Tag Archives: Talking Points

Robot Rubio parrots identical talking point 4 times at ABC News debate

Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Churck Schumer and RINO John McCain
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Chuck Schumer and RINO John McCain

The big exchange of the ABC News debate in New Hampshire last night was Chris Christie taking on Marco Rubio for his habit of using canned 25-second responses like some sort of conservative talking points robot. Basically, Chris Christie pointed out to the audience that Marco Rubio never speaks in specifics, but instead just repeats the same 25-second conservative talking point over and over. And, amazingly, Rubio immediately repeated the same talking point again, and again, and again. Christie kept interrupting to point it out to the audience.


Even establishment RINO Hugh Hewitt could not defend Rubio:

Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews debate about Marco Rubio’s debate performance on Sunday morning’s Meet The Press. Hewitt, a Rubio supporter, says that after his talked-about over-repetition of a line about President Obama’s nefarious intent in last night’s New Hampshire debate, Rubio will be preparing for a “South Carolina brouhaha.”

Matthews challenges Hewitt on Rubio’s performance: “Is there a logic to doing it four times in a row?” Matthews asked. “Why did he do it four times in a row?”

Hewitt admits what Chris Christie said during the debate is true, Rubio’s “staff had trained him” to say it that way.


Someone programmed Rubio bot to speak that line!

Rubio campaigned for the Senate in Florida saying that he was opposed to amnesty, then, when elected, he literally led the effort to give 20 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship – so they could vote for bigger government. When running, he was trained by his staff to speak anti-amnesty talking points, when elected he led the fight for amnesty.

Here’s the full list of Rubio errors:

Cruz fought against amnesty, opposes all bailouts, opposes all subsidies, e.g. – ethanol, and he got an A- rating on his response to the gay marriage Supreme Court decision.

This talking point parroting mistake has really given me pause about Rubio. I know that when he was running for Senate in Florida, he parroted a lot of talking points against amnesty. Then he co-sponsored the bill to give citizenship and voting rights to 20 million illegal immigrants. It makes me question whether to believe him about anything else, e.g. – pro life. I know that he is being trained on pro-life rhetoric, but he’s short on pro-life accomplishments. Fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Reactions to the Robot Rubio meltdown

I found several lists of “winners and losers” for Saturday’s debate, as well. This one is from the Washington Post, no friend of Ted Cruz:


Marco Rubio: Where to start here? Rubio has been such a strong debater so far — and a steady hand on the campaign trail in general. And then he ran into Christie. The New Jersey governor hit Rubio for never having been a chief executive and for not having much to show for his time in the Senate. He seemed to knock Rubio off his game so much that Rubio wound up repeating a stock answer about President Obama — that Obama knows exactly what he’s doing in driving the country to the left — three times. It was conspicuous and very not-smooth.

They also thought that Ted Cruz won the debate, and that his very unscripted, authentic answer about his half-sister, which I talked about in a previous post, was “memorable”.

I don’t want Rubio being the nominee and debating Hillary Clinton. He’s not ready to debate her, but Ted Cruz will wipe the floor with her. He excels at debate – he was national debate team champion, among other things.

Tactics for defending traditional marriage

Timmy posted this guide to defending marriage on his Facebook page.



Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”


• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Mary also sent me this excellent peer-reviewed paper on traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, authored by two guys from Princeton University and one guy from the University of Notredame. One of those guys is the famous Robert P. George!

I’ve also prepared an evidential case against same-sex marriage using arguments that will be convincing to people who don’t have any religious commitment.

Casey Luskin debates Thom Hartmann on Darwinism

Casey Luskin, Attorney & Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs-Discovery Institute.

There are some good lessons from this video you should know. The most important thing is to never allow the Darwinist to mention God, the Bible, or religion in a discussion about evolution. Always debate the evidence for and against Darwinism.