Video: Rand Paul gives the Tea Party SOTU response

posted at 9:21 am on February 13, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

As I didn’t watch the State of the Union speech live, I also missed the two responses to it from Barack Obama’s opposition.  The networks carried Marco Rubio’s speech live, but most viewers had to go to the Tea Party Express website to watch Rand Paul rebut Obma’s SOTU address.  While some may complain about that decision, it is arguably fair.  If Mitt Romney had won the election, would we have cheered while the networks not only provided live coverage of Harry Reid’s rebuttal, but also one from Senator Bernie Sanders representing the Center for American Progress?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Anyway, it’s almost anachronistic to complain about a lack of coverage in the age of YouTube, isn’t it?

Like Rubio, Paul eschewed the laundry-list agenda approach in his response, and in some ways relied more on philosophy than Rubio did:

Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem.

Tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees. President Obama believes government is the solution: More government, more taxes, more debt.

What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous.

What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations.

He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happiness.

All that we are, all that we wish to be is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and eat it too, that you can spend a trillion dollars every year that you don’t have.

Noting that Obama rebuked Congress for the supposedly dangerous cuts in the sequester, Paul reminded viewers who came up with the idea in the first place.  He also pointed out that few understand that the sequester doesn’t actually cut current spending, but merely cuts the rate of growth in future spending:

The President does a big “woe is me” over the $1.2 trillion sequester that he endorsed and signed into law. Some Republicans are joining him. Few people understand that the sequester doesn’t even cut any spending. It just slows the rate of growth. Even with the sequester, government will grow over $7 trillion over the next decade.

Only in Washington could an increase of $7 trillion in spending over a decade be called a cut.

Like Rubio, Paul also argues for a balanced budget amendment:

So, what is the President’s answer? Over the past four years he has added over $6 trillion in new debt and may well do the same in a second term. What solutions does he offer? He takes entitlement reform off the table and seeks to squeeze more money out of the private sector.

He says he wants a balanced approach.

What the country really needs is a balanced budget. …

To begin with, we absolutely must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution!

The amendment must include strict tax and spending limitations.

Liberals complain that the budget can’t be balanced but if you cut just one penny from each dollar we currently spend, the budget would balance within six or seven years.

Contra Obama, Paul says that Washington has plenty of bipartisanship … and that’s the problem:

It is often said that there is not enough bipartisanship up here.

That is not true.

In fact, there is plenty.

Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses.

It is time for a new bipartisan consensus.

It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.

It’s an excellent, vigorous speech aimed at the GOP base, a clever companion to Rubio’s effort to recast the GOP more broadly within the electorate.  Before yesterday, most news accounts cast this as a competition between the two men, and that competition may arise electorally at some point.  To me, though, these two speeches look more complementary than competitive, as Republicans attempt to grow their influence and enlarge their tent rather than just shift the tent pegs over.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well, I certainly know which of the three speeches last night I liked the best.

Scott H on February 13, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Sometimes a truth speaker shows up. Not sure it will do any good though.

WordsMatter on February 13, 2013 at 9:27 AM

I didn’t see Paul’s response, but I’m digging those quotes. He’s gonna give Rubio a serious run for his money in 2016(with all due respect to Dr. Ben Carson).

Doughboy on February 13, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Rand Paul was the best of the night in my opinion. Rubio did pretty good though.

KCB on February 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Contra Obama, Paul says that Washington has plenty of bipartisanship … and that’s the problem:

Exactly. That’s what got us into this mess. The Party has almost always managed to peal away enough GOP squishes to ram through its socialist agenda. Solid GOP opposition to Obamacare was the exception, not the rule. To make it worse, The Party and their MSM propaganda lapdogs then hail it as a “bipartisan” effort and celebrate — Forward!.

farsighted on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM

As long as people believe that the “tea party” is actually a political party with any sort of chance to do any real good and effect real change to politics as usual…all this “Tea Party”stuff is nonsense.

Incorporate the “tea party” in all states as a legitimate political party with access to the ballots.

But, not even Rand Paul will profess to doing that.

Why do you think DeMint quit?

Until the “tea party” takes the step to become a real alternative political party in America, it is nothing but a shill for so-called conservatives.

Libertarians are at least honest in their convictions about too much government and lack of adherence to the fundamentals of the US Constitution. Less government means more individual freedom and responsibility is actually a very good way to look at it all.

The “tea party?”

Simply a novel way to sucker people into voting GOP.

Nothing less. Nothing more.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM

A 1% reduction in spending will eliminate the debt?

Am I wrong in thinking that the gubmint borrows 40 cents for each dollar spent?

I guess I’m dense. Please help.

FOWG1 on February 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM

And had the Smellie Hippies adopted this policy in the era 1968-72 Nixon and the GOP would have been in power for 20 years.

If the TEA Party adopts it, it will ensure Pelosi, Reid, and Co. will be in power for 20 years.

All either policy would have done or does is split the Opposition. You want “Conservative” change find a party a la Tom Hayden and make it over….

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 9:44 AM

The “tea party?”

Simply a novel way to sucker people into voting GOP.

Nothing less. Nothing more.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM

How so?

Mimzey on February 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM

It was an excellent speech.

gophergirl on February 13, 2013 at 9:46 AM

The “tea party?”

Simply a novel way to sucker people into voting GOP.

Nothing less. Nothing more.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I left my local Tea Party group on the day the leader sent me an email in which he asked to support some anti-abortion stuff. Not that I’m not pro-life, but that’s not what the Tea Party is supposed to be about! Rand Paul looks like he might restore Tea Party to what it originally was – a grassroots movement for smaller government and smaller taxes, not a GOP revenue stream. And if Rand Paul chooses to run in 2016, it might be the first time I’ll donate and do some legwork in the primaries. Rubio? I might not move my butt outta the chair on Election day.

Archivarix on February 13, 2013 at 9:49 AM

FOWG1 on February 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM

1%?

In the rate of growth of the debt?

Won’t even cover a couple days…

If Paul had been honest, he’d have suggested 10% actual across the board cut immediately, then a 10% actual cuts in spending (not just cuts to the rate of growth) and elimination of federal programs each fiscal year until the overall debt and cost of governance reaches and stays at no more than 15% of GNP.

Then, we can talk.

Ever notice how politicians talk about “reduction” and never say “elimination” when they talk about that elephant in the living room?

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

How so?

Mimzey on February 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Has the “tea party” ever won an election, anywhere? Has the “tea party” ever established itself as an actual political party…anywhere?

Who reaps the “benefits” of the “tea party?”

Seems the GOP is the largest beneficiary.

Can’t see the “tea party” throwing their support behind Progressives.

And, when you talk to them, being Libertarian is anathema to them…

They just cannot seem to take that first step toward political independence, so, instead,they play along to the benefit of the GOP.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Archivarix on February 13, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Only if Rand Paul were to run as a true independent, or a Libertarian, would I ever consider voting for him.

I walked away from the GOP after the GOP stood by and watched, saying nothing, as the MSM eviscerated the former GOP VP candidate within weeks after the 2008 election was over.

The GOP is no longer your friend.

Understand that.

The GOP is a very large part of the present set of problems facing this Nation.

I’d rather not vote for more of the same and try to call it “conservative.”

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses.

I am really starting to like this guy.
Unfortunately…. any real change in stopping the taxpayer from getting screwed up on the Hill……is probably going to have to be preceded by a major financial disaster.
America seems to need major events like Pearl Harbor…9/11….the Depression…..to address the hard issues that are politically dangerous and continuously avoided by our 24/7 election cycle leadership on the Hill.
But in this day and age…..these types of disasters are hoped for by the “Cloward/Piven” crew who use it to grow government and take away liberties.

If the American people don’t get their sh!t together and start holding the leadership on the Hill accountable……whether it’s at the voting booth or storming the Bastille……nothing’s going to change and they are going to continue to crush us to pay for their vote buying and financial black jack.

Baxter Greene on February 13, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Anyway, it’s almost anachronistic to complain about a lack of coverage in the age of YouTube, isn’t it?

I agree Ed. Do you know that was true with the election too. I heard so many people from Red states (where advertising dollars could not be spent,) saying they had no idea what Romney and Ryan were for, and things like that, and I was able to watch it every day online and read it for myself.

My favorite: the rally at Red Rock. Did you miss it, your loss.

Fleuries on February 13, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I think Rand is alot like his dad in terms of being a paleocon. Rand is just more well spoke and doesn’t let all the crazy talk come out his mouth like RuPaul does.

That being said right now I’d still support Rand over Rubio.

Look at their speeches from last night:

Rubio is taking in general terms, sounds like Romney and McCain from the last 2 elections.

Rand Paul is talking about some real cuts like a 17% flat tax and reducing the corporate tax.

So despite Rand’s uneasy foreign policy and talking about containment last week, we need someone to make some serious cuts instead of the the sugarcoated business as usual GOPe talk. Just look at the start of Rubio’s speech saying how he’s not concerned about the rich, but the middle class — standard GOPe buying into the class warfare garbage.

No one is perfect, but I stand with Rand over Rubio. I mean Rand is giving the Tea Party response and Rubio is giving the GOPe response. That should really tell you all you need to know.

LevinFan on February 13, 2013 at 10:04 AM

I walked away from the GOP after the GOP stood by and watched, saying nothing, as the MSM eviscerated the former GOP VP candidate within weeks after the 2008 election was over.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Agreed.
Didn’t go quite as far as you Warrior but the National Republican party has not received a cent from me since their disgraceful,backstabbing treatment of a strong Conservative woman.
I share a lot of the same values as Palin and when they burned her and left her hanging out to dry….they did it to me and my family also.

Still support and work with the local GOP because to do nothing helps socialism spread……still vote Republican because a no vote is a vote for socialism.

Baxter Greene on February 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM

I left my local Tea Party group on the day the leader sent me an email in which he asked to support some anti-abortion stuff. Not that I’m not pro-life, but that’s not what the Tea Party is supposed to be about!
Archivarix on February 13, 2013 at 9:49 AM

the same thing happened to me,and they got the exact same response!

svs22422 on February 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM

It should be noted that Robin Hood wasn’t robbing the rich as much as he was “robbing” governmental institutions. In Robin Hood it was the government which was grinding the people into the dirt.

gwelf on February 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Liberals complain that the budget can’t be balanced but if you cut just one penny from each dollar we currently spend, the budget would balance within six or seven years.

…The Penny Plan…

There is nothing not to like about the Penny Plan. Do we know why Mitch McConnell and John Boehner don’t talk about it? What does Paul Ryan think about it?

Boring! No one is interested

Fleuries on February 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Only if Rand Paul were to run as a true independent, or a Libertarian, would I ever consider voting for him.

Shorter Cold Warrior: “I will only vote for LOSERS.”

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM

http://twitchy.com/2013/02/12/sarah-palin-introduces-state-of-the-union-hashtag-sotugottabkiddingme/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Sarah Palin introduces State of the Union hashtag
Posted at 8:01 pm on February 12, 2013 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

Keep an eye on Gov. Palin’s Twitter feed and the #sotUGottaBKiddingMe hashtag. Should be a fun night.

Yep.

And

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301422735240876033
WaPo & like-minded MSM entities, you’re about as credible as, well, Barack Obama. Can’t wait for tonight’s SOTU to point out more examples.

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301495070010515456
Obama is expected to say tonight: “Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime.” #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301515351525568513
Obama: “There is much progress to report.” Oh really? Let’s see what the facts show… #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301515499567718400
22.7 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301515631268864000
Our GDP shrank by 0.1% in the 4th quarter. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301515822260707328
Obama added $518 billion in new regulatory costs to America’s job creators since taking office http://is.gd/jNIvE7 #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301516068902563842
We have a $16.5 trillion national debt & we’re on day 1,385 without a budget. #PermanentPoliticalClassAtWork #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301516211794108416
$5.9 million was added to the national debt since Obama took office. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301516458381430785
We have $46 trillion in fed spending from Obama’s FY13 Budget through 2022. That’s not “responsible” or “balanced” #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301516745762545664
Keep in mind that the sequester was Obama’s baby. He signed it into law. Now he thinks it’s economic Armageddon. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301517417698435072
“Balanced approach” means “I’m going to increase your taxes to pay for my crony capitalism.” #NoOneIsBuyingThis #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301518253686132736
“Can’t cut our way to prosperity.” If endlessly borrowing & spending money we don’t have leads to prosperity, bankruptcy is the way forward!

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301518716988948481
Obama: “We must keep the promises we’ve already made.” Like not raising taxes? #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301518902322671616
Voted for Obama? Check your paycheck withholding – it’s less. #OBuyersRemorse yet? #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301519201997307905
Stagnant economy, Greek-style debt, inflation, no jobs, high gas prices. What say you, Obama voters? #OBuyersRemorse? #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301520185070850048
Let’s “invest” in more “clean energy” because Obama has a lot of campaign bundlers to thank #cronycapitalismonsteroids #sotUGottaBeKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301520415581417472
FACT: New offshore leases for oil and natural gas drilling have declined 61% under Obama. #noenergy #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301523148002709506
Gee, with all of these things he wants to “invest” in, how will he keep his promise not to “increase our deficit by a single dime”?

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301524666705649665
Obama speaks of “a thriving middle class”. Let’s see how the middle class has fared under Obama…

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301524760909709312
The average price per gallon of gas has increased 96% since Obama took office. http://is.gd/aMZ0DA #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301525328105459713
Real median household income has declined $4,520 since Obama took office. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe #ObamaHurtsTheMiddleClass

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301524894234062848
The average cost of family health care premiums has risen 24% under Obama. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301525008084267008
Just 14% of America’s seniors believe they can retire comfortably. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301525131682017280
The annual cost per household from federal regulations is over $15,000. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301526038100451328
By the way, women working at the White House make less than men. Clean your own house first, Mr. President. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301527505830027265

Now we’re going to eradicate poverty around the world. But remember this won’t “increase our deficit by a single dime” #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301530467885268994
RT @NRAILA: Obama’s “commonsense reform” requires gun registration and confiscation #SOTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHmxY7zE5uc

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301533130693693440
Obama’s SOTU was more recycled rhetoric. He wants to make the fed govt more intrusive, bankrupt, and controlling. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301533394213421057
Most things Obama talked about are handled better on the individual, local & state level. Growing our bankrupt fed govt is NOT the answer.

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301554215992578048
Should be $5.9 TRILLION. Sorry for the typo. RT $5.9 million was added to the national debt since Obama took office. #sotUGottaBKiddingMe

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/301556929774366720
Here’s a telling reminder of what wasn’t said tonight. What Obama DIDN’T say reflects his values & priorities as… http://fb.me/2yGzrbZ0g

Palin 2016

ChuckTX on February 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Rand: 5 year plan to balance the budget by cutting corporate income tax in half, 17% flat tax, and cutting regulations

Rubio: 10 year plan of growing economy at 4 % that may work over 10 years. —so if a 2 term president is term limited the next president can just change everything.

LevinFan on February 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM

And the GOP presidential winner in 2008 was?

And in 2012?

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM

So 2016 will have Paul as the TP prez candidate
and Rubio (or someone) as the GOP’s.
Good news for Hot Air.

verbaluce on February 13, 2013 at 10:21 AM

There’s no disarray or lack of unity in the Republican party!

On a completely unrelated note, there will be two different responses to the president’s speech tonight.

“Optics” aside, if these articles portray the true highlights of these two speeches, there seems to have been no reason to have done anything other than a single speech. Both speeches featured rising stars in the party, both had a philosophical rejoinder to the president’s unicorn farts, and both called for things like balanced budget amendments and growing the economy rather than the government.

IMO what would have been more impactful than either speech by itself, combine them into a single speech, giving a single conservative platform, emphasize that conservatism means to conserve ALL Americans’ freedoms, and even have the two appear jointly, assuming the two aren’t butting heads behind the scenes or something. This seems like a win for everybody.

Everybody, except for the individuals jockeying for position in 2016, I guess. So there’s that.

The Schaef on February 13, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Please Rand Paul, don’t go nuts on us when foreign policy comes up. That was a fantastic response.

Big Orange on February 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Rand Paul gave a very good response..:)

PS..Nice assessment Capt. Ed..:)

Dire Straits on February 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Exellent!! Now all we need are listeners.

RdLake on February 13, 2013 at 10:42 AM

A 1% reduction in spending will eliminate the debt?

Am I wrong in thinking that the gubmint borrows 40 cents for each dollar spent?

I guess I’m dense. Please help.

[FOWG1 on February 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM]

Try this:

Take a fiscal budget of $3.5T and reduce it by 1% each year. The result should be about $3.29T after 7 years, if I did my math correctly.

Now take a $14.5T GDP and increase by a growth rate of 2.5% each year. The result should be $17.24T after 7 years. Now take about the historical average revenue as % of GDP at 7 years, say use 18.5%. The result should be $3.19T.

Tweak using some growth oriented policies until a net postive.

Sure, there are obviously assumptions which can be debated, but the argument is not absurd on it’s face. The biggest hurdle is the squeeze of entitlements.

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Now on to the Blue Buddha speech. I know he’s a doper.
nonpartisan

Where the heII is Blue Buddha looking? Hold those cue cards higher!
nonpartisan

Oh yeah Blue Buddha does not disappoint, that dude is baked. Look at those eyes. Whats up with that Cheshire grin? Dude!!!
nonpartisan

I have to give Buddha this much, nice hair product.
nonpartisan

He’s a mean stoner. Whats up with that background? Canadian Football League fan?
nonpartisan

But my free phone! My free stuff! Meanie!
nonpartisan

Uh huh, Uh huh, 9:10 cotton starting to form. Lol! Dude you’re baked!
nonpartisan

Man this guy is just off in a Libertarian dream scape not based in reality. Hold people accountable in D.C.? Dude that must be some good shit your holding right there. Bogart!
nonpartisan

Wow, you guys are so screwed. Blah,blah,blah,….blah,blah,blah. And Buddha take some of your stash money send Rubio to the orthodontist and get yourself some whitening strips. That tea is really leaving a stain. Downtwinkles.

nonpartisan

Bmore on February 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM

And the GOP presidential winner in 2008 was?

And in 2012?

And if you split the anti-Obama vote the results would have been WORSE…because rather than ONE party with a chance to win, you’d have TWO PARTIES, with NO CHANCES to win….go ahead and tell me why two parties with 20-24% of the vote is preferable…so then the fight becomes TEA v. GOP to become the Opposition and THEN the fight v. the Democrats.

Your political acumen (for Democrats) is stunning.

Whilst “Conservatives” may make up 35-40% of the electorate, please note that is not 50% plus 1…so we are going to need some NON-Conservative votes to achieve victory….

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Please Rand Paul, don’t go nuts on us when foreign policy comes up. That was a fantastic response.
Big Orange on February 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM

He already did last week at Heritage repeating Michael Moore era lies and smearing Reagan and rest of the cold warriors….and in front of a Conservative audience followed with rushing out the door to avoid Q&A.

He isn’t electable anyway but definitely not CinC material. He would do the most good I. The Senate fighting the size of govt in domestic sphere.

jp on February 13, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Anyone interested in the private citizen version of the SOTU should check out Bill Whittle’s Virtual SOTU which will be online soon. He did an amazing Inaugural address too.

Anyway, the Paul speech was pretty good. I preferred it to Rubio’s softer approach.

Dongemaharu on February 13, 2013 at 10:49 AM

I like this guy. More than anyone in GOP. At least for now.

antisocial on February 13, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Ever notice how politicians talk about “reduction” and never say “elimination” when they talk about that elephant in the living room?

[coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM]

Which is why it was annoying to see Rubio working on legislation placing on the Education Department more responsibilities that the public becomes dependent on. How can one get near elimination when we aren’t even reducing?

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 10:52 AM

When we finally see who these people really are, will we even then fully understand that we need not a political leader to save this nation, but an exorcist brigade?

Don L on February 13, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Rand FTW.

I left my local Tea Party group on the day the leader sent me an email in which he asked to support some anti-abortion stuff. Not that I’m not pro-life, but that’s not what the Tea Party is supposed to be about!

Archivarix on February 13, 2013 at 9:49 AM

But that’s the problem, ain’t it?

The purse strings on the right fall into a few camps, and the social cons are one.

What we need is for the media players who’ve made their names from these groups, to be replaced.

budfox on February 13, 2013 at 11:08 AM

I think Rubio’s approach will do more good with the general electorate. While I agree with what Rand said, he was preaching to the choir – I doubt he persuaded anyone…and politics is supposed to be the art of persuasion.

That said, I like both of them.

DRayRaven on February 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM

What we need is for the media players who’ve made their names from these groups, to be replaced.

budfox on February 13, 2013 at 11:08 AM

What’s that mean, “Thanks for your vote/support/money/time, now go sit at the back of the bus?”

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Here is a side by side of bho/Rubio/Paul on some of the issue last night.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/12/heres-a-side-by-side-comparison-of-how-obama-rubio-paul-view-the-state-of-the-union/
L

letget on February 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM

And if you split the anti-Obama vote the results would have been WORSE…because rather than ONE party with a chance to win, you’d have TWO PARTIES, with NO CHANCES to win….go ahead and tell me why two parties with 20-24% of the vote is preferable…so then the fight becomes TEA v. GOP to become the Opposition and THEN the fight v. the Democrats.

Because that didn’t actually happen the last time a major party dissolved. The Whigs are not around today as a major political force. Instead the party broke apart, went through a brief period of chaos, and then reformed as the Republicans. If it happened once, it can happen again.

Your political acumen (for Democrats) is stunning.

Whilst “Conservatives” may make up 35-40% of the electorate, please note that is not 50% plus 1…so we are going to need some NON-Conservative votes to achieve victory….

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM

So what is your plan to achieve victory then? Just keep voting and donating to the GOP and hope things magically get better? How has that worked in the last two decades or so? We spent the last election chasing “moderates,” won them, and lose the election anyway. At least those suggesting a fresh start are trying something, as opposed to those obsessed with proving they were right by running another Romney/McCain type in 2016.

Doomberg on February 13, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Actually, what’s wrong with Robin Hood, who stole from the tax collectors and gave it back to the people from whence it came?

besser tot als rot on February 13, 2013 at 11:30 AM

DRayRaven: You know, I’d believe that, except for the glaring example of 2008 and 2012. Barack Obama did very little to ‘persuade’ anyone, and yet he was elected.

If the GOP has to water down their platform to win, and the Democrats do not, then you have conceded the fact that the country is a center-left to left country, and as a result should have liberals in charge.

Scott H on February 13, 2013 at 11:31 AM

So what is your plan to achieve victory then? Just keep voting and donating to the GOP and hope things magically get better? How has that worked in the last two decades or so? We spent the last election chasing “moderates,” won them, and lose the election anyway. At least those suggesting a fresh start are trying something, as opposed to those obsessed with proving they were right by running another Romney/McCain type in 2016.

All either policy would have done or does is split the Opposition. You want “Conservative” change find a party a la Tom Hayden and make it over….

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 9:44 AM

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 11:32 AM

besser: Whether that is what he historical did or not, his legend is strict class warfare: “Rob from the rich and give to the poor.”

Sure, if you look at it, he was actually sticking it to the government, of sorts… of course, that’s a poor argument as you literally had to be wealthy to participate in government back then.

But no one remembers that.

Scott H on February 13, 2013 at 11:34 AM

JFKY: News for you… the right wing in this country is _already_ split beyond reconciliation.

The GOP will not stand up for conservatives or really their own platform, so why should the reverse happen?

Scott H on February 13, 2013 at 11:36 AM

JFKY: News for you… the right wing in this country is _already_ split beyond reconciliation.

REALLY then you’d better start learning to:
1) Love Pelosi; or
2) Love that SoCon/Fiscon next door.

Please take a note from the Left…

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Rand Paul is the true CONSERVATIVE answer to Reagan! The libs are trying to make him look “Crazy”, cause they can not make him look dumb … he is a doctor. Run Rand Run!!!! you get my $$$$$

charmingtail on February 13, 2013 at 11:59 AM

It’s refreshing to see a politician that thinks like me.

sadatoni on February 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM

A 1% reduction in spending will eliminate the debt?
Am I wrong in thinking that the gubmint borrows 40 cents for each dollar spent?
I guess I’m dense. Please help.
FOWG1 on February 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Rand Paul didn’t say that 1% cuts would eliminate our dept, only that it would balance the budget. It works quickly because of compound interest. I don’t know how the penny plan is calculated by its authors, but here’s it with some basic assumptions:

Assume a continuation of our average growth rate in federal spending of 4.5%
Assume the budget is $100

PennyPlan —- vs -Historical
Year 0, $100 – 1% $100 + 4.5%
Year 1, $99.00 vs. $104.50
Year 2, $98.01 vs. $109.20
Year 3, $97.03 vs. $114.12
Year 4, $96.06 vs. $119.25
Year 5, $95.10 vs. $124.62
Year 6, $94.15 vs. $130.23
Year 7, $93.21 vs. $136.09
Year 8, $92.27 vs. $142.21
Year 9, $91.35 vs. $148.45

By year 7, federal spending would be 32% less
By year 10, federal spending would be 42% less (about what it would need to be today for our budget to balance.)

The worst thing about it IMO is that future governments would probably not follow it. The best thing about it is that it’s unlikely to trigger a civil war or an economic collapse like a 10% cuts might. And it’s actually “possible” in this world, not just in a fantasy world.

elfman on February 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM

[elfman on February 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM]

Yeah, my comment addressed the budget deficit. I should have been clearer that my comment had nothing to do with the debt other than as a way to stop contributing to it.

I ignored the FOWG1′s reference to the debt as being a typo.

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Rand Paul says: “the economy is tenuous

I love Rand Paul, and I’m all for big words when appropriate, but a serious piece of advice: when talking to all the people, DON’T USE BIG S.A.T. VOCABULARY WORDS! ~ 65% of the people doesn’t know what tenuous means. It’s an unforced needless error. Practice correct speech. Don’t use big words when talking to the hoi polloi. Say instead, simply “the economy is in terrible shape” or something else sans tenuous.

Romney used these type of big vocabulary words repeatedly. And it reinforced a sense that he was a rich out of touch dweeb of the 1%. It needlessly made him appear (more) stilted, (more) stuffy, (more) Ivy Tower, even arrogant. There’s no political cost to correct your speech habits, so just do it.

anotherJoe on February 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Rand said:

The willpower to do this (cut the deficit) won’t come from Congress, it must come from the American people.

Good luck with that. As of November 6th, 2012, the American people have exhibited no such willpower. With no signs of that changing any time soon.

Carnac on February 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Palin 2016

ChuckTX on February 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Thank you for posting those. A few of our commenters posted some on the SOTU thread. To see them all is helpful. Great way for Sarah to respond in realtime!!

bluefox on February 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM

letget on February 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Thanks, bookmarked it for later.

bluefox on February 13, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Sorry Dusty, I meant to make it clear that my reply was to FOGW1 and was just copying you and ColdWarrior, but forgot to include that.

elfman on February 13, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Sometimes a truth speaker shows up. Not sure it will do any good though.

WordsMatter on February 13, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Have to start somewhere. It’s up to us to keep it going and make truth speaking honorable again.

kim roy on February 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM

He isn’t electable anyway but definitely not CinC material. He would do the most good I. The Senate fighting the size of govt in domestic sphere.

jp on February 13, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I haven’t seen your handle before so I’ll be nice in case you’re a newbie, but as a warning: Don’t use the phrase (or any form thereof) of “isn’t electable” around here.

We (I think I can speak for a lot of us here) have had “electable” people shoved down our throats and had to suck it up and had our ears boxed for the effort. We’ve watched “unelectable” strong people who might have made a huge difference wander off.

There is no “unelectable” anymore. Any strong conservative who tosses their hat in should get our attention and support. If that’s Rand Paul, then so be it.

kim roy on February 13, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Nothing will come of any of this.
The sad truth of things is that too many of the American people still want their freebies from both sides of the aisle.
You’ve got your liberals who are straight forward about it or not, but all these entitlements they see as a human right.
Then you’ve got conservative people who say those things are not a right, as they hold out their hands for Federal grants, disaster loans & payments, farm payments, ecological program payments of all kinds, SSD, SS, Medicare/caid, etc.
Much of these latter people use the excuse that they paid taxes & so are owed these things, or everybody else is doing it, why not get my ‘share’?
Meh. No one has the guts to do what it takes to turn America around.
And to be sure, it will fall eventually.
Bcs people are stupid & don’t learn from their history.

Badger40 on February 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

There’s no political cost to correct your speech habits, so just do it.

anotherJoe on February 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM

To be honest, if that’s what you think will actually change the low information moron voter’s mind about the dire circumstances of this country, er uh I mean how we are sooooo f@cked, then let it burn.
Bcs if they don’t know what some of those words mean, the likelihood of them even getting WTF is wrong with simple words isn’t really going to improve much anyway.
These morons are only looking for the liberals to increase the spreading around of other people’s $$ to those who are unproductive.

Badger40 on February 13, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Badger40 on February 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Glad a Pissy-Willow fellow like you wasn’t around after Bull Run/Antietam or the Fall of the Philippines or in 1976, because that’s what folkz said before Thatcher or Reagan, too.

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 2:01 PM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:54 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM

You make excellent points and possible solutions. We know the Admin/Dems/MSM are against Conservatives/Tea Party and so are the GOP. We’ve been fighting all of them and as you say electing some Tea Party members, but all that does is add to the GOP who have proved worthless to our cause. Seems like we’re beating our heads against that brick wall.

Our government is best described as Boomtown. No matter who is in power, we the people lose; as we have for many many years.

What have we gained since 2010? 2012? I see nothing but a few timid speeches from Leaders in the House & their man McConnell in the Senate; right before they cave.

Enjoyed and appreciated your comments. Certainly food for thought:-)

bluefox on February 13, 2013 at 2:17 PM

There is no “unelectable” anymore. Any strong conservative who tosses their hat in should get our attention and support. If that’s Rand Paul, then so be it.

kim roy on February 13, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Totally agree! We are going to decide who is or who isn’t electable. Not the GOP or Karl Rove and his RINOPAC gang. They are the Cotton Conservatives and we know where they ended up. Hope we can help them along.

Rove et al are smearing and attacking Rep.Steve King just because he’s thinking about running for that open Senate seat in Iowa. I’m not even from Iowa but I intend to support him.

bluefox on February 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

And the GOP presidential winner in 2008 was?

And in 2012?

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 10:18 AM

They were standing right next to every libertarian presidential winner in this nation’s history.

Can’t believe you missed it.

BigWyo on February 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

BigWyo on February 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

This past recent election was the first time the Libertarian Party actually was permitted on most of the state ballots for federal office. Was on all 50 until a couple state supreme courts decided to make a few last-minute changes to established eligibility rules.

Locally, we have been on local ballots for the past few years, and each time we are gaining in numbers of members and in number of voters…which this last election were well over the number of registered Libertarians in this State.

It has to start somewhere.

The GOP is failing because the GOP in the past couple decades has failed America.

GOP candidates try to out Democrat the Democrats time and time again.

Conservative principles are tossed aside, routinely, in order to find an “electable” candidate.

Not working out too well, is it?

In actual numbers, since you fired the volley, the Libertarian Party (a real Party, not like that “tea party” pseudo-GOP thing) is growing in all states…while the GOP is declining in all states.

No, we’ve not yet elected a Libertarian President, but we are electing local mayors, city council members, state representatives, had a good number on the Congressional ballot last time around, too…and we intend to do a lot more of that sort of thing.

The Libertarian Party made a huge mistake years ago when they focused on getting a President elected, and never gave a moment’s thought to getting local and state officials elected.

We are trying to remedy that error.

Ask yourself, under both the GOP and the Dems, has government intruded more into your life or less? Are you paying more for that privilege or less? Are these presently United States better off today or less well off because of all those who decided to get along and compromise and reach across the aisle was more important to getting elected that standing their ground, on Constitutional principles?

Wish we had actual real Conservatives in the GOP and on the ballots.

But, alas, we do not.

We just have two permutations of the Democrat Party.

The Progressive faction is clearly socialist. The so-called conservative faction is merely trying to be polite, so as not to offend anyone.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM

In actual numbers, since you fired the volley, the Libertarian Party (a real Party, not like that “tea party” pseudo-GOP thing) is growing in all states…while the GOP is declining in all states.

And gets fewer votes than the Green party…and has run recycled Republicans the last two POTUS cycles and a lunatic in the 2000 cycle.

The GOP is declining, so that’s why the GOP captured those state legislatures and holds 30 governorships….

As Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

If you are going to start on aboout the Libertarian PARTY as some form of salvation, you can just stop right there….

By the time the libertarian Republicans moved their furniture in, there wouldn’t be any Libertarians left…

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Fewer votes than the Green Party?

Really?

Not in this state nor the several it borders on. Not in 2012.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM

I stand corrected…..

Gary Johnson pulled just a bit more than one million votes and around one percent of the vote. ChaCha!

Seats in the Senate
0 / 100

Seats in the House
0 / 435

Governorships
0 / 50

State Upper Houses
0 / 1,921

State Lower Houses
0 / 5,410

Seats in the Senate
0 / 100

Seats in the House
0 / 435

Governorships
0 / 50

State Upper Houses
0 / 1,921

State Lower Houses
0 / 5,410

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Do note the large number of “o’s” in the above list as in NO Governors, No State houses, in fact NO local governments…there is NOTHING that LP candidates run…

Yes, that is CERTAINLY the basis for a viable opposition party…

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 3:58 PM

A 1% reduction in spending will eliminate the debt?

Am I wrong in thinking that the gubmint borrows 40 cents for each dollar spent?

I guess I’m dense. Please help.

Check out the Mack penny plan

landowner on February 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM

It wouldn’t surprise me if Rand Paul ran in 2016 on the Libertarian Party ticket. I don’t know what the differences are between them and say, the Conservatives/Tea Party goals yet. Intend to do some research and find out. Clearly the Boomtown Party isn’t doing anything good for this Country.

bluefox on February 13, 2013 at 4:38 PM

A 1% reduction in spending will eliminate the debt?
Am I wrong in thinking that the gubmint borrows 40 cents for each dollar spent?
I guess I’m dense. Please help.
FOWG1 on February 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Dusty on February 13, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Rand Paul didn’t say that 1% cuts would eliminate our dept, only that it would balance the budget. It works quickly because of compound interest. I don’t know how the penny plan is calculated by its authors, but here’s it with some basic assumptions:

Assume a continuation of our average growth rate in federal spending of 4.5%
Assume the budget is $100

PennyPlan —- vs -Historical
Year 0, $100 – 1% $100 + 4.5%
Year 1, $99.00 vs. $104.50
Year 2, $98.01 vs. $109.20
Year 3, $97.03 vs. $114.12
Year 4, $96.06 vs. $119.25
Year 5, $95.10 vs. $124.62
Year 6, $94.15 vs. $130.23
Year 7, $93.21 vs. $136.09
Year 8, $92.27 vs. $142.21
Year 9, $91.35 vs. $148.45

By year 7, federal spending would be 32% less
By year 10, federal spending would be 42% less (about what it would need to be today for our budget to balance.)

The worst thing about it IMO is that future governments would probably not follow it. The best thing about it is that it’s unlikely to trigger a civil war or an economic collapse like a 10% cuts might. And it’s actually “possible” in this world, not just in a fantasy world.

elfman on February 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Thanks guys/gals, it makes some sense now.

FOWG1 on February 13, 2013 at 5:55 PM

I think Rubio’s approach will do more good with the general electorate. While I agree with what Rand said, he was preaching to the choir – I doubt he persuaded anyone…and politics is supposed to be the art of persuasion.

That said, I like both of them.

DRayRaven on February 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Do better with the general electorate?

You mean just like McCain and Romney did right??

We were told we couldn’t have someone too extreme like Bachmann or Santorum that Romney would appeal to them.

How that work out again????

Time to stop watering down our principes!

LevinFan on February 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM

SMASH the MATRIX!!!

Paul/Rubio 2016

I’m thru being numb and dumb.

Have a great Lenten Season too.

KirknBurker on February 13, 2013 at 8:03 PM