Florida Politicians, Can we get one who's not an idiot?

[twyacht]

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

Rubio scares the crap out of the DC establishment,...he'll be around in 2012, 2016, 2020, and beyond. Cause he's young, and realizes the schmucks on the hill are older....some much older,...and will be dying off...Think he'll get the Hispanic and Tea Party vote? Seeing how us white boys will be the minority at our current demographic birth rate,...At least there is hope,...IF we make it that far.

Miami Herald: WaPost "Hit" on Rubio Manipulates Facts. (The Miami Herald, Scum Sun-Sentinel,Palm Beach Rags, aren't worth putting at the bottom of my bird cage BTW....

    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.

    We can get a sense of the book by his stunning hit job on Marco Rubio in the Washington Post.. Roig-Franzia claims Rubio has embellished his “compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida.” Again, keep in mind that Roig-Franzia is an apologist for the Cuban communist regime.

Hey FQ, The FL jobs numbers came out and the unemployment rate for the state, is actually down albeit not a bunch....I'm sure your buddy Gov. Scott had nothing to do with that either....

[deepwater]

here's the rest of the article TW. also cross reported on redstate.com

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47026

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.

We can get a sense of the book by his stunning hit job on Marco Rubio in the Washington Post. Roig-Franzia claims Rubio has embellished his “compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida.” Again, keep in mind that Roig-Franzia is an apologist for the Cuban communist regime.

Roig-Franzia writes, “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 21 / 2 years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959.”

Now, there are two problems for Roig-Franzia. First, the communist apologist failed to actually quote Marco Rubio embellishing his story. The Miami Herald really destroys the piece.

The Washington Post just released this interesting story headlined “Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show.” The paper flagged a clear inaccuracy in his official Senate biography that states the Senator’s parents “came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”

That’s false. Rubio’s parents came to the US before then, in 1956. They remained in the US after Castro took over in 1959. They returned to Cuba for brief stints early on, before the country devolved into Soviet-style totalitarianism.

But the top of the story suggests Rubio himself has given this “dramatatic account:” that “he was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after ‘a thug,’ Fidel Castro, took power.”

However, the story doesn’t cite one speech where Rubio actually said that.

To back up the lead, the Washington Post excerpts from a 2006 address in the Florida House where Rubio said “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee… Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress…and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.”

The catch: If you listen to the speech, Rubio isn’t just talking about those who specifically fled Cuba after Castro took power. He doesn’t say that his parents fled Cuba. Instead, he was talking about “a community of exiles.” That is: He was talking about all the Cubans who live in Mia

What’s more, Manuel Roig-Franzia does not say how he came to know these facts about Marco Rubio. But Gabriel Malor knows.

Rubio has been hounded since he rose to prominence by birthers intent on sabotaging any further rise he might have in politics. Malor notes, “Birthers intent on somehow proving that he’s not a “natural-born citizen” dug up his parents’ adjustment and naturalization paperwork. That’s where WaPo got the dates for his parents’ arrival to the United States.”

That’s right boys and girls. Manuel Roig-Franzia, who was once punched by a 70 year old for atrocious writing in a freaking style section, uses a Birther originated attack to discredit Marco Rubio and can’t even offer up a quote from Rubio.

And you know what? Even if he could offer up a quote, does it matter? How many of you know the full and accurate story of your parents and grandparents?

[This article was crossposted from RedState.com]

[fightingquaker13]

From Deepwater's post:
Rubio has been hounded since he rose to prominence by birthers intent on sabotaging any further rise he might have in politics. Malor notes, “Birthers intent on somehow proving that he’s not a “natural-born citizen” dug up his parents’ adjustment and naturalization paperwork. That’s where WaPo got the dates for his parents’ arrival to the United States.”

Okay, I've got to say this. Does it seem a bit odd that conservative Republicans are attacking "birthers"? Next thing you know they'll be attacking "Swift Boaters". I know these are wasted words, but I thought I'd throw them out there. Just sayin'.
FQ13 who wants to belive you can't have it both ways.

[crusader rabbit]

I don't know if the Quaker is being deliberately obtuse or not, but to elucidate a bit on the term birthers...

The anti-Rubio birthers and the anti-Obama birthers share only the commonality of the same name.  While the anti-Obama birthers come from the far right wing--generally speaking--the anti-Rubio birthers are from the looney left.

Please recognize that I am in no way an apologist for either of the aforementioned political factions, but I would offer the following thoughts to help in the basic understanding of the two dissimilar perspectives.

The anti-Obama birthers make the basic point that the Obama administration has been less than forthcoming in providing any life records of our current prez.  We don't know what grades he made, who paid for his education, where and under what passport he traveled, or much of anything else about him.  In point of fact, this prez has spent several millions of dollars in keeping those records hidden.  This has led to some speculation on the facts of his birth.

The anti-Rubio birthers have seized on a statement never actually attributed to Rubio.  They have trumpeted their so-called facts regarding these statements in an attempt to discredit a young, good-looking, smart conservative who will have a lengthy career making the left look like the fools that they actually are.  That his life records--including the facts of his birth--have been made available for any to look at, study, ponder and review (in stark contrast to the prez's records) somehow escapes these lefty nutbags.

Calling both of these groups birthers is as logical as noting that Ron Paul and the Fighting Quaker both claim the term Libertarian.  Does this mean that both gentlemen share a common lunacy?  Of course not.  The are each completely loony in their own individual ways.

I hope this clears things up for you.

I live only to serve,
Crusader Rabbit