Who Supports Marco Rubio?

People like newspaper columnist Frank Bruni, apparently.  Luckily, it seems there are only a few like this...

[T]he rap on Rubio is that he counts too much on [ads] them and spends too little time on the trail. The largest newspaper in New Hampshire took aim at the infrequency of his appearances there in an editorial with the headline: “Marco? Marco? Where’s Rubio?”

And when he missed a Senate vote last month, a spokesman for Cruz tweeted that it was because “he had 1 event in a row in Iowa — a record-setting breakneck pace for Marco.”

Rubio can’t claim a singularly formidable campaign organization, with a remarkably robust platoon of ground troops. His fund-raising hasn’t been exceptional.

His promise seems to lie instead in his biography as the son of hard-working Cuban immigrants, in his good looks, in the polish of his oratory, in the nimbleness with which he debates.

And in this: Reasonable people can’t stomach the thought of Trump or Cruz as the nominee. We can’t accept what that would say about America, or what that could mean for it. Rubio is the flawed, rickety lifeboat we cling to, the amulet we clutch. He’ll prevail because he must. The alternative is simply too perverse (Trump) or too cruel (Cruz).

Bruni should let go.
There's no requirement that a columnist need be political, nevermind report to us who he supports.  If he's uncomfortable with the Republican field, he should stay home and not vote, or consider other party options.

There's no shame in not being political, if you find yourself disliking the options in front of you.  Push away from the table already, and develop your own hobbies and interests.  In the long run, working locally can be more politically rewarding than voting nationally, I think.