Seems that Florida Senator and Tea Party darling Marco Rubio may have a tougher trip to the Veep appointment now that public records have revealed that he lied about when his parents came to the USA. He's always claimed, in a compelling personal story that had endeared him to the Florida Cuban ex-pat community , that his folks fled Cuba in 1959, running away from Castro and communism,in the great exile that swept thousands of Cubans into the US as it swept Castro into power. Ooooops. Turns out a right-wing birther, ironically, tracked down the records that show Rubio's parents actually came to the US in 1956, not 1959. Castro was in Mexico at the time, in jail I believe! The Washington Post reporter who broke the story hints that Rubio lied about the dates in order to become one with the large and politically influential Cuban exile community, and to disguise the fact that his parents were actually among those who abandoned Cuba early, not a particularly admirable group, according to the reporter. Rubio admits he lied about the dates, but claims it was a mistake in his oral family history, not an intentional political ploy. Questions: Why did his parents never correct him when he publicly retold his exile story, repeatedly? Why did his parents never apply to become US citizens until 1975, four years after Marco was born? Why didn't Rubio's team take care of this boo-boo when they first learned of it over a year ago and knew folks were snooping around looking for dates? And will this hurt the Senator from Florida in his quest to become a national star?
So given the dates, if the Rubios were fleeing anything it was probably the oppressive dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, a former Socialist/Progressive of sorts who sold out, turned Right, and ruled and grew rich with the support of American corporate interests as well as Uncle Sam himself and the American mafia. There's certainly nothing wrong with getting out of a place governed by the likes of Batista. I probably would have left too. But it obviously doesn't seem to be a case of a brave family leaving everything behind in order to escape the oppressive grip of Communism, which is apparently the narrative Mr Rubio is trying to sell us.
I think most people would be willing to give the benefit of doubt about a mistake in family history that happened 2 decades before someone was born. Now, if he actually found out the story didn't add up at some point and did not update his story (official biography, website, etc) then he should be held to task for that. Is either scandalous enough to tar his reputation for life? I wouldn't think so with most people but it may hurt him with a segment of voters who would base their vote upon such stupid things as when his parents left Cuba.
Which makes it so baffling that an up and comer like Rubio would ignore the questions that were being raised by this birther group. I grant that Rubio's team thought these folks were, if not fringe, then at least wrong about their reading of "natural born citizen." But regardless of their motives, would you not think that a guy frequently named as a likely VP pick would figure out a way to respond when asked directly by these folks why public records conflict with his public statements? He finally did change his website and bio info ... today. Very bad optics.
In terms of the politics, I think your last sentence is just the type of clarity that Rubio doesn't want on this story. If nothing else, maybe the episode will generate more interest in the story of what was going on in Cuba, and how we were involved, before the Castro brothers sailed to their destinies in December1956. Some red-state blogs are frantically trying to rewrite history as we speak.
You wouldn't care to back up Castro's whereabouts in 1956, would you? What I am finding is that he was in Mexico, USA, and Cuba - none of which included jail.
He You're correct. He was released from prison in 1955 and was in Mexico until December 1956. Rubio's parents were already here before Castro ever left Mexico. So unless they were fleeing Mexico, they were not fleeing Castro. None of which answers the question of why would Rubio just ignore queries into the dates of his parent's migration -- especially when several of those asking told his staff that they had public documents showing the dates Rubio was promoting to be wrong -- when he had to know that this would eventually be made public? His harsh blustery attempt to slap down the reporter was amateur hour, IMHO.
One thing you have to understand is that these birther types aren't all that interested in actual facts. They aren't interested fact checking what they are told but just want to believe rather than verify. I mean how many of them have stood up and said, "Oh I guess we were wrong about Obama not being born in this country"? You will not hear it from them because they still don't believe it. Whatever they chose to believe about Rubio is what they are going to believe about him regardless of the truth. It isn't about reality, it is about winning in spite of the reality.
Let's try a little experiment here Stu and let's use Rubio's birther supports. I think most people would be willing to give the benefit of doubt about a non-mistake in family history that happened 5 decades ago. Now, if he actually found out the story did add up at many points and did update his story (official biography, website, etc) then he should be given credit for that. Is either scandalous enough to tar his reputation for life and bring his presidency into question? I wouldn't think so with most people but it may hurt him with a segment of voters who would base their vote upon such stupid things as whether or not his American born mother left the U.S. when he was born.
If you don't like the narrative that exists, you do a little cut and paste, or often just cut, and make up pretty much what you want to replace it. You'll discover that no one cares all that much whether it's true or not as long as they like the sound of it and it'll drive the opposition crazy trying to knock keep up with all the lies and half-truths. If there are few facts and dates that might easily be proved wrong make sure that they can be plausibly blamed on faulty memory but at the same time you don't necessarily need to correct them in the story that you've already put out there. Keep it all short, shallow and mostly at a third-grade reading and comprehension level with just enough "hard stuff" in there to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. Repeat it constantly. It works brilliantly, as our RW friends have shown us.
How many lies are being maintained today because the consequences of those lies have not come to be realized yet? “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels If the rest of us were smart, we'd make sure that the consequences of the lies being told were realized sooner rather than later.
I agree with you. If anything, the birthers doubled down on Obama and made the case that THEY were delusional. They are so wedded to their fantasy of a Manchurian candidate -- it keeps them sorta sane after they had to acknowledge Obama's election -- that they cannot let it go in spite of facts right in their faces. I do find it ironic that a right-wing birther group outted Rubio, even though I know they snooped around only because they are also delusional on "natural born citizen" concepts.
I could be wrong, but it might be like one of those gynocological thing-a-majigs... those saddles or harnesses or demented torture devices docs use. ...I didn't know he was a doctor...