Rubio will the the GOP nominee

OK, you heard it here first! I'm calling Marco Rubio as the winner of the GOP nomination marathon.

Yes, it's early days and gaffes, pitfalls and unexpected blowback are still to be experienced, but I think Rubio's the logical choice.

Let's look at my track record. I said the second debate would be Trump's downfall. OK, I was a little off on that. But Trump's failure to stand up to Fiorina's attack showed that he could be wounded. Fiorina has soared since then. Carson has been coming on strong since the first debate. But neither of these outsider candidates will survive the media scrutiny and organizational rigors of the next few months.

Last cycle we had a number of "front runners" over the early part of the process. Voters are trying out different things and anyone could be the flavor of the month.

Going toward Iowa, Carson is loved by evangelicals. But eventually his "nice guy" demeanor will rub off a little and people will see that his lack of experience in anything like running a large complex organization will make him unsuitable for the job. Already he's had to retract statements about Muslims. Carson makes conservatives feel good about themselves because they can support a black man.

On the other hand Fiorina, whatever her record at HP, has the leadership skills to not only run a campaign, but possibly hold elected office. Fiorina appeals to the conservatives who hate women. Of all the candidates' attacks on Planned Parenthood, hers is the most appealing to the conservative base precisely  because it is coming from a woman, who should know better. She appeals to people who see her being able to siphon support from Clinton in the general election.  Unlike Trump, she has detailed proposals. However, her proposals are not really rational or effective, and now she's going to have to spend time defending herself.

Anyway, Trump still tops the polls, but he's falling. According to the Washington Post, both Fiorina and Carson are gaining on him. So if neither of them are going to last who will?

Cruz would like to take Trump's supporters when he comes to his inevitable end. I think most of those people will crawl back under the rocks that they came from.

The party will have to appeal to people who have been alienated by the xenophobic rhetoric whipped up by Trump. That's where Rubio comes in. Now tied for third with Fiorina, he's perfectly positioned to be the party's go-to guy when the freak show comes to an end.

Trump will drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire, likely finishing below third in both. Carson may win Iowa, but can't sustain a front-runner status long. The establishment needs someone to get behind, and although that position should naturally be Bush's, he's not been able to campaign like a winner.

That's why I'm calling it for Rubio.

Debate could be Trump's Waterloo

Although the New York Times reports candidates are not looking to knock Trump out of the race, I think Trump may be heading for a fall. Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt will be on hand to ask foreign policy questions, and he has already roused The Donald's ire over such questions.

Asked about certain leaders in the Middle East (I won't name them because I don't know them myself, but then again, I'm not running for POTUS) Trump stumbled. What is telling about this misstep is not that he didn't know the names of some long-time Middle Eastern leaders, but that he is not spending his time with advisors studying actual foreign affairs. Of course it would have been worse if he didn't know the name of the President of Mexico or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Of course Trump responded in typical fashion with ad hominem attacks, calling Hewitt a second-rate journalist. Again, we see Trump's weakness. Although his base might lap it up for a while, sooner or later most rational people will realize that Trump has no solid policy knowledge. Or am I overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate?

What I think this tells us is that Trump is flying on ego. He makes speeches that are short on detail and the public laps it up. But veteran journalists should not be fooled by this rhetoric. That's what Hugh Hewitt shows us. Anyone running for President should have a good grasp on the state of the world and how the US political system actually works.

We saw a little of this in the first debate when Trump was asked for more details on his border wall proposal. He was asked how he "knows" that "criminals and rapists" are being sent by Mexico to the US. His answer is revealing of his typical tactic. He began by saying he visited the border and spoke to border agents. But instead of giving specifics detailing even one instance of an individual being sent by the Mexican government into the US illegally, he swerved into generalities and bombast. A good journalist would have gone back to the original question: "How do you know the Mexican government is sending people across the border?" But the Fox anchor dropped the ball. I have a sense that CNN will do a little better.

This may expose the weakness of the other candidates as well. I don't think any of the "outsiders" have the background knowledge to provide details about foreign policy, domestic policy, or any other policy. Possibly Fiorina has a team helping her getting up to speed, but I get no sense of that deep understanding of the job from Carson.

This may well be the turning point that Bush has been waiting for. No doubt, as the establishment candidate (not to mention brother and son of former Presidents), he has the deep understanding of the state of the world needed to lead the US. Rubio, also, is supposed to be strong on foreign policy.

It takes more than policy to lead a country, but leadership without knowledge is dangerous. It's about time the Republican Party separated the wheat from the chaff and moved toward the primaries with a much smaller field of candidates who are actually competent on policy.