Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Touchy, touchy, touchy

Now we know two new things about Senator Marco Rubio.

His family emigrated from Cuba when Batista was in power (1956) rather than fleeing it after the communist takeover (1959), as reported by the Washington Post last week.

And he has a very thin skin.

The Post’s article sent him and his operation into a Clintonesque, attack-the-attacker, rapid response blitz that befits a campaigner in full stride rather than a Senator settling into the first year of his first six-year term.

Something like this simply would not do: “It was my error. My parents did immigrate in 1956. They did not suffer being driven into exile, but for them any thoughts of returning to Cuba ended when Castro took over.”

Instead we got this: “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.”

Ok, fine, he shouldn’t tolerate that. He might also consider that his sense of outrage is a little inflated. After all, the Liberal Media didn’t write the official bio on his Senate website that said his parents “came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover.” At some point, one wonders if he thought his parents’ story was a little prosaic compared to those who actually fled communism with the clothes on their back.

Rubio has bought himself some trouble on the right; see this commentary at FrumForum. More cutting is this commentary from Cuban-American journalist Rick Sanchez, formerly of CNN. He argues that Rubio’s views on policies toward immigrants, which already distance him from many Latinos, lost a central personal justification if his family is considered regular immigrants rather than refugees who fled persecution:

It’s an inspiring American story – a son of political refugees becoming a U.S. Senator. But that’s all it is – a story. It’s not reality.

Unlike mine, Rubio’s family left by choice, not necessity. Unlike mine, Rubio’s family left before Castro even took over.

Rubio says he just “got a few dates wrong.” That’s how he excuses his falsehood about when his parents fled Cuba. With that story, he convinced Americans that he was the son of political refugees, implying that it somehow made him different from the other Hispanics who he attacks regularly – the ones in Arizona, Georgia and Alabama that he and others want to detain, arrest and kick out. How dare they come here looking for work and to better their lot in life? Marco Rubio made us believe he is different from them when he’s not.

Meanwhile, there seem to be two different Rubio accounts of his mother’s return to Cuba in 1961, its purpose and duration – one from 2009 and one from last week (Herald/NPR).


The Washington Post on Rubio’s responses.

Mitt Romney said: “I think the world of Marco Rubio, support him entirely and think that the effort to try to smear him was unfortunate and bogus.”

A Fox interview where Rubio says he would reject the VP nomination in 2012 – a statement that, if it were a lie, would be perfectly acceptable.


Anonymous said...

How does a Cuban American get those dates wrong -- they don't unless they do it for political purposes. Worst kind. And how can you be an exile if your mother went back in 1961? The only good coming from this would be the end of his political career.

brianmack said...

My family from both sides came from Ireland. I know the exact dates from
both mother and father's side. If Mr. Rubio is telling the truth, I would submit that he's not hitting
the IQ mark that is required to run this great country. I think the opposite and there's no way this guy will run and win a national election. We need the best of the best to handle that problems we're facing.


Anonymous said...

Eso de mentir para embellecer biografias no es nuevo en Miami. Tomese la falsificación del papel de Rafael Diaz Balart en la amnistia de Fidel Castro de 1955.

Sabido es que como el dirigente de la mayoria del partido gubernamental en la Cámara de Representantes, Batista le encomendó a Diaz Balart que lograra la aprobación de la Amnistia de los Delitos Políticos de 1955. Tarea que Diaz Balart cumplió disciplinadamente.

Pero como Fidel Castro posteriormente derrocó a Batista, Diaz Ballart tuvo que posteriormente durante muchos años aguantar las críticas mal intencionadas de sus colegas Batistianos de que el fue el responsable de la liberación de Fidel Castro.

Y el no podía quedarse con esa espinita por dentro. Se aprovechó de que era el más joven de los representantes y espero muchos años a que todos sus colegas o hubiesen fallecido o estuviesen recluidos en asilos de ancianos para falsificar una carta protestando por la amnistia de Fidel Castro y pronosticando sus desmanes futuros.

Toda la prensa de Miami da ese episodio por cierto sin molestarse en comprobar el Diario de Sesiones de la Camara de Representantes de esa época donde se recogen los discursos de Rafael Diaz Balart en favor de la aprobación de dicha medida y no aparece mención ninguna de la supuesta carta profética.

Y luego sus hijos Lincoln y Mario Diaz Balart se aprovecharon de cualquier ocasión para divulgar la falsificación ya que la misma les proporcionaba dividendos políticos.

Al lado de este episodio que la prensa del exilio no ha divulgado, la distorción de la biografía del Senador Marcos Rubio es pecata minuta!