Establishment Republicans so against Rubio a year ago will now defend him. The problem is Washington is full of pathological liars.
By Chris Ingram
There is an article in today’s Tampa Tribune about my concerns with Marco Rubio’s trustworthiness as it relates to his much-talked-about RPOF American Express card charges. It is important to note that Marco Rubio doesn’t deny the allegations I make against him (and which we both know to be true) – specifically that he told me of a $4K-$5K charge on his RPOF credit card for new kitchen floors in his home.
After Rubio told me of these inappropriate charges last summer, I encouraged him to “release his own bad news, apologize for it, and assure the public it would never happen again.” Not only did Rubio not follow this advice, he dug in, made excuses, and played like he was the victim.
An important fact to consider about this case is that Rubio doesn’t deny the charge. This is because he knows that somewhere out there the records exist to corroborate my story. That is, there is an AmEx statement with Rubio’s name on it for new kitchen floors paid for by the RPOF. If Rubio wasn’t guilty/was innocent of this reckless and possibly illegal spending, he could of course prove it by releasing all of his American Express card statements. But we all know that isn’t ever going to happen because guilty people don’t release their records – only honest people do, and honesty is not an adjective that fits Marco Rubio.
So, given the facts don’t support his claims, what does Marco have left to do? Attack me.
Attack the messenger is one of the most common defensive tactics politicians who don’t have the facts on their side employ in order to divert attention from the real issues in an attempt to get back on offense.
Therefore, career politician Marco Rubio – who doesn’t have the facts on his side — is attacking me. His false and pathetic attempt to make it appear as though I somehow have called attention to his reckless behavior because his campaign did not hire me to work for him is complete bunk – and Marco Rubio knows it. Fortunately, I’ve got thick skin and can deal with the petty claims of the Rubio campaign and the expected tongue lashings from Rubio’s Kool-aid drinking supporters. The criticism goes with the job of being a muckraker. For those of you concerned about my sensibilities, thank you, but I can handle it.
For the record, it is true I did offer to assist Rubio’s campaign with an assessment of his campaign staff’s communications operation which they never took me up on. Said offer was “gratis” and was not tied to any form of compensation.
Simply put, I did not “spill the beans” about Marco’s confession to me last summer (’09) that he had been a bad boy with the RPOF’s credit card because he didn’t hire me. In fact, I continued to consult Marco with telephone calls and e-mails long after making this offer.
In the ensuing months I attended events for Marco, raised money for his campaign, and made a personal campaign contribution all the while writing columns about Rubio – some favorable, and others which could be interpreted as less than favorable. Do you think if I had been interested in “working” for Rubio I would have written columns criticizing him? That’s what Rubio (and people like him) don’t get about normal people, the Tea Party movement, and other disaffected Americans – real people just want good government and a viable future for the next generation. Not everyone out there is like Rubio or Charlie, or the special interests wondering “what’s in it for me?”
So I gave up on Marco Rubio and spilled the beans after watching his recent TV ads whereby he attempts to appeal to voters with a “Boy Scout” image. I don’t buy it, and I believe he’s just as disingenuous as Charlie Crist. The only difference is, my lack of trust in Marco is on an individual level, while Charlie’s is purely political. In my book, Marco’s lack of trust is far worse than Charlie’s. Charlie may be a lot of things, but out for personal gain (other than being elected to something) is not one of them. Marco’s want for power is different – he appears to not only want fame, but also fortune. Watching him on TV talking about values and fiscal responsibility while knowing he doesn’t know right from wrong and can’t even keep his own affairs in order just plain disgusts me. That is why I have chosen to out Marco Rubio for being the snake I believe him to be.
In short, I don’t think Marco Rubio is telling the truth. He is not telling the truth about me. He is not telling the truth about his spending of RPOF funds on his credit card. He is not telling the truth about the RPOF paying for his family reunion. Of course, he has perfect explanations for all of these indiscretions. But a pattern of untrustworthy behavior exists, and I believe such behavior should disqualify him from serving in the U.S. Senate – at minimum it disqualifies him from receiving my vote. Yet somehow among my Kool-aid drinking Republican friends, we’re supposed to support Marco and believe he’s the savior of our nation simply because he’s got an “R” after his name. No thanks. Some guy who can’t handle a credit card the right way, isn’t going to be able to appropriately vote on the budget or taxes. (For more on what a great conservative fiscal steward Rubio is, read story in today’s St. Pete Times.)
I’ve been a Republican my whole life, but I refuse to vote for someone whom I cannot trust just because they have an “R” after their name. I don’t trust Marco Rubio. Someone who is so completely devoid of knowing right from wrong as it relates to his own finances and the finances of others can’t be trusted to go to Washington and solve the fiscal mess our country is in.
I’ll be voting for Alex Snitker the Libertarian Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. Some have called it a “wasted vote.” It may be. But I refuse to vote for “the lesser of two (or in this case three) evils.” And if we the people collectively refused these “less than desirable” candidates put up by the money-men and special interests, we might end up getting better choices next time.
Alex Snitker may not be perfect. He’s certainly not polished. And he doesn’t have a fancy political pedigree. But one thing’s for sure, having met him I believe Alex Snitker. That is to say, I trust him.
Marco Rubio on the other hand appears to be a pathological liar in the form of another failed U.S. Senate candidate – Katherine Harris.
We can do so much better. We’ve just got to speak up, speak out, and demand better to get it.
Chris Ingram is the president and founder of 411 Communications a corporate and political communications firm, and publisher of www.IrreverentView.com. Ingram is a frequent pundit on Fox News and CNN, and has written opinion columns for the Washington Times, UPI, and National Review online. He is the Republican political analyst for Bay News 9, the only 24 hour all news channel in Florida’s largest media market. The opinions expressed here are those of author and do not represent the views of Bay News 9.
Please feel free to submit a comment on our blogs. By posting a comment you acknowledge reading and following the terms and conditions of posting found here. You may also submit a comment by e-mail. If you e-mail a comment you consent to your comment and first name being posted on the Irreverent View website. If you wish to remain completely anonymous, please state so in your e-mail.