Subscribe via RSS Feed

One of the Many Actual Reasons to be Contemptuous of Marco Rubio

[ 47 ] February 13, 2013 |

He voted against the VAWA. And, needless to say, his pretext for voting against it is a really terrible reason in its own right.

It also seems worth noting that no woman in Senate voted against the bill.



Comments (47)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. People are not finding Rubio’s flop-sweat-filled SOTU response performance to have been contemptuous. People are finding it to have been amusing. The substance of Rubio’s SOTU response, to me, was often contemptuous. His performance, on the other hand, was pretty darn amusing.

    Contempt and amusement are two different things.

  2. sharculese says:

    He might as well have just explained himself by asking where’s the Violence Against Men Act.

  3. spencer says:

    It also seems worth noting that no woman in Senate voted against the bill.

    Yes, but see, that just proves that female Senators are only voting for things they personally benefit from, and are therefore rent-seeking bloodsuckers. Whereas the fact that a disinterested party like Saint Marco Rubio studiously considered it and then voted against it objectively demonstrates the arbitrary castratey-ness of the bill.

    Or something.

  4. Halloween Jack says:

    Huh. I thought that Deb Fischer had voted against it.

  5. david mizner says:

    I’m not going to jump on the Thirst-Gate pile-on. As a bleeding heart who once bombed a public speaking performance, I felt bad for him and had to turn it off.

    Nor, though, am I going to scold Democratic partisans for trying to brand him as Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time lightweight. Which btw seems pretty accurate. As much as I’d like elections to hinge solely on issues like violence against women, that ain’t the way it works.

  6. catclub says:

    I just want start calling him Marco Rubio Polio

  7. Scott S. says:

    “Oh no, police on Indian land are allowed to arrest non-Indians if they commit crimes! This is terrrrrible!”

    • rea says:

      And of course, we wouldn’t need to give tribal courts jurisdiction, if we’d just pony up enough money for federal law enforcement to prosecute misdemeanor assaults on reservations. But of course, that’s not going to happen . . .

      • Joe says:

        Seems to me that locals would be appropriate for this sort of thing anyhow. The courts also have the power over locals generally speaking. Why not this too? The legislation requires the non-Natives to have a connection to the tribes.

    • efgoldman says:

      “Oh no, police on Indian land American soil are allowed to arrest non-Indians non-Americans if they commit crimes! This is terrrrrible!”

      I think I’ll go to Germany and rob a 7-11, see what happens.

  8. The Republican Party can’t seem to grasp that it has no good ideas, and that this is why they are unpopular. Indeed, their present plan seems to amount to saying, “If we get brown people to express our bad ideas for us maybe more people will like us.” This is, of course, a terrible idea, but we shouldn’t be surprised by that.

    • chris says:

      Indeed, their present plan seems to amount to saying, “If we get brown people to express our bad ideas for us maybe more people will like us.”

      This may be a bit of a sensitive issue, but does anyone know how seriously *actually* brown Hispanics take the technical Hispanic-ness of someone like Rubio? He’s as pale as I am.

      The descendants of Native Americans and the descendants of Europeans may both speak Spanish today, but that doesn’t make them one race. (Or does it? Race is pretty much a social construct anyway, so I guess if they think of themselves as one race, then they are.)

      • blondie says:

        I understand the point about race, culture and social constructs, but to the GOP, Obama and Rubio are both people of color, despite the “white” in their ancestry.

  9. Loud Liberal says:

    It is pathetic that the GOP thinks that Hispanic voters are so shallow that they would vote for an extreme, right-wing, fascist, Cuban, refugee (I dispute the existence of a Cuban “exile”), just because he happens to be Hispanic. Michael Steele anyone?

    This GOP attitude is no different than the GOP’s declamation that it lost the election, again, because of poor “messaging” and “branding.” GOP messaging and branding are the epitome of putting lipstick on a pig. It doesn’t occur to GOP clowns that the majority of voters have figure out that failed and corrupt GOP policies are bad for 99.9% of Americans.

    As for Marco Rubio, he knows absolutely nothing about economics and is about as out of touch with the middle class as any wannabe fascist dictator. He fails to acknowledge that his refugee parents benefited from what was left of the New Deal America that liberals created, and that corporate fascists like him are trying to dismantle. Marco Rubio is middle class enemy #1, and he must be called out for his Medieval attitude about women and backward public policy. That is Marco Rubio’s brand.

    • Halloween Jack says:

      Comparing either Jindal or Rubio to Bill Clinton is a bad comparison, simply because neither of them is Big Dog with his nigh-supernatural affability; put either or both of them in a room with him and they would simply seem to melt into the background. The bit where Rubio is now hawking his own branded water bottles seems more like a page from Sarah Palin’s playbook of cultivating and monetizing resentment; it may be lucrative (at least in the short run; Palin is well past her sell-by date), but in the end, nobody really likes a whiner.

      • Clinton’s performance at the ’88 DNC was criticized for being too long, not for being delivered incompetently. At the time, nobody was doubting that Clinton had skills and brains. The Rubio SOTU response made him look like an “empty suit.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.