Rubio rants, and not just to those close to him

May 17, 2016

His failed presidential bid behind him, Florida Senator Marco Rubio decided to let loose on Twitter late Monday night with one target in mind: the media.

Rubio took to Twitter beginning just after 10 p.m. Eastern on Monday for an 11-tweet storm lampooning what he sees as the legitimacy of anonymously sourced stories.

“Funny to read about unnamed ‘people close’ to me who claim to know my thinking on future plans,” the former presidential candidate began, including a link to a Washington Post story describing Rubio as “betwixt and between when it comes to his next move” and citing people close to him.

“They just make it up,” Rubio went on.

 

 

Rubio then linked to another Post story quoting a “longtime friend” saying he “hates” the Senate. “Words I have NEVER said to anyone,” he tweeted.

He brushed off the stories that he wasn’t sure what he would do after leaving the Senate after his tenure is up in January 2017, adding that he has said “like 10,000 times” that he would be a private citizen.

At the same time, he pointed out that he could still have a future in politics even if he leaves the field for a bit before the next presidential election comes around in 2020.

“As for future in politics, well it’s nearly impossible for someone not in office to ever become a successful candidate for President. Right?” he posted in a blatant nod toward presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, a political neophyte who has never held elected office.

In a spark of creativity, Rubio then began writing posts surmising about his own future, citing people close to him as sources.

 

 

 

Rubio wrapped it up more than an hour after the first tweet was sent, remarking that he had done “enough for one night.”

“Twitter isn’t something you should just rush back into,” Rubio wrote. “You have to slowly increase the dosage…….”

 

One comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

He has a point: Quoting sources anonymously while claiming they’re “close to” the targeted person is a time-tested way of doing people in, while leaving them no recourse to respond. No one can prove a negative (“I didn’t say that”).

It’s not as if newspapers are neutral and therefore deserve the benefit of the doubt. After all, they endorse candidates for high office. It seems like a conflict of interest to me.

Posted by Nickcw | Report as abusive