I posted this on Facebook just now:

Marco Rubio’s curious speech post the State of the Union address last night will mostly be remembered for his desperate lurch for the water bottle. But two things about it baffle me.

I thought his effort was entirely tone deaf, thus cementing it in the current GOP style: miss the point, argue against things your opponent never said nor advocated, try to be funny/snarky and come across as just mean instead. My favorite tweet of the night (this is from memory so may note be verbatim): “Rubio mistakenly puts Tea Party 2013 convention speech in the teleprompter.”

However, certain commentators I might not have expected to thought it was just fine. My favorite internet popper of dubious balloons, Paul Pierce,  had kind words for it in his first post today (he’s since come back to reality) and, on MSNBC last night, the not-nearly-as-smart-as-everybody-thinks-she-is Rachel Maddow initially reacted favorably as well, while the not-nearly-as-smart-as-HE-thinks-he-is Chris Matthews, usually a total sucker for fluff and platitudes, tore the speech apart. That was definitely a reversal of roles.

But what got me most was this Rubio comment about his parents:

“I didn’t inherit any money from them.”

Whoa, did somebody accuse him of inheriting money and I missed it? Can it be that he has abandoned the standard GOP position* that inherited money is absolutely the best kind of money? If not, what was the purpose of this non sequitur?

*That’s “the standard GOP position” for Old School Repubs, of course, the country club crowd; the best kind of money for the younger set (Palin et al) is grifter money.

About these ads