Rubio's optimism not what voters wanted

Marco Rubio had my attention from his first remark in the first Republican presidential debate. "This election is about the future," he said, and I was hooked. He was young, confident and well-informed. He displayed a speaking style that was optimistic, forceful and persuasive.

But Rubio's style and demeanor were not what Republican voters were looking for in 2016. The Florida senator dropped out of the presidential race last night after losing his state's primary to Donald Trump. Rubio's story as the son of immigrants who struggled, scrimped and borrowed to get an education and rise to the top of the political ladder in Florida was overwhelmed by the anger of ignored and short-changed voters and the political candidates who egged on their anger with a smattering of prejudice, fears and threats of violence.

These working class voters wanted a champion who would get their revenge against the trade deals that destroyed their jobs and against the Washington politicians who ignored voters and catered to big business interests that benefited from global trade while American workers foundered.

This was not an atmosphere for Rubio's optimistic vision of the future based on his family's success founded on American principles and opportunities.

And because politicians tend to conduct the previous campaign the same way generals tend to fight the previous war, it's unlikely that voters will be ready for an optimistic, positive vision of a New American Century like Rubio's any time soon.

Halting Supreme Court nominee is a gamble

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had hardly sunk into our consciousness Saturday before Republican leaders and presidential candidates were proclaiming that President Obama should not be allowed to nominate a replacement for Scalia. The GOP-majority Senate, they said, must not approve anyone the president nominates.

But before Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and the others go too far down that road, they might want to consider what refusing to allow the constitutional nomination and consent process to take place might mean. There's an election in November, and none of the Band of Belligerents running for the GOP nomination have any assurance of prevailing against the Democratic nominee. Should the Senate refuse to allow a Supreme Court nomination by President Obama, in January they might find themselves confronted with a nominee from President H.R. Clinton or President Bernie Sanders.

Would a Clinton or Sanders nomination be more comfortable for the Republicans than an Obama nominee? Probably not. Although Obama has been the target of some of the angriest and most scurrilous attacks in recent American politics, he has usually sought to lean toward the center in his judicial appointments, selecting respected lower-court judges and law professors. Another Obama nominee would likely be less distressing to the GOP than the post-election alternative should the Democratic nominee win.

It has been rumored that President H.R. Clinton might appoint Barak Obama, a former law professor, to the Supreme Court. Or, alternatively, she might appoint another former president, a former Arkansas attorney general, to the high court. How would Cruz and Rubio like them apples?

This assumes that the Democrats will win the White House in November. There is close to a 50% chance that the Democratic nominee will win. If the Republican nominee prevails, the gamble on the court will have paid off, but at the expense of making it clear to already disillusioned voters that the Republicans care more about party politics than they care about continuity on the Supreme Court. Whoever a Republican president might nominate to replace Scalia will not be another Scalia, who was an extraordinary legal thinker who bent the trajectory of the Supreme Court over his three decades there. I dare say there is not another like him waiting in the wings.

GOP candidates have their say

I stuck around for only the first half of the 10-candidate debate last night but still came away with some impressions.

Start with Donald Trump: Although he was still the bombastic, egotistical narcissist he's always been, Trump did not do as badly as he might have — meaning, he didn't punch any of his fellow candidates or the Fox News questioners (who didn't toss any softballs to him or the others). He didn't sound presidential, but most of the time he didn't sound like a lunatic. He even made an occasional valid point, and didn't deny that he often insults people (whom he considers to be beneath him).

Jeb Bush: Of all the candidates, he looked the most presidential. It helps if you're the tallest candidate in the room. He seemed reasonable and knowledgeable but didn't run away with the debate. Jeb took the "political dynasty" question and did as well as anyone could with it, i.e., "I am my own man. I am running on my own record." Etc.

Marco Rubio: His comment that "this election is about the future" might have been the best comment of the night, a comment that could resonate with younger voters (Rubio is 44). The comment averts questions about past GOP positions and policies, and it opens a clean slate. Rubio has an eloquence and a forceful delivery that gives a Kennedy-esque aura.

Ted Cruz: The Texas senator seems determined to come across as the meanest SOB on the stage. His facial expression seems fixed in a pugilistic mode, and he seems ready to take a punch at somebody, anybody, at any moment. He is the master of the sanctimonious put-down and the vague but forceful catch-phrase.

Mike Huckabee: The former Arkansas governor and TV personality is clearly older than four years ago, but his delivery and speech have been honed by his time on talk-TV. His assertion that "personhood" begins at conception, and the newly fertilized ovum is protected by the Fifth and 14th Amendments is astounding. No court decision has asserted such a sweeping conception (excuse the pun), but he wants to argue that a newly formed zygote has a DNA and therefore is protected by the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Rand Paul: Paul came across as feisty and a bit courageous in his willingness to challenge Trump. I wondered if the two might come to blows. While he fared well in defending his position on foreign aid, ISIS and domestic spying, his combativeness didn't seem presidential but rather Trump-ish. Paul's line about being tired of seeing ISIS troops riding around in a billion dollars worth of U.S. Humvees was memorable.

Chris Christie: Speaking of feisty. Christie couldn't seem to decide whether he should be belligerent or warm and fuzzy. He claimed that only he had the ability to challenge terrorists because he had prosecuted terror cases as a federal attorney. Paul got under his skin by reminding everyone of his hug of President Obama (after Superstorm Sandy), which Christie defended by veering off on his hugs to terrorist victim families. Non sequitur, Governor?