Rand Paul #SOTU speech
Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 09:31am 12 Comments
Just like the Rubio speech, a very good job.
Unfortunately, I could not find it on a channel last night, so I didn’t see it until this morning.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I agree, both did a good job. I preferred Rand Paul’s for the simple reason that he actually promoted freedom in his speech. Rubio seemed to be more on defense and busy checking off interest groups (veterans, latino’s) as his establishment handlers told him to (though I still liked his speech).
Well, you have to consider that Rubio’s was a direct rebuttal for the official SOTU, so I at least give him some slack for it directly contradicting or offering opposing ideas to Obama (defensive?). It seems that historically is common. Rand Paul checked a number of his own boxes, too, did he not?
It was really just a matter of taste. Even though I’m a Rand Paul supporter now, I’d be happy with Marco Rubio as well. I only disagree with him on immigration really.
I think the biggest problem for Rubio was that expectations were so high for the speech between the Time cover and everyone constantly saying how great he is. He would really have had to give a Reaganesque speech to beat those expectations and unfortunately he didn’t. It’s hard to beat the gipper.
All three of theses speeches were nothing more than pretty words, packaged as vagaries, and presented in a way that excites an intended audience – multiple groups, one by one, item by item. So few politicians either live up to the words in actions. Some don’t really believe them for their face value, as we have seen many a progressive tell us how nuance and ‘complexities’ explain how the words don’t match the legislation.
Obama actually uttered the phrase more than once, “not increasing the debt” about his ideas, so I read. Yet he proposes all kinds of ideas that imply spending – either new or simply unchanged – to ‘create jobs’, blah blah. Words rarely match deeds.
Do you doubt that Rand Paul would cut spending or push legislature to protect or expand our freedoms? Based on the concrete proposals, I don’t think he has any hesitation doing it. He has repeatedly proposed dramatic discretionary spending cuts as starters to pare down the deficit.
So I don’t think Rand’s willingness to do this is truly in doubt – I think his party willingness is.
Do you doubt his commitment to freedom? I don’t doubt that if he could provide national-right-to-work tomorrow, he would. He is not the obstacle to that. Again, based on concrete actions he has made, he is more firmly behind that than any Republican leader is.
I think the point about words vs. actions is a very good one. But I think with Rand the words are more likely to soften the appearance of a true and actual commitment to putting libertarian ideas into action than pay lip service to them, which I understand is the norm when it comes to say Republicans and fiscal responsibility.
My two cents, feel free to disagree.
Well I sure learned something by listening to that. Silly me, I thought that “sequester” meant actual cuts, not simply slowing spending. With all the sturm und drang about sequester you’d thing something real was going to occur. No wonder Barry agreed to it; business as usual plus the opportunity to demagogue. Yippee!!!
Actually, that was the money quote of the entire evening. The Sequester that all the libs are caterwauling about and has Repubs supposedly shaking in their boots is that the government will NOT be allow to GROW AS MUCH. Wow, earth shattering? Really?
The government won’t be allowed to increase in size and that’s an earth shattering economy killing event? Why are we only hearing about this now?
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…
…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.
Hey GOP leadership, enough with the yoga, get you head out of your backside and start connecting with the public. The end is not nye and liberals are shrieking because they can’t spend even more money.
I mean come on you morons, is it any wonder they are eating your lunch? They handed you the perfect solution and you have to dither over it? If you can’t get your act together its time to admit your not up to the task and let someone else take the lead.
You should be openly mocking these people (Obama and Reid) every hour on the hour. You should be taking out full page ads in the NYT and WaPo with commercial TV ads for the next month. The world is coming to an end because you can’t spend more than ever with no reductions in current spending!
Oh my. I started watching the SOTU address. I wanted to hear what BO had to say. I watched for about 10-15 minutes and then promptly fell asleep. It was that boring.
On the reaction front, the SOTU did not do much and the press coverage was weak. No one is applauding BO’s supposed use of his ‘mandate’ or his ‘vision’ or seemingly anything from the speech. No DEM talking points this go round??
I loved this dumb-dumb line from the New York Times editorial – of course – applauding our Dear Leader;
Mr. Obama said his proposals to bring about growth with government action would not have to raise the deficit.
Really, now. cutting through the prose, even the NYT does not believe poor BO.
None of the channels broadcast Rand Pauls speech, except for The Blaze (Glenn Becks) They are afraid of the truth that Rand speaks.
Anyone have a link for Mark Levin’s response?
So, Levin is the missing link?
[…] » Rand Paul #SOTU speech – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion […]