Rand Paul: My tea-party SOTU rebuttal won’t divide Republicans
“I see it as an extra response. I don’t see it as necessarily divisive,” Paul told chief political correspondent Candy Crowley on the CNN program “State of the Union.”
“I won’t say anything on there that necessarily is like, ‘Marco Rubio is wrong,’” Paul continued. “He and I don’t always agree, but this isn’t about he and I. This is about the tea party, which is a grass-roots movement, a real movement, with millions of Americans that still are concerned about some of the deal-making that goes on in Washington.”…
Paul pushed back Sunday on the notion that Rubio, or any other Republican, has been anointed as the “face” of the Republican Party, making the case that Republican lawmakers sometimes have different priorities.
“I don’t think anybody gets to choose who the face is, or say you or someone else is the face. I think we do the best to promote what we believe in,” Paul said, pointing to his own vocal opposition to sending U.S. foreign aid money to certain countries like Egypt and Pakistan.
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
Rand Paul 2016
Let’s try nominating a conservative this time vice the “most electable.” If the country elects another socialist democrat for POTUS then it will be time to aggressively institute the 9th and 10th amendments.
Oh, and for good measure…..Karl Rove, get lost.
Meat Fighter on February 10, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Can anyone tell me where they actually do disagree? Rand sounds a lot like Rubio on immigration. I can’t think of anything else on which they diverge.
crrr6 on February 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Rand, I wish you would divide the Republicans. It’s about time we have someone up on The Hill who is willing to separate the wheat from the chaff. I guess it’s not you, but then again, I’m not surprised. You are a Republican after all.
gryphon202 on February 10, 2013 at 11:55 AM
RINO
Flapjackmaka on February 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM
Rubio favors, while Paul opposes, military interventionism. Additionally, Rand Paul has hinted at favoring drug legalization while Marco Rubio has not. Marco Rubio has typically favored an otherwise tough-on-crime approach while Paul has again not had much to say about it. Paul opposes the PATRIOT act while Rubio supports it.
I’m sure I could come up with others, but those are some particulars.
Stoic Patriot on February 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM
If Rand Paul goes through with this stunt the Republican caucus should strip him of all committee assignments and let him become Sen Rand Paul, I-KY.
meci on February 10, 2013 at 12:35 PM
It’s something that’s needed. I don’t want to hear another response that’s been “approved” by John Cornyn and the other GOP Ayatollahs.
I’ll consider RAND’s response to be the definitive response.
HondaV65 on February 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Yeah how dare that guy attempt to represent the grassroots – let’s take him out back and whip the hell out of him!
LOL
IMPOTENT ESTABLISHMENT
HondaV65 on February 10, 2013 at 12:37 PM
Rubio seems like a telegenic appeaser. And hordes of Repubs are reaching for Rubio because we think that we need to soften up and be more like the Dems to win. Demlite.
WRONG. It’s not to go crazy on abortion, though. That is a loser issue for us however you slice it. It IS to take a firm Tea Party / libertarian like stand on economics and personal freedom. Stand firm and strong. Get some substance behind our candidate … don’t repeat the middling very annoying mush of Romney. No more.
Stand firm. And don’t be “Demlite.” If we are Demlite, voters will vote for the Dems. Rand Paul needs to divide the confused GOP, and chart a new course for it.
anotherJoe on February 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM
@another joe Yeah, lets pi** off the SoCons. Brilliant idea. NOT. If you don’t take the SoCons with you, you can’t get elected. Period.
tommy71 on February 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Blue Buddha!!!
Bmore on February 10, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Downtwinkles to all you nervous Establishment types. Why so worried? Oh that’s right, you should be. Lol! ; ) What happened to your big tent, dinosaurs? Whigs!
Bmore on February 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM
tommy71 on February 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Ok tommy but we seem perhaps to be in a bit of a catch-22.
If we take Socons at full force (at least on abortion) then the majority of voters are going to shy away from us. It’s not just Akin & Murdoch. It’s the abortion issue. The (majority of) people want it legal, and a huge percent of otherwise conservative voters will vote for the Dem if abortion is a serious issue. They’ll even vote for a socialist, it’s that important to them. So, if I were a socon, I’d try to figure out how to win on what we can win on. Don’t cut off our nose to spite our face.
Jettison abortion.
anotherJoe on February 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM
No no no! Don’t “jettison” abortion. Just recognize that it’s not a federal issue and should be handled by the states as per the wishes of the founding fathers.
gryphon202 on February 10, 2013 at 1:34 PM
@another joe Abortion is already legal, and has been for a long time. The pubs have to hold the line as we’re doing now. As well as on other social issues. Become demlite there, and you’re finished. What you don’t get is that the SoCons are the footsoldiers of the party. The second you jettison them, its over.
tommy71 on February 10, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Did you know Mourdock’s opponent…you know, the person who won…is pro-life?
xblade on February 10, 2013 at 3:04 PM