WASHINGTON & SANTA FE, NM
(By
Tim
Padgett,
Time)
October 24, 2011 ― U.S.
Senator
Marco
Rubio
got it
from
both
sides
this
past
week.
First it
was the
birthers,
who it
turns
out are
equal
opportunity
delusionals.
The
nativist
activists,
who’ve
misspent
every
waking
hour
since
November
2008
claiming
Barack
Obama is
not
really a
U.S.
citizen,
and
therefore
not
really
our
President,
have no
qualms
about
insisting
a fellow
conservative
like
Rubio is
not
really a
U.S.
citizen,
and
therefore
not
really
eligible
to be
our Vice
President
should
the
eventual
Republican
presidential
nominee
tap him
next
year.
The
Florida
Senator,
a
Cuban-American,
was born
here in
Miami in
1971 on
U.S.
soil.
But
because
Rubio’s
parents
weren’t
U.S.
citizens
at the
time,
the
birthers
believe
a strict
interpretation
of our
Constitution
renders
him less
than a
citizen.
Which
is, of
course,
an
absurd
interpretation,
as
ridiculous
as their
relentless
pursuit
of
Obama’s
Kenyan
birth
certificate.
Nevertheless,
as in
Obama’s
case,
the
birthers
snared
the
media’s
attention,
and that
helped
lead to
a
Washington
Post
article
questioning
Rubio’s
claim he
is the
son of
Cuban
exiles.
But the
ensuing
uproar
over
that
controversy
made
Democrats
and
liberals
look a
bit
like,
well,
birthers.
The Post
story
published
Thursday
night
challenges
Rubio’s
personal
narrative
his
parents
left
Cuba and
Fidel
Castro’s
communist
tyranny
–
records
dug up
by the
birthers
also
show
Rubio’s
parents
originally
came to
the U.S.
a few
years
before
Castro’s
1959
revolution
– and it
claims
as a
result
the
young,
eloquent
Rubio
used his
family
history
dishonestly
during
his
meteoric
rise
from
Florida
House
Speaker
to his
Tea
Party-backed
election
last
November
as U.S.
Senator.
The
newspaper
was
right to
show
Rubio
should
have
been
more
careful
about
the
details,
and his
official
website
on
Friday
corrected
the
timing
of his
parents’
arrival
in
Miami.
But with
all due
respect
to the
Post,
some of
its
story’s
contentions
themselves
seem
exaggerated.
Marc
Caputo,
one of
Florida’s
best
political
reporters
and
hardly a
Rubio
apologist,
points
out on
the
Miami
Herald’s
Naked
Politics
blog the
Post
emphasizes
a 2006
speech
in which
Rubio,
addressing
Cuban
exiles,
says,
“Today
your
children
and
grandchildren
are the
secretary
of
commerce
of the
United
States
and
multiple
members
of
Congress”
and
“even
Speaker
of the
Florida
House,”
referring
to
himself.
Caputo
notes
Rubio
never
claims
his
parents
fled
Castro.
“Instead,”
he
writes,
“he was
talking
about ‘a
community
of
exiles’…all
the
Cubans
who live
in
Miami”:
Regardless
of when
his
parents
left
Cuba,
they
were
exiles
because
they
stayed
in the
U.S.,
specifically
Miami,
in a
community
where
they
soon
felt
they
couldn’t
go back
to their
homeland.
And as
Rubio
has
argued
in his
rebuttals
to the
Post,
his
parents
moved
back and
forth
between
Florida
and Cuba
in the
late
1950s,
and they
may well
have
intended
to
reside
there
again
permanently,
but were
prevented
by the
revolution.
Caputo
is right
to point
out in
Miami’s
Cuban-American
community,
“exile”
is a
fairly
broad
term
that
denotes
not just
fleeing
Castro,
but also
being
unable
to
return
because
of
Castro,
regardless
of when
one’s
family
may have
crossed
the
Florida
Straits
– all of
which
makes
the
Post’s
accusation
of
biographical
falsification
less
compelling.
What’s
more
worrisome,
however,
is the
rather
hypocritical
way
Democrats
and
liberals
are now
pouncing
on the
Post
piece as
some
sort of
Nixonian
smoking
gun. If
there is
one
thing
that
Americans
left of
center
should
have
learned
from the
ugly
birthers-vs.-Obama
episode,
it’s the
country
has got
to
extract
our
politics
from
character
assaults
that are
as
civically
trivial
as they
are
socially
corrosive.
Democratic
leaders
like
Matt
Canter,
spokesman
for the
party’s
Senatorial
Campaign
Committee,
apparently
didn’t
get that
memo. In
an
overheated
release
Friday
titled
“Rubio’s
Chronic
Credibility
Problem,”
Canter
declared,
“We know
Rubio is
a Tea
Partier
who
wants to
dismantle
Medicare
and cut
Social
Security,
but the
latest
Washington
Post
bombshell
confirms
Rubio
seriously
struggles
to tell
the
truth
and
can’t be
trusted.”
Canter
went on
to say
the Post
report
“shows
Rubio
embellished
the
facts of
his
biography,
a key
narrative
Rubio
used
during
his
Senate
campaign
last
year.”
Aside
from
calling
the Post
story a
“bombshell,”
there’s
something
else
wrong
with
this:
Rubio’s
exile
parentage,
while
it’s the
sort of
bio
point
any
politician
would
hype,
was not
a “key
narrative”
that got
him
elected.
What got
Marco
Rubio
elected
was a
combination
of
precocious
political
smarts,
Tea
Party
backing
and,
sorry
Mr.
Canter,
a weak
Democratic
candidate
whose
own
party in
the end
seemed
to
prefer
Florida
Governor
Charlie
Crist,
the
moderate
Republican
who went
independent
when it
was
obvious
he
couldn’t
beat
Rubio in
the GOP
primary.
Nevertheless,
liberal
groups
this
weekend
are
trying
to turn
the Post
piece
into
Exile-gate.
Advocacy
organizations
like
American
Bridge
21st
Century
are
featuring
Fox News
interviews
with
Rubio on
their
websites
that
they
claim
catch
him in
the act
of lying
to the
American
electorate
about
his
family
history.
But
they, in
turn,
are
simply
getting
caught
in the
act of
taking
the same
personal
potshots
they
denounce
the Tea
Party
for
firing
at
Obama.
Just as
it’s
never
enough
for the
right to
question
his
policies
– they
have to
annihilate
his
citizenship,
his
Christianity
– now
the left
looks
determined
to show
it’s not
enough
to
criticize
Rubio’s
positions
– they
need to
obliterate
an
otherwise
genuine
and
impressive
story of
Cuban
immigrants,
a
bartender
and a
hotel
maid,
whose
son
became a
U.S.
Senator.
For his
part,
Rubio,
40,
recently
insisted
he does
not want
to be
the
Republican
Party’s
vice
presidential
candidate.
But if
he wants
to
continue
as the
popular
face of
the
GOP’s
future,
he needs
to be,
as
Caputo
of the
Herald
also
points
out,
less
“sloppy”
about
these
kinds of
political
and
personal
details
in the
public
arena.
Not just
about
the
dates of
his
parents’
migrations,
but more
important
financial
matters
like
questionable
loans,
party-issued
credit
card use
and PAC
contribution
disclosures,
which
became
legitimate
issues
in last
year’s
Senate
election.
Those
are
concerns
worthy
of civic
debate.












