Senator Marco Rubio is a bona fide political star able to communicate his ideas and vision with an eloquence few can match. He’s also Hispanic and a Republican, which freaks the left out — and by “left,” I of course mean the mainstream media.
The media’s biggest fear is Obama losing his reelection and Rubio is the kind of VP candidate that keep the corrupt MSM up nights. Not only could he help to swing the all-important Hispanic vote into GOP terrtory, he also hails from the all-important swing state of Florida.
Nothing terrifies Obama’s MSM Palace Guards more than thought of this attractive, articulate young man taking it to Obama and on the march to making history as the first Hispanic to hold the office of Vice President.
Unfortunately, the MSM is corrupt but not dumb, which is why over the last few months we’ve seen two major pushes from two major news outlets to discredit, toxify, and marginalize Rubio. Oh, and both of those pushes were riddled with errors that we’re assured were hoonest mistakes.
The first came from The Washington Post back in October. Their information was so blatantly wrong, that early one Saturday morning I caught them red-handed quietly scrubbing their mistakes from the hit-piece. This is what I wrote at the time:
How about that? Suddenly those so-called embellishments aren’t part of some “dramatic account” on Senator Rubio’s part. The difference might just be a few words, but those words make all the difference in the world. It’s also worth noting that I saw no editorial notes indicating any changes had been made to the original story. …
Race. Race. Race. And all of it is motivated by race and generated to protect Obama. …
The Rubio hit was designed to take down an attractive Hispanic Republican for fear he might be the 2012 vice presidential nominee and drain away enough Hispanic votes to make The MSM’s Precious One a one-termer.
You bet it’s about race. An attractive Republican who is not Caucasian represents an existential threat to the Democrat party and their media allies, which brings me to the Reuters fiasco from just last week. This error-ridden hit job was wishfully titled: Florida’s Rubio a star, but an unlikely VP pick. The author is David Adams and the goal is obviously to do to Rubio what the MSM does to all left-wing apostates, and that’s qustion their identity. You see, you can’t be a conservative and a woman, or black, or Hispanic:
In a Latino Decisions tracking poll last year, 72 percent of Hispanic voters said Republicans either “didn’t care” or were “hostile” to their community.
It is unclear whether Rubio is the right choice to fix the party’s image. He has not endeared himself to Hispanic voters on several fronts, analysts say.
He opposed the so-called DREAM Act, which would have provided a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, and he expressed support for a harsh immigration law in Arizona.
Rubio opposed President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, and more recently blocked the confirmation of another Puerto Rican, Marie Carmen Aponte, as ambassador to El Salvador.
He also opposed Obama’s healthcare overhaul, which is popular among many low-income Hispanics.
“He’s on the wrong side on every issue that matters to Hispanics,” said Fernand Amandi with Bendixen & Amandi, a political consulting firm in Miami that has been retained by the Obama campaign. “He’s going to have to answer to those positions.”
That’s nothing more than left-wing opinion disguised as objective analysis. Par for the MSM course. But this hit-piece was so outrageously over the top in its zeal to destroy Rubio and turn its own headline into reality, that no less than five corrections had to be made after it was published and, according to the Daily Caller’s Matt lewis, two factually incorrect mistakes remain uncorrected.
How about that? Glaring, larger-lthan-life factual errors from two big, wealthy, fact-check-heavy MSM outlets like the “legendary” Washington Post and Reuters.
I’m sorry, but that seems inconceivable to me, and both episodes remind me an exchange of dialogie in Otto Preminger’s 1959 courtroom classic, “Anatomy of a Murder”:
Defendant (Aside): How can the jury disregard what it already heard?
Defense Attorney: It can’t.
As the Washington Post scrubbed and Reuters chiseled, both did so safe in the knowledge that nowhere near as many members of the jury read the correction as read their original hit.