I guess I should be a wanker and stand up for Marco Rubio.

It isn’t a stretch to argue that a Rubio presidency would mark a return to Cheneyism after eight short years. Rubio is a neoconservative, who would surround himself with Cheney acolytes and Unleash Chang at the first excuse to overreact to foreign threats. This should give Democrats plenty to work with. Instead they’re going with this.

There’s a reason the DNC only clipped 10 seconds of Rubio’s Fox News Sunday appearance. Because aside from a tiny slip of the tongue, Democrats have nothing else to work with here.

I obviously am not happy about the events that happened last week in Paris, but I think it’s a positive development that suddenly has cast—forced Americans to confront more carefully the issue of national security because it is the most important thing a president will do, it is the most important function of the federal government. And I hope that we focus on that more, not just for political advantage, but because the world has become a very dangerous place.

Rubio’s point was that there’s a silver lining to the dark cloud over Paris: More American voters once again recognize the primacy of national security, and Rubio thinks that reflects the correct priorities. Not only did he mean to say that, he actually said it

There are problems with his analysis, which can be debated. What isn’t debatable is the question of whether Rubio said the Paris attacks were a “positive development,” politically, or in any sense. He didn’t.