Marco
Rubio is no longer a pipsqueak rolling in the mud with Jeb Bush.
By Donald Kaul
Before the Iowa caucuses were mercifully laid to rest, I
predicted that the surging Donald Trump — he of what George H.W. Bush called
“the Big Mo” — would win the Republican contest handily. Bernie Sanders, I
believed, would be confounded by the complexity of the Democratic rules and
lose more or less badly.
What happened? Senator Ted Cruz handed The Donald his head and
Bernie overcame a 40-point disadvantage to finish in a dead heat with Hillary
Clinton.
That’s why they pay me the big bucks. Accuracy.
The biggest Republican winner, it seems to me, was Marco Rubio,
the third-place finisher. In a single day he went from being a pipsqueak
rolling in the mud with Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and other assorted
“mainstream” Republicans, to a legitimate main event opponent of the big guys,
Cruz and Trump. It’s what the Iowa caucuses can do for you, and they did it for
him.
But you couldn’t call Cruz a loser. He won the election, even if
he scooped up less than one-third of the votes. As for Trump, he sailed into
extremely hostile evangelical waters in Iowa and did OK. Not good, maybe, but
OK.
None of the other Republicans were much more than blips on the
popularity screen, so I guess they were the losers.
What we learned from the election was:
Trump is a talented politician. He’s an ignoramus but has a
marvelous political instinct. It remains to be seen whether he can take a
punch.
Cruz, on the other hand, is a great technician. His organization
identified every evangelical conservative in the state and his people made sure
they got to the polls. His great advantage is that he can take a punch.
Rubio is something else. He campaigns like an automaton, saying
the same words matched to the same motions again and again. He reminds me a
little of Eddie Haskel, the snarky kid on Leave It To
Beaver who was always handing out insincere compliments to
adults to curry their favor.
Rubio’s boyish charm seems to work on Republicans, however. At
least he’s stopped talking about his father, the bartender. That’s something.
On the Democratic side, I thought the success of Sanders’
children’s crusade was remarkable. He went into that campaign down 40 points in
the polls and by caucus night had pulled dead even. Nearly 85 percent of the voters under 30 backed Bernie.
I doubt that’s repeatable in many other contests, but it was
nice to see it happen in Iowa. It’s good to see kids get excited about
politics.
And then there was Hillary. What to do with her?
I try to like her, I really do. I even agree with much of what
she says. But I can’t rid myself of the feeling that there’s something deeply
disingenuous about her.
On caucus night, with only 90 percent of the vote counted and
the issue very much in doubt, she came before the cameras and cheerily declared victory.
Her supporters will tell you that’s what politicians do. It’s
what her husband did in the 1992 New Hampshire primary when he
proclaimed himself “the comeback kid” even though he’d lost rather badly.
That misses the point. Clinton’s great problem is that many
people view her as untrustworthy. She can’t afford to fuel that perception by
trying to mislead voters.
On the other hand, Sanders — a crotchety old man — is the only
candidate even the least little bit likeable to me, so she’ll probably do
alright. Unless the FBI arrests her. But that’s another story.
So now the circus has moved to New Hampshire. It’s very
different from Iowa but just as charming politically.
I’m told that Hillary wanted to declare victory as soon as she
got off the airplane but her aides wouldn’t let her.
That’s an unconfirmed rumor, by the way. The best kind.
OtherWords
columnist Donald Kaul lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan. OtherWords.org.