13 Feb

Destroy Marco Rubio

                                       

Barack Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign was described succinctly in this term:

“Destroy Mitt Romney”

Never mind ideas or themes. Just destroy him. Thanks to the left’s intellectual deficit, it worked.

Thing is, it’s not over. There’s always someone new in the GOP to destroy and today it’s Marco Rubio, despite the pleadings of David Ignatius of the Washington Post.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Marco Rubio has been designated as the Republican respondent, right, which is pretty smart I guess because he’s the hot hand. Immigration jumps right out at that guy when you see him. He’s Cuban-American, he’s talked on the issue. Will the president stick it to him and say, “I’m going to be good on immigration, you guys are going to have to handle the issue?”

DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I think he’s going to make immigration one of the issues he talks about in the State of the Union. The State of the Union is good, but here are the things we need to do. He’s going to talk about immigration reform, he’s going to talk about climate change. He’s going to certainly talk about bringing the troops home from the wars. I think he’ll announce a number of troops that will be withdrawn.

But, you know, the Marco Rubio question gets to whether Obama can get out of the zero sum game Washington where to do something good on immigration reform, he’s got to, you know, destroy Marco Rubio who is the Republican symbol of progress on that. And I’m looking to see whether he can lift his game beyond where he was in his inaugural address and really speak to the country, speak to the people who didn’t vote for him as well as the people who did, and have a platform for really doing something.

Marco Rubio delivered the GOP rebuttal to Barack Obama’s horribly repetitive State of the Union address, in which he said pretty much the same hollow and meaninginless things he’s said over the last five years.

But then Rubio made a terrible mistake. He took a sip of water. Now anyone with half a brain knows that listening to an Obama speech can drain you of energy and vitality, but that did not stop the Obama State Run Media. They sprang into action to implement the words of their king- to destroy Rubio.

Wolf Blitzer breathlessly asks

“So can a drink of water make or break a political career?”

And he was far from alone. Here’s a look at the rest of the Obama State Media’s reaction:

destroy rubio

It really is impressive to see such control of the media as has Obama. Pravda pales in comparison. The only true comparison would be Joseph Goebbels.

Matt Drudge would have none of it and reminded us of the glaringly obvious

watergate 2013

Sipping water is acceptable only for democrats.

The Obama State Media has become a machine- a monster unlike anything in history. They’re not satisfied to simply disagree. Any opposition must be destroyed.

Journalism isn’t just dead.

They are the Obama zombies. The Talking Dead.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Barack Obama, Disasters, Liberal Idiots, Marco Rubio, Media, MSM Bias, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, February 13th, 2013 at 7:59 pm
| 590 views

25 Responses to Destroy Marco Rubio

  1. Greg says: 1

    I don’t really care if he drinks from a sippy cup, though nearly ducking entirely out of the frame will provide material for endless political comedy moments. What I do care about is that he just voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, along with 22 other male republican Senators. A rogues gallery of the 22, in case anyone wonders who they are.

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    Matt Drudge would have none of it and reminded us of the glaringly obvious……Sipping water is acceptable only for democrats.

    LOL!
    It was make a big deal out of a sip of water OR have to rebut Rubio.
    So…..to the water!
    Even here is is ”duck and weave.”
    No rebuttal of Rubio’s substance, only another diversion.

    ReplyReply
  3. Randy says: 3

    By the way, why do we need a special law to prevent violence against women? Do we not have laws that prevent violence against everyone? Do not women want to be equal with men? We should have a law that prevents violence against roaches shouldn’t we? Maybe house flies?

    ReplyReply
  4. westie says: 4

    It’s a special law for vaginas and low brow manginas like ‘Greg’, the assigned minder to FA who is overcompensated at below min wage.

    ReplyReply
  5. Aqua says: 5

    @Greg:

    What I do care about is that he just voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, along with 22 other male republican Senators

    Maybe you should read up on why 22 republican senators opposed it.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-would-anyone-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/

    ReplyReply
  6. Old Guy says: 6

    I like Rubio. But I fear the MSM and the other stooges will use the next 3 years to ruin Rubio. They don’t always stick to the truth and the first story is the one everyone remembers.
    Just like the BHO speeches, rebuttles don’t matter nor do facts afterwards. The first story or lie is what people remember.

    ReplyReply
  7. retire05 says: 7

    @Aqua:

    Maybe you should read up on why 22 republican senators opposed it.

    Maybe, just maybe, unlike their Democrat counterparts, they actually read the bill.

    ReplyReply
  8. johngalt says: 8

    @Old Guy:

    That is the biggest elephant in the room, when discussing national politics. It wouldn’t matter who happened to be the “media darling” of the moment on the right, the Democratic party would still play their game to destroy that person, politically, and especially personally.

    The GOP could put someone in front of the cameras that believed in AGW, talked about illegal amnesty, thought it was ok for the “rich” to pay more in taxes, was ambivalent on gay marriage, espoused gun control somewhere in the middle between total confiscation and no-limitations at all, was a part of a racial minority, a woman, only a modest christian who never publicly spoke of religion, believed Keynesian economics could be made to work, etc……………………..

    ………………..and they would still be lambasted by the left and the media as being somehow evil and wrong for America.

    Hell, Greg just showed you that is the case, by denigrating a man simply because of a vote that Greg doesn’t have a clue about.

    ReplyReply
  9. drjohn says: 10

    @Curt: LOL

    ReplyReply
  10. johngalt says: 11

    @Curt:

    Funny, but you and I both know that the rules are different for the people the left believes belong to the “right” kind of people. I still believe that Obama could have been photographed drop-kicking a baby and punching an old person in the mouth, and still be elected. And that baby would have been blasted by the media for scuffing Obama’s shoe, while the old person would have their life destroyed by the media, who would have adopted the narrative that the old person was attacking Obama, somehow.

    Remember, it’s not what you or I or anyone actually sees. It’s whatever the left tells us is reality that matters.

    Two years from now Rubio will be slammed for being in bed with “Big Water”, and the proof will be the video of him “thumbing his nose” at all of us “little people” by taking a drink, in public, while we “little people” have suffered, somehow, someway.

    ReplyReply
  11. Dennis Fitzpatrick says: 12

    Has Rubio presented his birth certificate?

    ReplyReply
  12. johngalt says: 13

    @Dennis Fitzpatrick:

    It will be interesting to see how the left approaches this issue.

    ReplyReply
  13. Greg says: 14

    @westie, #4:

    By the way, why do we need a special law to prevent violence against women?

    Because there are moronic males who seem to believe they can repeatedly beat up their wives, ex-wives, girlfriends, and ex-girlfriends without serious consequences. They could take it to a local bar and find an even match—except for the fact that they would then have an even match.

    Generally speaking, women and children need a higher degree of protection than adult males. A special law wouldn’t be needed if everyone’s behavior reflected that understanding. Unfortunately, everyone’s behavior doesn’t.

    ReplyReply
  14. cocamars says: 15

    There is no Republican who won’t be Palinized by the MSM Even if the press loves you today (I’m looking at you Chris Christie) the knives will come out as soon as it looks like you want to seriously throw your hat in the ring. The only Republican who stands a chance is the Republican who doesn’t crave acceptance by the media and knows that they will be out to get you every second of every day. Right now the only one who appears to have that attribute and self awareness is Rand Paul.

    ReplyReply
  15. Richard Wheeler says: 16

    John Galt Marco Rubio was born in Fla.Dems won’t question his legitimacy.His problems will come from the extreme right, already witnessed here at F.A.

    ReplyReply
  16. Mully says: 17

    @Greg:
    So let me get this straight. This new law would treat a male differently if he beat up a guy instead of hitting a female? What if it’s a woman on woman beating does one get treated differently with this new law?
    I thought equality was what we were all striving for, not special rights and treatment.
    Since you’ve read this bill front to back perhaps you could fill in on how this works.

    If a bill in congress were crafted by a Democrat and called The Saving Children Bill, and in reality had little to do with actually saving children but was ineffective and in reality is just a big pork barrel bill, few in the media would point that out. Instead those who were against it would be lambasted for being against it.

    ReplyReply
  17. Greg says: 18

    @Mully, #17:

    Would you think the same about a man who got in a fight and beat up another man as you would about a man who beat up his 110 pound girlfriend? My guess is that you wouldn’t.

    I tend not to view them the same way, even though I disapprove of people beating anyone up. I believe women deserve equal rights under the law, but also certain special considerations.

    ReplyReply
  18. retire05 says: 19

    @Greg:

    I believe women deserve equal rights under the law, but also certain special considerations.

    Perhaps you can tell us where the Constitution guarantees “special considerations?”

    If women want equal rights, then the same laws that apply to men, should also apply to them. Women, who batter their husbands, boyfriends, lovers, should be held to the very same standard as men who batter women.

    If it were not for pandering to “special consideration” groups, you liberals would have no one to vote for.

    ReplyReply
  19. retire05 says: 20

    Would you think the same about a man who got in a fight and beat up another man as you would about a man who beat up his 110 pound girlfriend?

    No, but you’re damn sure willing to throw that 110 pound woman into combat, aren’t you?

    ReplyReply
  20. Greg says: 21

    @retire05, #20:

    No, but you’re damn sure willing to throw that 110 pound woman into combat, aren’t you?

    Women now have an opportunity to fill combat roles. There’s no guarantee that anyone—male or female—will meet the minimum physical and mental (as in psychological) requirements to do so. Generally speaking, the average male is a lot more likely to be well suited than the average female. But there will be some qualifying females who are as well or better suited than some qualifying males.

    ReplyReply
  21. Scott in Oklahoma says: 23

    @Greg: Another useless, pointless law Greg. If you had even the slightest clue about the law you would know that. Every state has domestic violence laws, with many having mandatory arrests. The federal government has no business throwing another law out there, as if the FBI would ever investigate the simple domestic violence cases this non-effective yet expensive to mandate law supposedly addresses. Like the “hate crime” laws, a giant waste of time, energy and resources that only accomplishes gathering more votes for liberals from liberals without clues, as all of the violations included in either set of laws are already law violations with their own sets of penalties. But hey, whatever blows your skirt up, you’re ignorance is showing… again.

    ReplyReply
  22. VoteOutIncumbents says: 24

    The biggest problem the Republican Party has as it approaches 2016 is that the media the low information voter gets their “news” from is completely in the tank for the DNC.

    That’s a fact. Only Newt Gingrich in the last election cycle called out “reporters” for their “did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-yet type” questions to ALL the GOP candidates. Only Newt fought back. Romney just took it.

    When we get a candidate who faces down the liberal reporters and calls them out for the shills they are…only then…will we win.

    ReplyReply
  23. Scott in Oklahoma says: 25

    @VoteOutIncumbents: I saw Rubio earlier this week on the CBS morning show, the female commentator tried to pin his ears back but he wouldn’t play and turned back her comments on the violence against women law and some other stuff. He did a great job.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>