Marco Rubio embellished the facts?
Sure. But then this isn't exactly earth shattering news to some of us from his "home" state.
1956, 1959...who's counting?
He based his information on his family's "oral history."
He's "outraged" that he could be accused of "embellishing" his family history for political gain. (Seriously?)
Rubio has now changed his Senate bio, even though he writes that the Washington Post's claims were "incorrect."
Then there's this, from his "explanation" today in Politico:
If The Washington Post wants to criticize me for getting a few dates wrong, I accept that. But to call into question the central and defining event of my parents’ young lives – the fact that a brutal communist dictator took control of their homeland and they were never able to return – is something I will not tolerate.
Actually, he won't tolerate getting caught.
Who, exactly is missing the point here? Note to Rubio: they were criticizing you for "getting a few dates wrong" as you put it, not your parents, but please, do go on and continue using them yourself for political gain.
For someone who aspires to be (gulp) VP or President someday, an excuse tantamount to "the dog ate my homework" isn't going to cut it.
Go ahead, change that bio. Write about your outrage to your heart's content in Politico. When you're not blocking a vote for ANYTHING that makes this country great as you so fondly claim, by all means, spend the remainder of your day acting outraged on FOX-GOP-TV. Go for it.
It doesn't change the facts. It's more than just "getting a few dates wrong." It's not just Marco Rubio's bio. It's the Marco Rubio brand:
Facts matter.
Once upon a time, even to some in the Republican Party I believe, facts mattered.
(video h/t: Steve Benen)
