Period. End of story.
#7 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 5:00 pm
Bob S.–
Senator Rubio was not simply giving his opinion on a political issue when he claimed that his parents “came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.” In actuality, they left in 1956.
Politifact ruling: False
Senator Rubio is a phony. And if he wants to be a Republican presidential nominee, he’s got to learn how to be a better liar.
#8 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 5:15 pm
brewski–
Here’s what the CBO report concluded (as opposed to what right-wing websites say):
So the right-wing noise machine turns a plus 27 million with health care coverage into a minus 8 million? That’s arithmetic worthy of Faux News Channel.
#9 by Bob S. on February 14, 2013 - 5:34 pm
Richard,
Which takeover or takeover attempt? Castro tried several times — including in 1956. You don’t know what his parents interaction with Castro was.
Yet you call him a liar — hypocrite.
You twist, distort and blatantly lie about facts — like “no one is calling for confiscation”.
Don’t you think you should lead by example if you don’t to be called a liar by not calling others out?
#10 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 5:44 pm
Bob S.–
Senator Rubio stated that his parents left Cuba in 1959 “following Fidel Castro’s takeover.” The truth is they left in 1956 prior to the Cuban revolution.
Let’s face it, Senator Rubio didn’t do any better than Clint Eastwood. He was attacking an imaginary President Obama that the right-wing seems to think is another Fidel Castro. Despite his connections to Goldman Sachs, and his frequent embrace of Republican policies.
Rubio’s body language gave away the fact that he himself didn’t believe a word of what he had to say on Tuesday night.
#11 by brewski on February 14, 2013 - 7:31 pm
You totally misrepresented what I said and what the CBO said. Shame in you.
#12 by brewski on February 14, 2013 - 7:37 pm
I will forgive Rubio’s error in family lore by three years over Obama’s bald faced lies every day.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57408181-503544/obama-supreme-court-overturning-health-care-would-be-unprecedented/
#13 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 9:48 pm
I appreciate our President’s sense of irony. The right-wing never gets tired of denouncing judicial activism, but that’s what our far-right Supreme Court has exhibited time and time again.
The ACA decision was no exception. Instead of upholding the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion pulled an activist argument out of a hat.
#14 by brewski on February 15, 2013 - 7:10 am
You don’t know and Obama doesn’t know what the phrase judicial activism means. So neither you nor he are in any position to opine on it.
#15 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 10:00 am
Judicial activism is a Supreme Court majority intervening to decide a presidential election before the votes have been counted, and declaring that this action cannot be a precedent.
Judicial activism is right-wing justices acting as an alternative legislature.
Judicial activism is a decision to let corporations spend unlimited amounts of unregulated money to buy elections, along with a decision to apply entirely different rules to labor unions.
#16 by brewski on February 15, 2013 - 2:07 pm
That is why you are not qualified to opine.