It is tempting to view the recent Washington Post story on Marco Rubio as second in a series of hit pieces on prominent Republicans. Is it? John Hinderaker at Powerline certainly regards the piece as a smear of Rubio and, unsurprisingly, that's how Rubio views it. There is merit to these complaints. Here is the offensive passage.
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 two-and-a-half years before Castro's forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year's Day 1959.
The supposed flight of Rubio's parents has been at the core of the young senator's political identity, both before and after his stunning tea-party-propelled victory in last year's Senate election.
Unlike the Post's expose of Rick Perry's racist rock, which built a story out of virtually nothing, the Rubio piece does address a serious matter. Rubio is frequently discussed as a possible running mate for the Republican nominee to be named later. It is not too soon to inquire into Rubio's qualifications for the office. It turns out he was born in the U.S. and his citizenship is not at question.
Like the Perry's rock expose, the Manuel Roig-Franzia piece on Rubio clearly embellishes the facts in an effort to make them look like a scandal. Yes, Rubio has made political capital out of his identity as part of the Cuban exile community. Yes, his parents left Cuba three years before Castro came to power. Despite Roig-Franzia's heroic efforts, there is no contradiction here, let alone a scandal.
No doubt it would have made a better story if Rubio's parents had just made it on board the last boat leaving Havana, with communist bullets nipping at their heels; however, leaving a bit earlier than that doesn't mean that they aren't exiles. What makes you an exile is that you lived there before and you can't go back. It would certainly have been unsafe for the Rubio family to have repatriated to Cuba after Castro took over.
It is up to the Cuban exile community to decide whether Marco Rubio speaks for them. Roig-Franzia tells us that
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 there is any evidence that the Cuban community is prepared to disown the first Cuban American to be Speaker of the Florida House, Roig-Franzia fails to produce it. For the rest of us, Marco Rubio has plenty of authority to speak about tyranny.
The Washington Post seems to be striving to prove that it can be just as irresponsible as the New York Times. The Rubio piece is a hit piece, built on straw. I can't wait for the next installment.
Whatever happened to the idea of politicians telling the truth on their resumes? Rubio should have known better than this.It's the equivalent of the "birth certificate" scandal for Obama, only in this case, the evidence points to Mario being mistaken. Bonafides are either true, or they're not really bonafides, KB. No one would have questioned Livio's if he himself had not falsified them . He has only himself to blame for this.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 10:44 AM
... I suppose technically "bona fides" is not plural... oh well.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM
I don't fault Rubio's exaggerations regarding his parents' "exile" status. Given the hate within the Republican Party, Marco was likely to be labelled an anchor baby if he hadn't had the good fortune of Castro coming to power just in time to provide him a bit of cover.
But I give him a pass on this. Rubio may not have known the whole story. The pre-revolution immigrants had a different reason for coming here than the post-revolution generation. But they may have had the same reason to not return.
I've heard several stories about why my mother's family came over from Germany and began farming in Iowa. I tell the one I think justifies my political philosophy--that they were escaping increasing militarism in Europe. It's probably a lot more complicated, or it could be a lot more simple. How knows?
Posted by: Donald Pay | Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 11:34 AM
I find it hard to believe he didn't know, Don. That would be asking us to believe that there was never any discussion of what life was like under the Castro regime at the Livio house while he was growing up, or later when he became an adult. But I suppose it's possible. I suppose his parents and relatives could have been lying to him all along and he just now found out about it. Seems like a stretch, but yeah, if that's the case, give him a pass.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM
It is the custom in some circles to vilify the "main stream media" whenever it publishes documented facts that reflect poorly on one of the conservative heroes. But Mr. Pay is right about the reasons Cubans had for emigrating to the U.S. in 1957. Dictator Batista had an alliance with the wealthy Cuban landowners and the American Mafia that, much like the current distribution of wealth and power in our country at this time, excluded 99 percent of the Cuban people from opportunity to improve their lives. My father, a career military man who had assignments relating to Cuba, tells me that Batista had a large secret police force that carried out torture, imprisonment, and executions, and was responsible for killing about 20,000 Cuban citizens--with American-supplied weapons.
If the Rubios were not among the wealthy select, they had much more to fear and leave Cuba for than Fidel Castro, whose revolution did not succeed until 1959.
Posted by: Anne | Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 03:37 PM
Exactly, Anne. His parents fled a completely different regime, one that Castro actually ran out of power. Now that the story has been opened up, it will be interesting to hear the rest of it.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 04:43 PM
Great article Dr. Blanchard!
Posted by: The Dude | Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Bill: as far as I can tell, the Post comes up with only one example where Rubio clearly fibbed. In a biographical statement, he says that his parents fled Castro. Otherwise, all his statements are careful. That very fact suggests that he was deliberately padding his resume. I concede your point.
But how big a point is it? Rubio's family is genuinely part of the Cuban exile community either way. As for your question "Whatever happened to the idea of politicians telling the truth on their resumes?", well, did you vote against Obama because Biden lied about his own family history? How seriously did you take it that John Kerry fibbed a bit about events in Vietnam? Maybe we should take these things more seriously, but we don't.
Anne: thanks for your story. It confirms that Cuba was a good place to escape from even before Castro. Yes, the Batista regime was oppressive. And yes, Bill, Castro ran it out of power. He replaced it with a much more efficiently oppressive regime.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 11:19 PM
And then there is the despicable NPR: http://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141663197/rubio-tries-to-clarify-how-his-family-left-cuba
Posted by: Anne | Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 03:06 PM