Rubio as Reagan?

Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul are not the same people.  The Left will lump them together, but their positions are too nuanced to say they are one in the same.  For transparency sake, I prefer Rand Paul's libertarianish (libertarian-lite?) positions, but I admire all three of these individuals and believe all three would be excellent presidents.  At the very least, they probably would all be the best we've had since Ronald Reagan.

Speaking of the Gipper, all Republican candidates are required to say they are like our fortieth president.  I'm pretty sure it's on the paperwork filed to run.  All three of these candidates can plausibly say they would govern in a manner similar to Reagan.  But Senator Rubio probably has the best claim.

Here's the thing though: Reagan was more than just conservative positions.  Again and again it was his optimism that convinced people.  If you listen to Senator Cruz and Senator Paul speak, it tends to be a lot of doom and gloom.  Senator Cruz made a child cry for goodnesssake (the real truth came out shortly later; Senator Cruz didn't scare the child.  But his rhetoric is obviously very strong)!  Senator Paul is bristly on live interviews.  These aren't signs of evil candidates or mean personalities, but compare it to Senator Rubio's disposition. While Senator Rubio doesn't quite have the same demeanor as President Reagan, he has shown himself as the hopeful candidate.  He speaks more eloquently than anyone else on the Right about opportunity, the American Dream, and restoring our country's greatness.  He pivots better than any of the others from the sad state our country is in now, to the hope that we can have again.

This isn't a trivial matter.  When we think of our last two failed presidential candidates, we see two people who were out of touch with mainstream America.  They were less than convincing that they were interested in the average person.  That's not to say they didn't care, but perception is reality.  This was President George W. Bush's great advantage as well.  While you could question his decisions, outside of the Far Left, most people liked him.  You could sit down and have a beer with him.  This matters, because you could have great policy, philosophy, and theories, but if you can't come across as likable, it's going to be difficult to build an extensive coalition to fight for you in the trenches.

This isn't to say that Senator Rubio's policies align more closely than Reagan's than the others, though some have made that argument.  Personally, I find Senator Rubio's foreign policy to be too aggressive to be considered Reaganesque.  Also, Rubio doesn't have the personality of Reagan (or Bush 43 for that matter).  And my argument isn't that Senator Rubio should even be the GOP nominee.  However, should he earn the GOP nomination, his candidacy will be a stark difference than that of Hillary Clinton.  Back in 2008, another young, hopeful sounding candidate bested Madame Clinton.  Senator Rubio has more experience going for him in 2016 than what then-Senator Barack Obama did in 2008.  I don't think it's unreasonably to believe that a similar strategy to best her could work again.  This time, let's use optimism to take her down from the right.

Also this:

UPDATE: And as I was typing Marco Rubio posted this to prove everything I just typed: