Sean Sullivan and David A. Fahrenthold, "Marco Rubio wants to unite later by staying vague now": WaPo's War Against Rubio

Tweet

In 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy declared:

"But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

Or stated otherwise, there exist situations where the judicial branch of government's construal of the Constitution or legislation necessarily must be respected by American politicians and trump (no pun intended) their personal views, e.g., on abortion. Yet, in a lead Washington Post article entitled "Marco Rubio wants to unite later by staying vague now" by Sean Sullivan and David A. Fahrenthold, we are told:

"It is a habit with Rubio, a candidate aiming at moderate and conservative voters who often seems to advocate two positions at once. He tells voters that he has a personal view on the subject — whether abortion, immigration, Syrian refugees or gay marriage. But he also has a view of what is politically possible. Which, usually, is not what he personally wants.

That tactic allows Rubio to offer two right answers to the same question, and lets him carve out wiggle room on topics where none seemed possible."

"Wiggle room" or respect for the American system of government and the views of other citizens? Moreover, as president, might a former senator need to adapt her/his stands owing to her/his service elsewhere in government? Consider how Hillary Clinton, once a pro-Israel senator from New York, served as President Obama's "designated yeller" at Netanyahu.

Sullivan and Fahrenthold's article follows on the heels of WaPo's December 12, 2015 lead article "The drug-smuggling case that brought anguish to Marco Rubio’s family." Yup, a brother-in-law was arrested when Rubio was 16 years old. Fascinating.

And then there was WaPo's December 3, 2015 article entitled "Before Senate win, Rubio turned political ‘juice’ into personal profits," in which Rosalind Helderman examined Rubio's income during the two-year interval between stepping down as Florida House speaker in 2008 and becoming a US Senator in 2010. Helderman wrote:

"Even before he left office in late 2008, his longtime aide sent a letter on behalf of a new private consulting group Rubio was launching, seeking business from a potentially major client: Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami’s busy public medical center.

That was an initial step in what became a profitable two-year stretch for Rubio between his time as a state legislator and his 2010 election to the U.S. Senate. Although he spent much of his time on the campaign trail, Rubio built a consulting and legal practice that made more than half a million dollars."

Helderman acknowledged that following "a complaint filed by a political critic who, among other things, alleged that the former speaker had scored clients as remuneration for his legislative support," Florida ethics officials who investigated the matter "found no evidence to support the allegation."

This smacks of scandal? Is The Washington Post remotely aware of how many former members of Congress go on to highly lucrative careers at law firms or lobbying organizations, built upon their knowledge of the ins and outs of politics and the legislative arena?

Any mention of Hillary Clinton in Helderman's article? Not one. Apparently, it doesn't matter that Hillary and Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for 104 speeches since early 2014 and that Hillary charged $300,000 to speak at public universities.

How do you begin to compare income of $500,000 over the course of two years with $300,000 for a one-hour speech? Answer: You don't.

Bottom line: Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary (famous for her flip-flops) in November 2016. Any chance that this is influencing WaPo's choice of lead articles?

I'll let you form your own opinion.

Marco Rubio and "Messy" Group Speak at The New York Times and The Washington Post

Tweet

In case you didn't notice, we witnessed a horrifying development this past week, evidencing the decline of an objective American press. We're talking about "Group Speak."

On Friday, November 6, 2015, New York Magazine published an article entitled (my emphasis in red) "A Guide to Marco Rubio’s Messy Personal Finances" by Margaret Hartmann, which told us of the "controversy surrounding Rubio's financial background." Concerning Rubio's credit card statements, Hartmann's article declared:

"The pressure grew so intense that Rubio promised to release records from his time in Florida’s House of Representatives 'in the next few weeks.' A Rubio campaign aide claimed, 'our plan has always been to release these,' but that's dubious since journalists have been trying to obtain the files for a decade."

"Dubious"? Rubio released 22 months of credit card statements on Saturday, one day after the publication of Hartmann's article.

Among other things, Hartmann, who was a press intern at Senator Hillary Clinton's  New York office in 2005, also said of Rubio in her article:

"He liquidated most of his retirement savings last year, though financial experts say that's usually a very bad idea."

The "experts" say that's usually a bad idea? In fact, that would depend upon the yield on your retirement savings fund, the rate of interest you are paying to borrow money, and the level of your anticipated future income. I am a business adviser to several leading life science companies (chairman of the board of one of them), and a decade ago, after weighing the risks, I also decided to liquidate my retirement savings fund in order to pursue a lifelong goal of establishing my own company, which has proven successful and gratifying.

But notwithstanding Rubio's release of his credit card statements, the press was not finished with the "scandal" - not by a long shot.

Do you remember past reporting of The New York Times concerning Marco Rubio's purchase of a fishing boat, repayment of student loans, and receipt of traffic tickets, which even Jon Stewart ridiculed? And do you recall how I told you one week ago that we should expect more of the same from the Times as regards Rubio, who stands too good a chance of beating Hillary in November 2016? Well, on Saturday, November 7, 2015, in a Times article entitled (my emphasis in red) "Marco Rubio’s Use of Party Credit Card Reinforces a Picture of Messy Finances," Jeremy W. Peters, Steve Eder and Jeremy Merrill also sought to impugn Rubio's finances, based upon the credit card statements. They acknowledged that there was nothing illegal in anything Rubio had done, and they didn't claim that he had failed to repay personal expenses charged to his Republican Party credit card. However, the authors of this article did inform us of several personal payments charged to the card (my emphasis in red):

"There were more than two dozen visits to La Carreta, a chain of Cuban diners, sometimes for amounts under $10. There were several hundred dollars in purchases at bookstores, one listed on the statements as a family bookstore and the others from trips to a Barnes & Noble in South Miami. He spent $25 at a CVS about a half-mile from his home in West Miami. There were also purchases at a Publix grocery store in Miami.

. . . .

Other charges from the newly released records that the campaign identified as personal included $599.45 for visits to a Honda dealership near Mr. Rubio’s West Miami home; $180 for a children’s activity center; and $715.28 to a Sym’s discount clothing store in New York City."

Rubio spent $25 at a CVS using his party credit card? Shame on you, Marco! Rubio bought clothes from Sym's using his party credit card? I can only hope that the clothes were not selected from the Bargain Basement, which might have landed him in deep trouble with Joan Rivers's "Fashion Police," if she was still alive.

But wait, there's more. On Saturday, November 7, 2015, The Washington Post also ran a lead story entitled (my emphasis in red) "Inside Marco Rubio’s messy American Express statements" by Manuel Roig-Franzia, Sean Sullivan and Tom Hamburger, which told us:

"The Florida Ethics Commission investigated Rubio’s credit card spending and dismissed a citizen complaint against him. According to an internal audit commissioned by the Florida GOP, Rubio repaid the state party for six airline tickets, costing $2,417, that he had double-billed to the party and the state government. The audit report states that Rubio was able to provide proof that other charges the auditor questioned were for business purposes, but it does not provide specifics.

The Florida GOP’s policy manual prohibited using the card for personal reasons, according to the audit. But some Florida GOP officials have publicly stated that such expenses were acceptable, as long as the cardholder paid for them personally."

Oh my goodness! What a horror story! The WaPo article fobserved:

"Rubio’s handling of the card gained renewed attention this past week after attacks by his 2016 presidential rival Donald Trump, who accused the Florida senator of being a 'disaster' with his card and living beyond his means."

Or stated otherwise, how dare this parvenu, the son of Cuban immigrants and who did not receive a $1 million dollar loan from his father to start his own real estate business, struggle on his own to achieve what many would regard as the American dream?

A "scandal" here? It sounds almost as serious as Mitt Romney's "dog on the roof of the car" affair. Moreover, any unseemliness does not even approach the stench emanating from Obama's purchase of his Chicago mansion or Hillary having to return $114,000 of White House "china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts."

But if there is something rotten here, it is to be found in the titles of the New York Magazine, New York Times and Washington Post articles, all of which refer to Rubio's finances as "messy." A coincidence? I don't think so. A case of great minds think alike? Not a chance. I think The New York Times and The Washington Post have more than a bit of soul searching to do here, particularly if they wish to preserve any vestige of past reputations for objectivity.