Marco Rubio | News | Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow Rips Marco Rubio's Republican 'SOTU' Response: VIDEO


Poor pathetic Marco Rubio. Rachel Maddow last night shredded his response to the State of the Union address, which was basically torn from Romney's election stump speech.

Maddow nails it:

"The Republcan's official response to Barack Obama's state of the Union was essentially a new version of the stump speech of the guy who just lost the presidential election to Barack Obama.

And the house that is the emotional centerpiece of the piece turns out is a house for sale.

And the criticism of the President's speech was not actually based on the President's speech at all.

And they had him vote no on the violence Against Women Act, with 20 other Republican guys right before he gave this speech.

And they ran a second Republican response as well after they ran this one.

And it had the same eyeball problem..."


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I'm with Steve Kornacki: Just get rid of the whole 'response' tradition (which is a recent tradition, it's worth mentioning). It's always a mess. It never raises the stature of the opposition party, it just makes them looks silly.

    Posted by: Lars | Feb 14, 2013 8:47:03 AM

  2. OMG...LOL! That was awesome.

    Love Maddow.

    Posted by: Chris R. | Feb 14, 2013 8:52:56 AM

  3. Rubio strikes me as a used car salesmen. But a bad one. Like creepier than the standard.

    Posted by: J.J | Feb 14, 2013 8:54:15 AM

  4. That look on Rubio's looks like he's tryin' to steal something. Probably an election.

    Posted by: Run Like You Stold Sump'n | Feb 14, 2013 9:06:24 AM

  5. Wouldn't it have been wicked funny if he had ripped a loud fart as he leaned over to grab the water bottle?

    Posted by: Yellow Dog | Feb 14, 2013 9:31:09 AM

  6. I've heard people's mouths get dry when they lie.

    Posted by: Darrell | Feb 14, 2013 9:40:41 AM

  7. "I've heard people's mouths get dry when they lie."

    You heard correctly, DARRELL. One better not lie before giving a blow job. Your reputation will be ruined. I'm sure Senator Rubio knows this--he just forgot the same thing applies to public speaking.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 14, 2013 10:43:08 AM

  8. You guys can rip on Rubio all you want if it makes you feel better. However, if that is assisting you to turn a blind eye to what Obama said, then you are truly fools. Obama's speech was nearly pure doo doo. Were you paying attention when he babbled that mess about not paying for medical services based on the services you received? Pure BS. To go on and say that Gabby Giffords "deserves a vote" is an insult to your rights as Americans. She doesn't deserve to exploit her personal tragedy at the hands of a criminal to trample the rights of law abiding citizens. That's like saying that Seven-Eleven deserves to pass Stop And Frisk because they got robbed.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 14, 2013 11:00:49 AM

  9. Oh, David Hearne... tsk tsk.

    First, Gabby Giffords is not exploiting ANYTHING. She is an advocate...because she was a victim of something senseless...and because policy can affect outcomes! No policy can stop all wrongs but policy can limit the harm. And Ms. Giffords can and SHOULD use her role as a national figure directly affected by the senseless unregulated industry of firearms in this country in order to increase the dialogue.

    Second, Gabby Giffords and every other person the President spoke of deserves a vote! NO WHERE did ANYBODY say this should be a slam dunk legislation. NO WHERE DID ANYBODY SAY that Gabby Giffords should get her way. What the President said was... stop kicking the can down the road, bring the legislation out of the darkness and into the light...and every member of Congress needs to go on record for their support or their lack of support. Legislators are sent to Congress to make hard choices and to take a stand. Blue democrats in red states, Red Republicans in blue states, and all blue or red folks in purple states...need to take a stand for their beliefs and be prepared to be challenged for taking their stand. Obama said...they deserve a vote. They do. I deserve that vote as well. You as well.

    And finally, "trample the rights of law abiding citizens"....really? What rights are being trampled? Firearms regulation is not against the Constitution OR the Second Amendment (in fact, it can be said that the federal government has abrogated it's responsibilities for quite some time as the 2nd Amendment clearly states that while the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, the start of the amendment speaks to the need for a well-regulated militia. The idea that private citizens should keep and bear arms is directly related to the expectation that those arms will be used as part of a regulated militia. Private arms are NOT USED that way. They haven't least not in the last 100 years. So, I'm sorry, but although you can chose to get hung up on the part of the amendment you find most appealing, like other literalists, it appears you have neglected the rest of the written portion of the amendment. Scream it all you want but nobody's rights will be trampled if there are regulations placed on gun ownership. Gun ownership is not being (and will not be) outlawed in this country. Take your straw man argument to Fox.

    Posted by: Jay | Feb 14, 2013 2:35:08 PM

  10. It's not a straw man argument. It's the way my family and I talk while we sit around the kitchek table cleaning our guns while we talk about how much we hate black people and minorities and my mother slaps my face a few times and reminds me to never touch myself in the no-no place while thinking about guys anymore.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Feb 14, 2013 3:12:14 PM

  11. Oh David, for one thing "exploit"?!! The woman was shot in the freakin head and several people died. If anyone has earned the right/deserves to talk about gun issues, it's her. Not you buddy. We've heard what you have to say and it's the usual claptrap from the NRA crowd: I want my gun, screw everyone else. Second: like the GOP have never exploited a tragedy to trample the rights of law abiding citizens? No, neve! Oh wait, 9/11.

    Posted by: LYLE | Feb 15, 2013 12:42:04 AM

  12. The state of the union is ultimately about a President's vision of what they want to do for the upcoming year; it's generally aspiration, well thought out and certainly comes well practiced.

    The "response" is nothing about a 5-10 minute partisan carpet bomb that lacks any sort of aspiration, is rushed and hackneyed, and substitutes vision for an attempt to lambasting the President.

    It's childish and petty.

    What I've never understood is why the other party even responds to the speech, instead of trying to offer up their own ideas and vision. Not on the same night -- mind you -- but, say, a week later, delivering their own speech... not about the President, but about their competing "shadow," as they may call it in England, vision for the country in the year ahead.

    That could actually be interesting, compelling and perhaps even useful. But it would actually require thought and some intellectual heft, not to mention the temperament to avoid simply going after the President and instead sticking to a substantive discussion of a competing vision for the country.

    Posted by: Ryan | Feb 15, 2013 7:20:59 AM

  13. Jays comment above is like Obamas speech. A well reasoned argument, logical and meaningful. David's response is roughly the equivalent of Rubio's response. Meaningless gibberish that is used as a distraction.

    Posted by: Chadd | Feb 15, 2013 10:29:21 AM

  14. @Jay @Chadd - Thank you Jay! Thank you Chadd!
    Well written, I can hardly agree more!

    Posted by: JT | Feb 15, 2013 11:24:24 AM

Post a comment


« «James Franco Shows Jimmy Kimmel His 'Gay Town' Portraits of Speedo-Clad Water Polo Players: VIDEO« «