« Why Barack Obama should thank GOP Sen. Alan Hays for check-Hispanic-citizenship comments | Main | Judge subpoenaed DCF workers in attempt to flush out leak in Barahona case »

Latest liberal attack on Marco Rubio misuses the word "exile"

Based on a Washington Post report, the Democratic group American Bridge 21st Century has released a web ad that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio of embellishing his family history regarding when they left Cuba. There's some dispute about the depth of his embellishments. Here's our take and the Republican-blogger take.

The group does a good job unearthing evidence of Rubio repeatedly saying his parents came to the United States in 1959, which would make them look like refugees from Fidel Castro's revolution. They came in 1956, before the revolution. His official Senate biography, as the Post pointed out, got this fact wrong.

The attack goes a bit astray, though, when it subtly suggests Rubio was lying for calling his parents 'exiles." They were. Those who live away from home for a prolonged period are by definition exiles. His parents did that. Though they returned to Cuba briefly after they left, the Rubios decided they wanted to live in the US, not in Cuba, which soon devolved into a Soviet-style totalitarian state.

Regardless of whether Rubio was sloppy or lying, the story now takes on a life of its own. The Washington press corps reflexively backs its hometown paper, and Rubio's a vice-presidential shortlister. The fact that he got his official Senate biography wrong allows all the other claims about embellishments look more accurate than they may be.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


One word, PATHETIC.
Democrats prove yet again how lame they are.

Saul Goodman

How much do you hacks get paid on the side to spin these stories for the right? I know they don't pay you enough to do actual journalism anymore, but actively muddling the very simple fact that Rubio (like most of the Republicans that have been running Florida into the ground for nearly the last 20 years) is an opportunistic liar and snake oil salesman, and casually throwing around the fine old American word "liberal" as if it were an insult, ought to make you ashamed to carry those press cards. If weren't for "liberals" like Jefferson, there wouldn't be freedom of the press in America.

Lady Gator

How much do you lefty hacks get paid to spin hit pieces on staunch conservatives for Communists?!

Here are some intersting articles on this issue, note the "character" of the WA Post writer who attempts to malign Marco. No surprise here.

Red State:

Washington Post Reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, Once Punched By a 70 Year Old for Crappy Writing, Does Birther Inspired Hit on Marco Rubio

October 21, 2011


No Comments Manuel Roig-Franzia is a reporter for the Washington Post who once got punched by his 70 year old editor, Henry Allen, for writing “the second worst story [Allen had] seen in Style in 43 years.” That’s right, Roig-Franzia wrote a horrible piece in the Style section. His 70 year old editor did not like it. Roig-Franzia reportedly called his 70 year old editor and Marine a “c**ksucker”, and the Marine punched him.

Manuel Roig-Franzia has a well documented history of being an apologist for the Cuban communist regime and a hater of the Catholic church. He is also now writing a book on Marco Rubio.

AP: Sen. Rubio Denies Claims He Embellished History

October 21, 2011


Washington Post: Marco Rubio hits back

By Jennifer Rubin

October 21, 2011



Marco Rubio's parent's ARE NOT exiles. They are immigrants who came to the US with a resident visa two years before Castro.


marco rubio was caught lying about a very important issue to his political base. he has been lying about this for at least a decade. it is truly shameful. it is like saying you served in military combat and were never in the military. he is fundamentally dishonest and so are your attempts to cover for him.

Ricardo Planas

Mr. Caputo, you write " Those who live away from home for a prolonged period are by definition exiles." This, I think, is a stretch. Calling oneself an exile is an incorrect political statement made for political reasons. Unless one is physically forced to leave one's country, or one is barred from entering it, or one has to escape surreptitiously because he is being persecuted, the decision to abandon the country is still a willful one. A better term is that of a "refugee." A refugee is someone who makes an overt political statement by deciding to seek refuge in another country in protest of the political, economic, religious, and/or social conditions prevailing at the time he/she chooses to leave. The Cuban community in the US is made mostly of refugees. There is no shame, I think in being a refugee or an immigrant. As a matter of fact, many Cubans in the US considered themselves themselves refugees during the 1960s. Some people like the term "exiled" better, it seems, because there is more political "prestige or status" in the term than being considered a refugee or an immigrant, terms that, culturally, denote having to identify oneself with lower classes. On the other hand, and interestingly enough, having a lower class background nowadays is considered politially a plus.

The comments to this entry are closed.