Will Rand Paul’s SOTU response force Marco Rubio to toughen his own?
Paul told CNN over the weekend that his speech is not intended to be “divisive,” but is simply an “extra response.” Appearing on “State of the Union with Candy Crowley,” he said that while he might emphasize some things that “maybe Marco doesn’t” (he cited foreign aid as one example), he wasn’t planning to use the occasion to highlight intra-party disagreements: “I won’t say anything on there that necessarily is like, ‘Marco Rubio is wrong.’”
But there’s clearly an emerging rivalry between the two men – both considered likely 2016 presidential candidates – that reflects the larger split within the Republican Party. Paul himself seemed to unintentionally acknowledge this when he added: “I don’t always agree [with Rubio], but the thing is, this isn’t about he and I [sic], this is about the tea party.” …
By contrast, Paul is emerging as 2016′s most intriguing dark-horse contender. In many ways, he’s the inheritor of the independent, outside-the-box mantle of his libertarian father, former GOP Rep. and presidential candidate Ron Paul. But he’s also trying to position himself as a more traditionally conservative, tea party candidate in the mold of, say, Representative Bachmann. As someone who clearly isn’t taking marching orders from the GOP establishment, Paul could present a real challenge to the eventual party frontrunner – whether Rubio or someone else – and push the entire field to the right.









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
Since the Powers That Be decided it was Jeb Bush’s “turn,” to run for president, the way it was for Dole, McCain,and Romney, and Jeb decided to hand that turn, no doubt the PTB are furious.
Suck it up, RINOs.
Wethal on February 12, 2013 at 8:07 AM
If it does that’s a good thing.
gophergirl on February 12, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Rand Paul is for amnesty. Sorry, but this is a dealbreaker for me no matter who it is.
TxAnn56 on February 12, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Notice the editorial dig from Marlantes or her editor at CSM? Strictly speaking, she’s correct: Paul should have said “about him and me.” Does CSM toss in sics to point out Obama’s grammatical misuse of the proper case? Besides, sics are generally reserved for quotations of written material as a means of informing the reader that the error appeared in the original text. Here, CSM is quoting an oral statement. Unless we can’t normally rely on CSM’s ability to quote someone accurately, it seems safe to say that readers know–assuming they even identified it–the source of the grammatical error. In this case, this is an illustration of CSM’s trying to make Paul seem like a backwoods rube.
Would that the same standard be applied to Obama because he makes these kinds of mistakes all the time.
BuckeyeSam on February 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM
The Tea Party is a leaderless movement from the grassroots…but here’s the US senator son of a US congressman to speak for us.
thebrokenrattle on February 12, 2013 at 8:54 AM
I know that a lot of people here aren’t into electoral math and all that, but I am, and this sort of thing is where I see a lot of value in the Tea Party. In the political science field, it’s often said that American politics is “played between the 40s.” This means that theoretically, both sides tack toward the middle for general campaigns, trying to win over a significant enough coalition to win.
While the media and the Democrats can scream bloody murder about it, a more independent Tea Party could have the potential to shift the whole playing field to the right, rendering them the US’s conservative party, the GOP the centrist party and the Democrats of course the left wing party. People follow politicians as much if not more than politicians follow the people.
Kind of a long shot, but if the Tea Party is to be truly transformative, I think it happens in this form.
LukeinNE on February 12, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Heaven forbid you not have John Q. Nobody as your spokesman.
MelonCollie on February 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM
I think Rubio is being groomed as Jeb’s veep candidate. It is apparently a myth that VP and presidential candidates cannot come from the same state: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/vicepresident.asp
The leaderless aspect of it made it too easy for the GOP leadership and the Democrats to divide us up, isolate us, and wipe us out in 2012. Someone is going to have to emerge as a leader. So far, Paul seems like he could be up for the job despite some reservations I have about him.
Doomberg on February 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM
Exactly. As I heard some wag put it, “leaderless resistance movements end up being all leaderless and no resistance.”
It’s one thing not to be a totally top-down group. But trying to run a political party without leaders is like trying to drive a car with one set of wheels.
MelonCollie on February 12, 2013 at 10:42 AM
(meaning one pair of wheels, not one set of four)
MelonCollie on February 12, 2013 at 10:42 AM