it would be logical for the GOP to send in an intelligent, seasoned adversary to argue by offering clarity and facts. Is that impossible to do because of there is no one of that caliber, or because there are no facts or evidence available to defend the GOP platform? It wasn't the drink of water that most distracted me watching this Republican response. It was the "high school speech class" feel about Rubio's presentation. Rubio contradicted himself continuously, was overly nervous, and he presented mostly bullet point speaking topics with little depth. He accused the president of saying things in the SOTU that he didn't say, and he accused the president of ideologies he doesn't hold. It was a lame, anti-Obama speech.