Welcome to the downside of your vague, presumed, gossamer-like, establishment-frontrunner status, Sen. Rubio, which is a bit like the pitfall of a mob boss's status: notoriety draws attention of the unwanted kind. Much better to be the underboss, whose scams are no less depraved, but on whom the gaze of investigative eyes is less intense.
This is just the beginning — "this" being, for example, an internal Bush document leaked to US News' David Catanese. In it, "risky" Marco is ripped for Rumsfeldian knowns already known by those who have followed the upstart's fetid rise through the ranks of somewhat organized GOP crime: his "misuse of state party credit cards," his "ties to [a] scandal-tarred former Congressman," and his funding from a "billionaire auto dealer" that "raises major ethical questions."
Why Jeb chose to keep these knowns unknown to the general public in Wednesday night's debate is a question only that joyless candidate can answer. Perhaps such an operatic assault simply had too many notes for vulgar ears to appreciate. This, I can understand. K.I.S.S. Yet that's precisely what Jeb could have done with another passage from his internal document: "Those who have looked into Marco's background" — this being a reference to the 2012 Romney campaign's unsatisfying peek into the senator's vice-presidential worthiness — "have been concerned with what they have found." That keeps it simple indeed. Romney knew Rubio would be destroyed as the #2 nominee, so why in hell would the GOP base wish to elevate him to even more vulnerable #1 status?
Well, it could be that they're reading David Brooks, who is back from his holidaying in reality. "Of all the candidates, Rubio has done the most to harvest the work of Reform Conservatism," writes Brooks this morning, "which has been sweeping through the think tank world." Maybe you've noticed the sweep; far as I can tell, though, it's been under the carpet. Concludes Brooks in a flurry of re-inspiration: "If [Paul] Ryan and Rubio do emerge as the party’s two leaders, it will be the wonkiest leadership team in our lifetime."
This "reform conservatism" wonkiness is what WaPo's Catherine Rampell now calls "legerdemath." Ryan, of course, has his famous magic asterisks when it comes to budgeting the future, and, notes Rampell, "When Marco Rubio was asked [Wednesday night] why his tax plan gave the average rich person a bigger tax cut than the average middle-class person in percentage terms, Rubio decided he would just redefine how percentages work."
That may be. But the Washington Post's Rampell is part of the diabolical mainstream media, whereas Brooks, at the NY Times, is not. Paul Krugman, also at the NY Times, is, however, part of the mainstream media. So when he observes that "There was a time when Mr. Rubio’s insistence that $6 trillion in tax cuts would somehow pay for themselves would have marked him as deeply unserious," Krugman's observation can be dismissed by the elevaters — because "the Republican base doesn’t care what the mainstream media says."
Which brings us back to Rubio's fresh notoriety, investigative eyes, and "the beginning." The Republican base, Mr. Bush, doesn't read US News' David Catanese any more than it reads Paul Krugman or Catherine Rampell; hence leaking your document of Rubio-damnation to Catanese is equivalent to mum's the word. You must instead unleash your FBI-like budget of $100 million on Rubio directly — on the airwaves — while also exposing Ben Carson's scams and Donald Trump's morbidity. And you must do it now, as in, now. There will be no later, for your money will have run.
I offer this bit of advice in the almost laughably desperate hope of your survival and eventual nomination, Mr. Bush. Because you'll be a helluva lot easier to beat than the glib Sen. Rubio, even with his past depraved path and legerdemath.