Posted on 06/12/2015 5:47:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
Marco Rubio bought a bunch of stuff he probably couldn't afford. Welcome to America.
So The New York Times has pulled together another hit piece -- this one insinuating that Rubio, who the newspaper evidently believes is the GOP front-runner, is both a reckless spendthrift and a financial failure.
The story -- either clumsily or, more likely, deliberately -- confuses offshore fishing boats with "luxury speedboats" and pickup trucks with SUVs to render a distasteful account of Rubio's financial life. But what we really learned is that though Rubio is not great with money, the senator from Florida has relatively modest desires, considering his fame. And his story features the kinds of struggles that middle-class voters often face when juggling bills, family and their investments.
Rubio, the Times tells us, made a series of decisions over the past 15 years "that experts called imprudent." Rubio stacked up "significant" debts before his big payday. And he "splurged" on "extravagant" purchases after securing his $800,000 advance in a book deal. He has a "penchant" for spending heavily on "luxury items," such as a boat in Florida, and he also leased a 2015 Audi Q7 -- after receiving that sizable advance.
It didn't end there. The Rubios went nuts with an "in-ground pool" -- instead of a cheaper aboveground model -- a "handsome" brick driveway, "meticulously manicured shrubs" and "oversize windows." At the same time, Rubio -- one of the poorest senators, according to the Center for Responsive Politics -- also carried a "strikingly low" savings rate, the newspaper points out. And his inattentive accounting methods lost him more money.
As far as the politics go, The New York Times could not have done Rubio a bigger favor. Convincing voters that you're one of them typically takes millions, a fabulist tale about your upbringing and maybe a Chipotle stop or two. Convincing them that you have empathy for their situation is an even more formidable task. But Rubio is now you. As Christopher Hayes tweeted, "starting to think Rubio has some plant in the NYT and these supposed 'hit-jobs' on him are false flags made to make him look sympathetic."
The question is: Does any of this really matter to voters?
I'm typically uninspired by candidates who pretend to be like me or, even worse, are anything like me. I'm terrible. I wouldn't trust me with anything too serious, and I probably wouldn't trust you, either. So when I do vote, my decision is driven by the ideological outlook of a candidate or, as is far more often the case, how much I detest the ideological outlook of the rival candidate. Whether that candidate is a billionaire or spends spare time helping orphans with autism in inner cities or shovels his own snow does not matter. People with compelling ideas and the right temperament for the job can emerge from any facet of society.
But I realize many Americans disagree. They distrust elites. They desire candidates who understand them. Rubio certainly has something that neither Mitt Romney nor George W. Bush could muster: a non-theoretical grasp of how a child of working-class parents can find success in America.
So there really is nothing inherently inappropriate about the media's scrutinizing the fiscal lives of candidates. If you're going to run for president, there's no reason voters shouldn't be curious about your past conduct and choices -- especially in an age when politicians have few qualms about involving themselves in your personal choices. The problem with the New York Times investigation is not so much that it's a transparent attempt to paint Rubio as an unfit candidate but that the paper exhibits an ugly double standard in coverage.
Listen, some folks make $100,000 trading cattle futures their first time out of the gate, and others have to take on mortgages and wait years for any profit.
Which reminds me. Watching fans of Hillary Clinton's attacking Rubio for his fiscal failings should be a comic experience. That's not because Clinton is preposterously wealthy for someone who has accomplished so little. It's because Clinton got her hands on gobs of cash in a truly detestable manner. Not only has she peddled her influence but also that influence was bought with the success of someone else's name. If 2016 pits Rubio against Clinton, it won't pit a guy who has trouble balancing a checkbook against a prosperous and talented woman. It'll be a race that pits a person whose greed and corruption go back decades against a guy whose dream, according to The New York Times, is a fishing boat and a nice car -- the kind of items that even average Americans regularly covet.
Rubio spent $80k of his own money carelessly. That’s a minor problem, one that raises concerns on whether he would spend responsibly in office, but not a big issue. If they want to get people excited, they should talk about the $7 trillion of our children’s and grandchildren’s money that Obama has wasted so far.
Rubio’s problems are that he is both a proven liar and and racist.
From the beginning of his political career the smarmy poser promised open borders to Spanish speaking audiences, while at the same time promising English speaking audiences that the border must be secured. Both types of speeches wound up on streaming video and there were many threads discussing this at the time. I was on a lot of them.
Now , aside from the in your face dishonesty that displayed, there is contained therein another large moral and ethical failure quite apart from the blatant lying.
He had no business addressing racial supremacist groups as a conservative. No matter what race they promote.
You don’t give speeches to the KKK.
You don’t give speeches to Aryan Nation.
You don’t give speeches to The Black Panthers.
You don’t give speeches to La Raza.
The idiots defending this panderer in ideolog’s clothing haven’t tried to defend why he was speaking to LA Raza...because they can’t. Instead they have tried to ignore it as if it weren’t there. It is there, and it’s a deal breaker. Conservatives don’t grant legitimacy to racial supremacy organizations like La Raza.
Rubio doesn’t just have a problem.
He is a problem.
No matter how flowery a speech he can deliver.
Great contrast of pictures. I’m more concerned about Rubio waffling between Catholicism and Protestantism.
It’s a nice montage, but I still think Cruz is sold out to the amnesty for illegals and more mass immigration crowd.
It’s a nice montage, but I still think Cruz is sold out to the amnesty for illegals and more mass immigration crowd.
I don’t care WHERE ya give your speeches.
There are too many Mehhicccans here ALREADY. We don’t need to import any more.
I do care where you give your speeches.
I don’t care if the topic is “be kind to your little brother and sister” don’t address racial supremacy organizations.
You can have as little or no standards as you like.
And I have no disparagement at all for people who come here through the legal process.
Exactly right.
It has always been mypolicy to not give more knives to backstabbers.
Rubio schemed with Schumer against the citizens and the rule of law. He still thinks we need to surrender the country to fraudulently documented foreigners.
Never voting for amnesty.
What the hell is “careless” about buying a nice boat if you can afford it? If I could afford a sweet a*s 80 thousand dollar boat I would buy one. It’s his money, he spent a 10th of a book advance on a boat and that offends someone? F them. They’re probably jealous.
I saw it as an $800k book advance, where, after $400k goes to taxes, he has $400k left. So it’s 20% of a windfall going to a toy, but then he has to pay for the expenses associated with a boat. That was a big enough chunk of a one-time event that I consider it careless. There is a huge difference between spending 10% of your stable after-tax income on toys and spending 20% of a huge one-time event on toys that continue to generate hefty expenses. You are welcome to disagree.
In any case, a boat would not affect my vote on Rubio. If he took the right positions on my three big presidential issues (Amnesty, Obamacare, and guns), I’d still support him. As it is, regardless of his personal spending, I will absolutely oppose him because of his pro-Amnesty stance.
Yup.
HRC is the common man’s choice because he is too poor to understand otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.