Skip to comments.Washington Post Steps Up Attacks on Marco Rubio
Posted on 10/30/2011 3:37:32 PM PDT by neverdem
Last week, the Washington Post attacked Marco Rubio for misrepresenting his familys story. The Post got called out by other newspapers for the Posts egregious truth stretching to make its story fit. In the quotes the Washington Post cited, the reporter misrepresented the context of Marco Rubios remarks. It was true that Rubio had gotten some details wrong. But it was also very clear that they were the innocent mistakes of a son retelling his parents story. It was also true the Washington Post got parts of its reporting wrong.
But the Washington Post has not stopped. Now the paper is back at it premising a new article on the last story without nothing the Washington Post itself got key elements of its story wrong. This time, the Washington Post wants to make the case that Marco Rubio could be a risky Vice Presidential pick for the GOP.
We have a President of the United States who, for twenty years, worshiped in Jeremiah Wrights church, had his house paid for by Tony Rezko, claimed his uncle freed Jews at Auschwitz, snorted cocaine, and got other key biographical details wrong and the Washington Post never seemed to think he was too risky.
The other angle of attack in the Washington Post is defending Univisions smear of Rubios family. Marco Rubio refused to do an interview with the very liberal leaning network. After Rubio refused to do the interview, Univision ran a report on Marco Rubios brother-in-law being arrested 24 years ago for drug trafficking. Univision denies a connection and argues about the time line.
But somehow, according to the Washington Post, these two incidents make Rubio risky. There really is more of a story here than the Washington Post lets on.
Everyone knows that despite Rubios...
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Once the WaPo selects a political target, they will relentlessly go after it like they did George Allen.
the innocent mistakes of a son retelling his parents story?
Not so fast. At first I agreed with idea that Rubio was being unfairly treated. BUT, after seeing him (Rubio himself) trying to explain this, I became convinced that he actually had embellished his family's story. The only other explanation is that his parents lied to him his whole life, including as he lied to potential voters. I find that hard to believe.
He made it sound like they escaped from Cuba UNDER CASTRO. They left years earlier, and then went back, only to leave again. They originally left for economic reasons.
Rubio absolutely did HYPE the story. Now, am I surprised that a politician would hype a personal story? No. Sometimes they just make stuff up, like being born in Hawaii, when anyone with a brain knows you were born in Kenya.
Rubio seems like a good guy, but he is no saint. Only fair for him to be called on this. The simple answer is to always tell the truth. Don't even exaggerate. The plain truth. It works for me. You can't be caught in a lie, if you never tell one.
Once in a great while a man or woman comes along who is pure of heart and virtuous in all they do. There is nothing more fearful to liberals or their media.
“This time, the Washington Post wants to make the case that Marco Rubio could be a risky Vice Presidential pick for the GOP.”
Gee, I never would have guessed that the first story was biased.
Marco Rubio refused to do an interview with the very liberal leaning network. After Rubio refused to do the interview, Univision ran a report on Marco Rubioâs brother-in-law being arrested 24 years ago for drug trafficking. Univision denies a connection and argues about the time line. But somehow, according to the Washington Post, these two incidents make Rubio risky...I'm just glad they're soooo concerned.
In January 1963, the mentally disturbed owner of the Washington Post, Phillip Graham, startled a gathering of newspaper editors at the swank Arizona Biltmore Hotel by seizing the convention microphone and spinning a bizarre tale of a presidential affair all the while undressing.
He covered up for his friends at the CIA over Cuba and then killed himself???
Wonder what paper his son runs ? Washington Post.
I just put on my flame suit.
To become president and VP, there are two ridged requirements, and one cannot be separated from the other:
1. Both parents have to be U.S. citizens at the time of the childs birth.
2. The child has to be born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. of A.
#1. Eliminates Rubio. His parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth athough he was born in the U.S.
# 2. Eliminates McCain although both parents were U.S. citizens. He was born in Colon, Rep of Panama. He lied in his liar book stating he was born in Coco Solo, a military installation in the Canal Zone although a hospital was not existent there until 5-6 years after his birth. Had he been born in the Canal Zone, he still would not have been a natural born citizen since he was not born within the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Neither one (Rubio and McCain) are Natural Born Citizens as myself. I was not born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Therefore, I am not a Natural Born Citizen. Only when it comes to taxing me .Crooks since I still dont live in the U.S. of A.
The cheeky Kenyan bastard is even worse than the above. He does not fit both categories
I think "nothing" here was meant to be "noting."
Since Vittal is your holy writ, what does he say? First, he equates "native born" and "natural born citizen." That's important and often left out by the birther movement.
Second, what happened in 1790? The very first Congress, and George Washington, rejected the conditions you claim are "rigid" in the "Naturalization Act of 1790" which specifically said children born of two citizen parents and NOT born in the United States were "natural born citizens."
To recap, 1. Even Vittal said natural born citizen means whatever "native born" does. 2. The first very Congress itself rejected Vittal's definition and the supposed rigidity of requirements. Natural born citizen means whoever Congress decides is a native born citizen.
Birthers won't care that they're wrong, they'll keep spreading misinformation.