Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on October 20, 2011, 11:55:47 PM
-
A little loose with the facts here. It's a great story that his parents were castro exiles. It's just not true, though.
During his rise to political prominence, Sen. Marco Rubio frequently repeated a compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida. He was the “son of exiles,” he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after “a thug,” Fidel Castro, took power.
But a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that the Florida Republican’s account embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than 2 1 / 2 years b efore Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubios-compelling-family-story-embellishes-facts-documents-show/2011/10/20/gIQAaVHD1L_story.html
-
His defense is now to blame his own parents for giving him a false story.
Wow.
33, what do you think of this? This "exile" angle was a huge part of his campaign. Do you really think he ran and got into office without ever looking at the dates? I mean, I was 16 when i did the math and fig'd out my parents got knocked up before getting married. He's well into his 40s and he hasn't yet looked at the years of the biggest sotry he told a hundred times to get into office?
-
Is this another example of a republican playing the victim? Turns out not only did he lie - but he's still keeping that lie on his congressional website. Also, not only did his parents live large and leave years before castro took over - but they also TRAVELED BACK to cuba regularly for business opportunities.
I guess they weren't victims of castro, as he claimed. They were cashing in!
In 1971, Marco was born in Miami to Cuban-born parents who came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover.
http://rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography
They wanted the best of both worlds. When they couldn't have it, they chose the best option available.
They came to America BEFORE Castro took power too....and they went to Cuba AFTER Castro took power, as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/mar...
-
He was a phony from day one. Even without the financial malfeasance the slime was dripping off Rubio. I still can't believe he got elected. And they are talking about him as a potential VP.
-
Exclusive: Rubio defends himself
By: Sen. Marco Rubio
October 21, 2011 01:15 PM EDT
The Washington Post on Friday accused me of seeking political advantage by embellishing the story of how my parents arrived in the United States.
That is an outrageous allegation that is not only incorrect, but an insult to the sacrifices my parents made to provide a better life for their children. They claim I did this because “being connected to the post-revolution exile community gives a politician cachet that could never be achieved by someone identified with the pre-Castro exodus, a group sometimes viewed with suspicion.”
If The Washington Post wants to criticize me for getting a few dates wrong, I accept that. But to call into question the central and defining event of my parents’ young lives – the fact that a brutal communist dictator took control of their homeland and they were never able to return – is something I will not tolerate.
My understanding of my parents’ journey has always been based on what they told me about events that took place more than 50 years ago — more than a decade before I was born. What they described was not a timeline, or specific dates.
They talked about their desire to find a better life, and the pain of being separated from the nation of their birth. What they described was the struggle they faced growing up, and their obsession with giving their children the chance to do the things they never could.
But the Post story misses the point completely. The real essence of my family’s story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here.
The essence of my family story is why they came to America in the first place; and why they had to stay.
I now know that they entered the U.S. legally on an immigration visa in May of 1956. Not, as some have said before, as part of some special privilege reserved only for Cubans. They came because they wanted to achieve things they could not achieve in their native land.
And they stayed because, after January 1959, the Cuba they knew disappeared. They wanted to go back — and in fact they did. Like many Cubans, they initially held out hope that Castro’s revolution would bring about positive change. So after 1959, they traveled back several times — to assess the prospect of returning home.
In February 1961, my mother took my older siblings to Cuba with the intention of moving back. My father was wrapping up family matters in Miami and was set to join them.
But after just a few weeks, it became clear that the change happening in Cuba was not for the better. It was communism. So in late March 1961, just weeks before the Bay of Pigs invasion, my mother and siblings left Cuba and my family settled permanently in the United States.
Soon after, Castro officially declared Cuba a Marxist state. My family has never been able to return.
I am the son of immigrants and exiles, raised by people who know all too well that you can lose your country. By people who know firsthand that America is a very special place.
My father spent the last 50 years of his life separated from the nation of his birth. Separated from his two brothers, who died in Cuba in the 1980s. Unable to show us where he played baseball as a boy. Where he met my mother. Unable to visit his parents’ grave.
My mother has spent the last 50 years separated from her native land as well. Unable to take us to her family’s farm, to her schools or to the notary office where she married my father.
A few years ago, using Google Earth, I attempted to take my parents back to Cuba. We found the rooftop of the house where my father was born. What I wouldn’t give to visit these places where my story really began, before I was born.
One day, when Cuba is free, I will. But I wish I could have done it with my parents.
The Post story misses the entire point about my family and why their story is relevant. People didn’t vote for me because they thought my parents came in 1961, or 1956, or any other year. Among others things, they voted for me because, as the son of immigrants, I know how special America really is. As the son of exiles, I know how much it hurts to lose your country.
Ultimately what The Post writes is not that important to me. I am the son of exiles. I inherited two generations of unfulfilled dreams. This is a story that needs no embellishing.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
-
Share
385
PrintForward
Miami Herald: WaPost "Hit" on Rubio Manipulates Facts
by Erick Erickson 10/21/2011
419
Comments
Manuel Roig-Franzia is a reporter for the Washington Post who once got punched by his 70 year old editor, Henry Allen, for writing “the second worst story [Allen had] seen in Style in 43 years.” That’s right, Roig-Franzia wrote a horrible piece in the Style section. His 70 year old editor did not like it. Roig-Franzia reportedly called his 70 year old editor and Marine a “c**ksucker”, and the Marine punched him.
Manuel Roig-Franzia has a well documented history of being an apologist for the Cuban communist regime and a hater of the Catholic church. He is also now writing a book on Marco Rubio.
We can get a sense of the book by his stunning hit job on Marco Rubio in the Washington Post.. Roig-Franzia claims Rubio has embellished his “compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida.” Again, keep in mind that Roig-Franzia is an apologist for the Cuban communist regime.
Roig-Franzia writes, “a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that the Florida Republican’s account embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than 21 / 2 years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959.”
Now, there are two problems for Roig-Franzia. First, the communist apologist failed to actually quote Marco Rubio embellishing his story. The Miami Herald really destroys the piece.
The Washington Post just released this interesting story headlined “Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show.” The paper flagged a clear inaccuracy in his official Senate biography that states the Senator’s parents “came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”
That’s false. Rubio’s parents came to the US before then, in 1956. They remained in the US after Castro took over in 1959. They returned to Cuba for brief stints early on, before the country devolved into Soviet-style totalitarianism.
But the top of the story suggests Rubio himself has given this “dramatatic account:” that “he was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after ‘a thug,’ Fidel Castro, took power.”
However, the story doesn’t cite one speech where Rubio actually said that.
To back up the lead, the Washington Post excerpts from a 2006 address in the Florida House where Rubio said “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee… Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress…and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.”
The catch: If you listen to the speech, Rubio isn’t just talking about those who specifically fled Cuba after Castro took power. He doesn’t say that his parents fled Cuba. Instead, he was talking about “a community of exiles.” That is: He was talking about all the Cubans who live in Mia
What’s more, Manuel Roig-Franzia does not say how he came to know these facts about Marco Rubio. But Gabriel Malor knows.
Rubio has been hounded since he rose to prominence by birthers intent on sabotaging any further rise he might have in politics. Malor notes, “Birthers intent on somehow proving that he’s not a “natural-born citizen” dug up his parents’ adjustment and naturalization paperwork. That’s where WaPo got the dates for his parents’ arrival to the United States.”
That’s right boys and girls. Manuel Roig-Franzia, who was once punched by a 70 year old for atrocious writing in a freaking style section, uses a Birther originated attack to discredit Marco Rubio and can’t even offer up a quote from Rubio.
And you know what? Even if he could offer up a quote, does it matter? How many of you know the full and accurate story of your parents and grandparents?
[This article was crossposted from RedState.com]
240 again spreading lies
-
"However, the story doesn’t cite one speech where Rubio actually said that."
Correct. He told the truth once about it in 2006.
Then he told the victim, embellished story about 100 times after that.
Just because he told the truth ONCE about it, doesn't remove the fact that he lied about it all those other times ;)
The article's other criticism was that the WP didn't get Rubio's side of the story. okay, dick move, but doesn't change the fact.
Rubio did use that story to get elected. The fact that, in 2006 he actually told the truth, discredits his 2011 story that "my parents gave me bad info". SO your articles completely PROVES that he knew he was lying everytime he told that story from 2006 til 2011. Great work, 33. You made rubio look even worse here.
-
Fucking please 240. Seriously, you are a shadow of your former self. I don't know what happened to you.
-
Fucking please 240. Seriously, you are a shadow of your former self. I don't know what happened to you.
Nice personal attack. I dont like rubio - I believe he exploited the struggles of actual cuban refugees, played that vicitm card - when the documents show his parents DID NOT flee castro. They moved years before he showed up. And, to make things worse, their "persecution' by castro included traveling BACK there to make money.
That sure doesn't jive with his story about them being exiles who fled castro. And now we have YOUR document which shows he was lying yesterday when he said he only made the mistake because his parents told him the wrong story. We see that in 2006, his own words admit he KNEW they were NOT exiles. Then something happened in his mind - between 06 and 09 - which led him to change his story. Maybe the whole wanting to get elected thing?
You're calling me names, but you won't address Rubio's lies. His repeated lies. And proof you delivered showing it was no mistake. He's told both the truth and lies in speeches.
-
Nice personal attack. I dont like rubio - I believe he exploited the struggles of actual cuban refugees, played that vicitm card - when the documents show his parents DID NOT flee castro. They moved years before he showed up. And, to make things worse, their "persecution' by castro included traveling BACK there to make money.
That sure doesn't jive with his story about them being exiles who fled castro. And now we have YOUR document which shows he was lying yesterday when he said he only made the mistake because his parents told him the wrong story. We see that in 2006, his own words admit he KNEW they were NOT exiles. Then something happened in his mind - between 06 and 09 - which led him to change his story. Maybe the whole wanting to get elected thing?
You're calling me names, but you won't address Rubio's lies. His repeated lies. And proof you delivered showing it was no mistake. He's told both the truth and lies in speeches.
Were you equally as outraged when Obama said his Father served in WWII?
[/youtube]
-
Nice personal attack. I dont like rubio - I believe he exploited the struggles of actual cuban refugees, played that vicitm card - when the documents show his parents DID NOT flee castro. They moved years before he showed up. And, to make things worse, their "persecution' by castro included traveling BACK there to make money.
That sure doesn't jive with his story about them being exiles who fled castro. And now we have YOUR document which shows he was lying yesterday when he said he only made the mistake because his parents told him the wrong story. We see that in 2006, his own words admit he KNEW they were NOT exiles. Then something happened in his mind - between 06 and 09 - which led him to change his story. Maybe the whole wanting to get elected thing?
You're calling me names, but you won't address Rubio's lies. His repeated lies. And proof you delivered showing it was no mistake. He's told both the truth and lies in speeches.
Sometimes you thick bs is even too much to laugh at. You are cherry picking meaningless shit here and you know it.
-
Were you equally as outraged when Obama said his Father served in WWII?
[/youtube]
Obama was talking about his grandfather who served in WW2, not his father
-
Obama was talking about his grandfather who served in WW2, not his father
You mean that "typical white person" he was referring to?
-
You mean that "typical white person" he was referring to?
The one that raised him since he was 10. Its not uncommon for kids to call their grandparents their parents if they took care of them. Don't drink so much Kool-Aid
-
Were you equally as outraged when Obama said his Father served in WWII?
[/youtube]
Of course not. 120 had nothing to state when Obama lied about his uncle either. Obama didn't have an UNCLE that served in the U.S. Army and America did not liberate the Auschwitz death camp, the Russians did. But, of course. Most of the media will attack the GOP for the exact same things that Democrats do on a regular basis.
In this case, Rubio didn't embellish anything and he is attacked for it. Obama clearly lied. Not only in this instance, but on many other topics, yet there was no attack piece or book written by the liberal media. How objective of you liberals.
-
"Mr. Ayers is “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” but “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." - Obama
-
Obama promised to cut the Deficit in half.. ::)
-
absolutely - obama was a stone cold fcking liar there about that WWii.... I thought he was also caught in a few other lies, embellishing his family's history.
However, I don't know that defending Rubio by saying "Obama did it too!' makes it okay.
I thought repubs like Rubio were the solution to problems like Obama. All you've done is show that Rubio is practicing the same lying behaviors that Obama does. You've put Rubio in Obama's class in terms of honor and abusing fmaily history for political gain. Obama is worthless in this manner, and now we see Rubio is too.
-
Where is 120's scrutiny when it comes to the Democratic party?
120, you know you are closet liberal. We have known that for over years now. Stop trying to present yourself as some objective political thinker.
-
:o :o :o
-
Where is 120's scrutiny when it comes to the Democratic party?
120, you know you are closet liberal. We have known that for over years now. Stop trying to present yourself as some objective political thinker.
180 thinks he fooling everyone.
-
Where is 120's scrutiny when it comes to the Democratic party?
120, you know you are closet liberal. We have known that for over years now. Stop trying to present yourself as some objective political thinker.
ask me about any liberal. Pelosi got rich off shady deals. Reid is a horrible POS. Obama is a liar. Biden is a windbag.
These are established facts.
however, the GOP chose people like rubio to FIX the problem.
When we hear that his primary story of overcoming turmoil, his ocnnection to the community, his inspiration for perserverance - is completely false? And that he only started telling this false story in 2009, that he told the true story in 2006?
Well, it scoots Rubio right on over into that class of liars and worthless humps known as democrats. Marco Rubio (D). There you have it.
-
However, I don't know that defending Rubio by saying "Obama did it too!'
This is not about Rubio. At least not my comments. My comment is about your lack of objectivity and fairness. You jump all over Rubio, but where were you when Obama lied about this and his association with Rev. Wright and Ayers and a lot more issues than those? Where? No where.
Rubio is defended by the lack of facts and proof by the writer of the Washington Post article that you posted. That piece you put up doesn't prove anything since the writer can't provide a single speech where Rubio made such statement. And the speech used by the writer as evidence had nothing to do with his own family.
-
Yes, more anti-Obama video will surely help to mask Rubio's intentional lies.
Rubio is in obama's class now. They lie about their family's acomplishments to try to deliver some sort of credibility.
Rubio = Obama.
-
ask me about any liberal. Pelosi got rich off shady deals. Reid is a horrible POS. Obama is a liar. Biden is a windbag.
These are established facts.
however, the GOP chose people like rubio to FIX the problem.
When we hear that his primary story of overcoming turmoil, his ocnnection to the community, his inspiration for perserverance - is completely false? And that he only started telling this false story in 2009, that he told the true story in 2006?
Well, it scoots Rubio right on over into that class of liars and worthless humps known as democrats. Marco Rubio (D). There you have it.
again - you cant stop lying can you?
-
Yes, more anti-Obama video will surely help to mask Rubio's intentional lies.
Rubio is in obama's class now. They lie about their family's acomplishments to try to deliver some sort of credibility.
Rubio = Obama.
You have officially lost it. My God bro - what the fuck happened to you and what is wrong you?
-
This is not about Rubio.
Thread title:
Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show
-
You are a very intelligent man, 120.
But you are an emotional liberal. That is why liberalism is the death nail for this country.
You are more than eager to attack the GOP, FIRST.
You will then claim that DNC=GOP when told that you posted nothing about a Dem doing the same thing months or even years prior.
Let me save you some agita. Obama is done in 2012.
-
Thread title:
Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show
I am referring to my comments. And Rubio did not embellish and documents don't show in which speech or speeches he "embellished". So you have nothing.
-
Yes, more anti-Obama video will surely help to mask Rubio's intentional lies.
Rubio is in obama's class now. They lie about their family's acomplishments to try to deliver some sort of credibility.
Rubio = Obama.
240, you missed the point entirely.
The point is that I never see you start threads on here showing your outrage over democrats doing it.
"I have visited all 57 states."
"I’ll get rid of earmarks"
"I Barely Know Rezko"
"Didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was Radical"
"Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year"
"Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus"
"I will have the most transparent administration in History"
-
Did the Washington Post embellish Marco Rubio's 'embellishments'?
The Washington Post just released this interesting story headlined "Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show." The paper flagged a clear inaccuracy in his official Senate biography that states the Senator's parents "came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”
That's false. Rubio's parents came to the US before then, in 1956. They remained in the US after Castro took over in 1959. They returned to Cuba for brief stints early on, before the country devolved into Soviet-style totalitarianism.
But the top of the story suggests Rubio himself has given this "dramatic account:" that "he was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after 'a thug,' Fidel Castro, took power." (Update note: The story struck the word "dramatic").
However, the story doesn't cite one speech where Rubio actually said that.
To back up the lead, the Washington Post excerpts from a 2006 address in the Florida House where Rubio said “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee... Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress...and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.”
The catch: If you listen to the speech, Rubio isn't just talking about those who specifically fled Cuba after Castro took power. He doesn't say that his parents fled Cuba. Instead, he was talking about "a community of exiles." That is: He was talking about all the Cubans who live in Miami.
Regardless of when his parents left Cuba, they were exiles because they stayed in the US, specifically Miami, in a community where they soon felt they couldn't go back to their homeland. Though the story said his parents left for economic reasons, it's silent about the fact that the dictator before Castro, Batista, was so brutal that it made Castro look like a good alternative at first. (Insert debate over the fairness of the post-Castro Cuban Adjustment Act here).
The Post also says "the supposed flight of Rubio’s parents has been at the core of the young senator’s political identity." That's a stretch. The actual story of the "flight" is far less emphasized than the fact that Rubio's an Hispanic Republican, and the child of immigrants and exiles (Update note: I mistakenly called him an immigrant and exile in original post).
So to suggest Rubio serially embellished the "dramatic" story of his parents fleeing Cuba could be a little too dramatic itself. And it might be an embellishment as well -- absent more information clearly showing Rubio has repeatedly said his parents fled Castro's Cuba.
Rubio's office has told both the Washinton Post, the St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald that his parents came to the United States prior to Castro taking power. And he has said it more than once. In the article we wrote last month about his pending autobiography, Rubio clearly told us his parents came here before Castro took power. He struggled to recall the year (this isn't in the story, it's in my notes) and said it was in "57 or 58 or 59."
When asked pointedly: Was it before the revolution? Rubio said it was before the revolution.
The Washington Post found two examples in FOX interviews where Rubio gave different accounts of the date his parents left the island.
In one interview, he said "my parents and grandparents came here from Cuba in '58, '59." In another interview, he said his parents came over in 1959. He wasn't asked if it was before or after the revolution. Fox Business host David Asman just presumed "they were exiles from Fidel Castro's Cuba after he took over."
Rubio didn't correct him.
So, to a degree, Rubio could be guilty of failing to correct something in the news media that inured to his gain (he and his people are quick to to criticize inaccuracies they don't like almost the second they hit the internet).
Rubio's inability to remember these specific dates isn't much of a surprise. Rubio is sometimes sloppy. When he was in the Florida House, he failed to disclose a loan at one point and fill out his financial disclosures properly. He rung up a host of personal and questionable expenses on a Republican Party of Florida credit card and couldn't show how they furthered party business.
Indeed, the Washington Post story notes that "details have changed in his accounts" of his grandmother's death -- whether it happened when his father was 6 or 9. That's not embellishment. That's evidence of sloppiness.
The controversy over his parents was first printed in the St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald because the documents in question were first released by a birther. He says Rubio, though born in Miami, wasn't a "natural-born citizen" because his parents weren't citizens. (What's the guy think about C-sections?) That story is here.
While writing this, Rubio's office just sent out this angry response:
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio issued the following statement regarding false allegations that he embellished his family’s history:
“To suggest my family’s story is embellished for political gain is outrageous. The dates I have given regarding my family’s history have always been based on my parents’ recollections of events that occurred over 55 years ago and which were relayed to me by them more than two decades after they happened. I was not made aware of the exact dates until very recently.
“What’s important is that the essential facts of my family’s story are completely accurate. My parents are from Cuba. After arriving in the United States, they had always hoped to one day return to Cuba if things improved and traveled there several times. In 1961, my mother and older siblings did in fact return to Cuba while my father stayed behind wrapping up the family’s matters in the U.S. After just a few weeks living there, she fully realized the true nature of the direction Castro was taking Cuba and returned to the United States one month later, never to return.
“They were exiled from the home country they tried to return to because they did not want to live under communism. That is an undisputed fact and to suggest otherwise is outrageous.”
Read more: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/10/did-the-washington-post-embellish-marco-rubios-embellishments.html#ixzz1bWYQgwlh
-
Rubio = Obama.
So that means you support Rubio now?
-
So that means you support Rubio now?
anyone saying Rubio = Obama is a fucking moron. And yes 180 - if you feel that way, knowing what we know about Obama - you are a fucking moron.
-
You are a very intelligent man, 120.
But you are an emotional liberal. That is why liberalism is the death nail for this country.
You are more than eager to attack the GOP, FIRST.
You will then claim that DNC=GOP when told that you posted nothing about a Dem doing the same thing months or even years prior.
Let me save you some agita. Obama is done in 2012.
(http://www.priorfatgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/YouHitTheNailOnTheHead.jpg#you%20nailed%20it)
-
Team Obama: ‘Must … Stop … Rubio!’
Pajamas Media ^ | October 21, 2011 | Henry Gomez
Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2011 10:14:59 AM by Kaslin
The possibililty of Marco Rubio entering the fray has Obama 2012 scrambling for dirt.
Recent articles published in the Washington Post and the St. Petersburg Times delve into the family story of Marco Rubio, Florida’s junior senator, implying that he’s embellished it for dramatic effect. It’s no surprise that Rubio is the subject of increasing amounts of scrutiny from the mainstream media these days, as he’s rapidly become one of the most articulate voices for conservatism in America.
Rubio’s rise to national prominence began when he challenged Florida’s Republican governor, Charlie Crist, in the GOP primary in 2010. Although he had been speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives, Rubio was virtually unknown outside of Miami. He ran a perfect campaign, with support from the Tea Party: they saw Crist as a “RINO” who embraced President Obama (literally and figuratively). Rubio drove the once extremely popular Crist out of the Republican Party — he is now a pitchman for ambulance-chasing attorneys.
After being inaugurated in January, Rubio waited until June to give his “maiden speech” on the Senate floor, the last of the freshmen senators to do so. Since then he’s been actively attacking President Obama and his policies, on everything from the debt to foreign policy. He’s been a frequent guest on the conservative talk radio circuit, as well as on Fox News.
So compelling is Rubio’s rhetoric that he has been speculated about for the number two spot on his party’s ticket before the top slot is even filled. Though most of the talk has been about Rubio as a running mate, many conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, have openly asked why Senator Rubio isn’t running for president.
That speculation about a potential President Marco Rubio has resulted in a high degree of scrutiny among the mainstream media performed with a fervor they never had when it came to investigating the junior senator from Illinois in 2008.
First, Univision ran a piece about Rubio’s brother in-law, who was convicted of cocaine trafficking in the 1980s when Rubio was a teenager. The piece backfired when Rubio staffers alleged that Univision offered to spike the story if the senator would agree to appear on one of its shows. As a result, several of the GOP’s candidates for president said they would boycott any debate hosted by Univision.
Undeterred, the Marco Rubio inquisition continued. A contingent claims that Rubio is not eligible to be president because his parents, who are from Cuba, were not American citizens at the time of his birth. However, Marco Rubio was born in the United States, both of his parents were here legally, he is a citizen of the United States, he has never been a citizen of any other country, and he never had to be naturalized.
In attaining records about the residency status of Rubio’s parents at the time of his birth, reporters have discovered that they migrated to the United States legally in 1956, a couple of years before Fidel Castro took power in Cuba. That’s only significant inasmuch as Rubio has portrayed himself as the child of exiles from Castro’s Cuba. The Washington Post and the St. Petersburg Times have now accused Rubio of distorting his family’s history to make it more compelling.
The exact date that Rubio’s parents left Cuba for the United States is a detail that is of little importance to most people outside of South Florida’s Cuban-American community, most of whom came over to flee the Castro regime. Were Rubio’s parents really exiles? The answer is a definite maybe.
First of all, it’s important to set the context. Prior to 1959 there had been a circular migration pattern between Cuba and Florida dating back centuries, as both were Spanish colonies. That continued even after Florida became a state and on into the 1950s when the doors to both countries were open to each other’s citizens. Cubans often came to the United States and then returned to Cuba, as my maternal grandfather did once.
It’s clear that Rubio’s parents did not leave Cuba in reaction to Fidel Castro’s rule, but there is reason to give people like the elder Rubios the benefit of the doubt on claiming to be exiles. In 1956 when the Rubios left Cuba, the armed insurrection led by Fidel Castro and his bloodthirsty Argentinean sidekick Ernesto Che Guevara was already well underway. There was a lot of political and social turmoil in the country. Whether the insurrection contributed to their decision to leave or not only they would know. But even if it played no part in their thought process, the fact remains that Castro came to power and changed Cuba radically. So much so that Rubio states that his parents could never go back. In a press release issued by his office, Rubio claims that his mother did return to Cuba in 1961 with the intention of having her husband join her to stay permanently. Upon realizing the direction the country was headed in, she decided to leave for the United States again.
Rubio’s parents did not become U.S. citizens until 1975. It’s quite possible that when they left Cuba in 1956 they had no intention of staying in the United States forever, and we can’t assume that they did. But while they were here, a revolution occurred in their home country that was so radical and catastrophic that — like more than a million of their countrymen who have since fled — they believed they could never go back while the illegitimate Castro regime remained in power.
Does that make them exiles? It’s good enough for me.
The “Rubio embellishes … ” headline is a twofer for the liberal media. Not only do they get to take a shot at a rising star in the conservative ranks, but also at a Cuban-American. As escapees from the socialist model that leftists revere, Cuban-Americans reject anything that resembles that ideology. This puts Cubans in a very small minority of reliably Republican Hispanics.
It should be noted that the Washington Post has expressed its disdain for Cuban-Americans before. In 2007 they published an outrageous cartoon by Pat Oliphant depicting a boatload of Cubans being shoved off by Uncle Sam, because the cartoonist viewed their opposition to then candidate Obama’s hopey-changey agenda as “interfering with the ’08 election.” Also, Manuel Roig-Franzia — the reporter who penned Thursday’s Rubio hit piece — has written several rosy portrayals of the Castro regime in Cuba and its alleged reforms. Roig-Franzia recently sold a book on Rubio to Simon & Schuster. I’m betting it won’t be flattering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
240 - will go to any length whatsoever to prop up Obama.
-
If the media had as much of an infatuation with vetting democrats as they do republicans, would Obama even be president?
Couldn't care less about Rubio's life-story given that a community organizer whose entire claim to the presidency is that he spent a lot of time voting "present" in the senate. Rubio won't be Ron Paul's running mate anyway.
-
If the media had as much of an infatuation with vetting democrats as they do republicans, would Obama even be president?
Funny how they gug up Rubio family records yet cant find the same for Obama's grifter parents. And even funnier - they colud care less.
-
Funny how they gug up Rubio family records yet cant find the same for Obama's grifter parents. And even funnier - they colud care less.
Don't worry, 120 will now claim the media doesn't go to bat for Obama. ::)
-
If the media had as much of an infatuation with vetting democrats as they do republicans, would Obama even be president?
Remember the New York Times running the front page article a couple of months before the election about John McCain supposedly cheating on his wife?
-
If the media had as much of an infatuation with vetting democrats as they do republicans, would Obama even be president?
Couldn't care less about Rubio's life-story given that a community organizer whose entire claim to the presidency is that he spent a lot of time voting "present" in the senate. Rubio won't be Ron Paul's running mate anyway.
Oh, he would have never been elected.
Wasn't there a report months after the election, in which emails were found showing that a large group of reporters had agreed to not write anything that would embarrass Obama and to focus an attack on McCain and Palin?
-
Oh, he would have never been elected.
Wasn't there a reports months after the election, in which emails were found showing that a large group of reporters had agreed to not write anything that would embarrass Obama and to focus an attack on McCain and Palin?
I think I remember 333 posting it. "Journolist" or something. I believe it's headed by Ezra Klein, if I remember correctly.
-
so this thread has repeatedly been steered by yall into "how the media protects obama".
I concede compltely that they do. but that's now what this thread is about.
It's about rubio knowingly telling a false story to win love from a hispanic voting base. He told a story (that he knew was false in 2006) over and over. He played the victim.
This thead isn't about how much obama sucks. Yes, he does suck, it's true. But this thread is where you say "Rubio is a liar" or "Rubio didn't lie - here's why..."
The only defense thus far was that he knew the actual story in 2006... which actually makes him look WORSE because it proves his new excuse of "my fmaily always told me this tale, I thought it was true..." In his own words, he knew the truth in 2006.
So we have 2 options. He either FORGOT from 2006 to 20009. Or, he chose to lie to wiwn favor with votetrs by playing the victim card. Which is it?
-
He either FORGOT from 2006 to 20009.
So now Rubio is a Time Traveler?
-
So now Rubio is a Time Traveler?
:D
-
If the media had as much of an infatuation with vetting democrats as they do republicans, would Obama even be president?
Couldn't care less about Rubio's life-story given that a community organizer whose entire claim to the presidency is that he spent a lot of time voting "present" in the senate. Rubio won't be Ron Paul's running mate anyway.
It's funny - this was 4 years ago - we were mocking Obama for voting present 3% of the time, and using Rubio as a shiny example of how it should be done - and he was voting present a full 8.1% of the time, in order to avoid pissing people off/getting on the record.
Just goes to show... if obama was too absent with 3%... how in the world isn't rubio?
Of the lawmakers currently serving in the U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the least likely to show up for work. He’s been in office for four years, and of 1,198 opportunities to vote, he has declined to do so 99 times. That’s an absentee rate of 8.2 percent—four times the Senate average of 2.01 percent.
Obama voted present 129 times out of 4000 votes.
Obama voted present 3% of the time.
Rubio? He's absent 8.1 % of the time.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/obamas-legislative-record/
Rubio missed a lot more votes than obama.
-
HAHAHA.... look at these dweebs and their so called "analysis" of facts that have been evident for several years.
The part of "Obama is done in 2012" was a nice laugh. That election really turned out to be a toss up.