February 13, 2013

Rejoinders: Rubio, Rand Paul respond to Obama’s string of cliches, rhetorical tricks, empty platitudes, and empty promises

Objection! Your headline is leading the witness!

Fine. I’ll rephrase. Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul give their responses to Obama’s SOTU Address, Rubio’s on behalf of the GOP, Paul’s on behalf of the TEA Party Express. Also, Obama is a liar and a con man. Not to mention a dirty dirty Marxist who sports mom jeans and hasn’t a fucking clue how to hold a rifle.

First, here’s Rubio:

And here’s Paul:

Compare and contrast.

Keep in mind that Rubio is being groomed and showcased by the GOP, perhaps as a Jeb Bush running mate, perhaps as a frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016. What the establishment will ultimately do is, I suspect, largely based whether or not they feel they can make Jeb Bush seem palatable and electable — and of course, inevitable. Rubio and Christie being their fall backs.

Keep in mind, too, that Rand Paul — while a dedicated conservative / classical liberal and a TEA Party favorite who very ably articulates first principles — has no experience politically in an executive role. And so while also a potential nominee for President in 2016, might be better served as a VP candidate to someone like Scott Walker, who by 2016 may be able to show the American people that he was willing to take on public sector union leaders and do what was necessary to get his state’s economy turned around and thriving — points that will resonate with a public who, if one can believe the latest Gallup polls, thinks Obama’s handling of the economy and taxes and guns and Middle East foreign policy is significantly wanting.

The GOP — through Rove’s “Conservative Victory Project” — is hoping to use the resources of big money donors, along with the party infrastructure and the influence of Mitch McConnell, to prevent a conservative / classical liberal challenge to the types of corporate-friendly, big government technocrats and political “moderates” they like to put forth. That is, when McConnell, after the 2008 election of Obama, said that the “era of Reagan was over” — as if John McCain represented Reaganism in any way — he wasn’t so much intoning a political reality as he was wishcasting. Which is why the TEA Party revolution of 2010 must have come as an enormous shock to him, and why, rather than embracing the grass roots movement to reassert constitutionalism and limited government as personified by the Reagan Administration (despite Reagan’s having had to work with a Democrat Congress), McConnell is a key player in an effort by the GOP establishment to thwart that movement and protect the entrenched and permanent ruling class, one that, regardless of party, is interested in a big and powerful federal government precisely because they are involved in running it, win or lose.

It’s time to drive a stake through the grubby, self-interested heart of the GOP establishment. When push came to shove — and they didn’t get the candidates they wanted — they went out of their way to weaken those conservatives who’d bested their moderates in the primaries. They’ve set their sights on Bachmann and King, and they were happy to see West go, as well.

“Richard Lugar” should be an expletive to conservatives and principled Republicans. As should “Karl Rove” and “Steve Law” and “Charlie Crist” and “Mike Castle” and “Arlen Specter” and “Chris Christie” (by the way, how’s that no red-tape Obama aid for Sandy coming, fat boy?).

And there are plenty of GOP opinion leaders who should join those ranks, from “Frum” to “Brooks” to “Rubin”, etc.

Unless and until that happens, we’re a kept constituency. And there’s no real reason to vote GOP, particularly if they refuse to represent the interests of their party’s putative base.

There’s a reason only 58% of eligible voters cast a vote for President in 2012. Many of them just don’t trust any politician, because the kinds of politicians we’ve seen come along of late — with the exception of the many TEA Party candidates — are either leftist ideologues or mushy pragmatists on the right. And honestly, the only difference in the results from each of those two contingents is speed of decline, though under the GOP, you can probably enjoy a bit of a tax cut while on the (government subsidized) highway to hell.

update: full text of both here, for those who can’t or don’t do video.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:44am
51 comments | Trackback

Comments (51)

  1. roobs’ speech was a smarmy and boring heartstring plucker whereas Mr. Paul’s speech was very relevant and much more timely and focused

    i don’t take either of them seriously as presidential candidates

    I think right now Governor Jindal is the only one I take seriously

  2. thhhhhhhhhhhhhhwp…

  3. On a simple surface look, it seems to me Rubio is more comfortable (and better at) a pietistic stance than the more secularly oriented Paul. But this is merely a snap impression.

  4. we was supposed to compare and contrast Mr. Caesar I finished my assignment first now I get to spend the rest of the class drawing fire trucks while you still have work to do

  5. Keep in mind that Rubio is being groomed and showcased by the GOP, perhaps as a Jeb Bush running mate, perhaps as a frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016. What the establishment will ultimately do is, I suspect, largely based whether or not they feel they can make Jeb Bush seem palatable and electable — and of course, inevitable. Rubio and Christie being their fall backs.

    Unless Jeb has established permanent residency elsewhere, Bush and Rubio won’t be running together.

  6. Rubio is being groomed to be the GOP’s Great Swarthy Hope in the post-Obama age. Rand Paul… isn’t.

    The resulting credibility comparison I leave as an exercise for the reader.

  7. Ernst, they actually can run. The rule to which you refer only binds Florida’s electors, and merely means Rubio-for-veep would need 270 votes without Florida.

    Which, given the trajectory of the Republican Party, belly-laughs abound.

  8. we was supposed to compare and contrast Mr. Caesar I finished my assignment first now I get to spend the rest of the class drawing fire trucks while you still have work to do

    Ok that was funny.

  9. Does the NYT vid of Rubio suck herky-jerky-wise for others of y’all else, or is the stop-go of the thing inherent to something in my computer?

  10. It’s herky-jerky for me, too.

  11. The C-Span one is regular.

  12. Mr Steyn has some relevant thoughts, even though they are from a couple of weeks ago.

  13. The GOP — through Rove’s “Conservative Victory Project” — is hoping to use the resources of big money donors, along with the party infrastructure and the influence of Mitch McConnell, to prevent a conservative / classical liberal challenge to the types of corporate-friendly, big government technocrats and political “moderates” they like to put forth.

    The CVP is as much McConnell’s bastard spawn as Rove’s.

    Over at the Huffington Post there is a story saying that Karl Rove got his idea from none other than the Senate Republican Leader, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell. The story reads in part:

    The model for the new super PAC, dubbed the Conservative Victory Project, is akin to one that McConnell has touted the need for at GOP events in recent years, two GOP fundraisers with good ties to the senator told Huffington Post. Both asked for anonymity to speak candidly about private events and discussions.

    [....]

    And just who is Steven Law, the guy listed as the president and CEO of Rove’s American Crossroads? The guy at the center of the New York Times story announcing Rove’s “Conservative Victory Project”?

    That’s right. Mr. Law is a former top aide to… Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — the Senate Republican Leader.

  14. I don’t see a transcript for Paul’s speech, Jeff.

  15. ZOMFG RUBIO DRANK WATER !!!!!!!!!!

  16. The CVP is as much McConnell’s bastard spawn as Rove’s.

    I’d almost root for Ashley Judd.

  17. i don’t take either of them seriously as presidential candidates

    I have to agree, feets, as much as it pains me to view Paul like that.

    First, while I assume a Paul Administration would kick ass just by showing up 9-5 and dismantling government, (for as long as the central planners allowed) in tone and to a large degree in substance both of these guys are pandering to the rows Obarky hoed: Neither are demonstrating the spine of real statesmanship because such spine is alien to our times.

    Second, the Democrat Communist Party has itself a quiver of old battle horses (and axes) it can poise as all Tough on Whatever in the media’s optics and hand these timid young conservatives their asses at will. Given that Failshit Nation elects Presidents based on the price of gas and the candidate’s perceived stature as the father figure a good half of it doesn’t have, it’s still all about tone and here assholes like Biden can actually swing all the morons who get their opinions from the American Pravda.

    Paraphrasing Nicholson: “The truth? You couldn’t haaandle another Reagan.” And indeed we could not.

  18. Paul speech transcript.

  19. I’m to the point where I’m prepared to cross party lines in the general, if primarying the bastards fails to get the job done.

  20. …pwaaaaaaaaaah.

  21. Paul says at one point “Our party is the party of growth, jobs and prosperity, and we will boldly lead on these issues.”

    But this is at least marginally confusing, right? Since he means by “our party”, I take it, the Republican Party. Yet he’s standing in front of a TEAPartyExpress banner. Such are the politics within politics. Or, what morons like I should expect a consistent clarity?

  22. I have to disagree: if Paul can get elected promoting a balanced budget (with caps), a 5-year penny plan, a flat tax, vouchers for education, and a strong pro-2nd Amendment message, that would be so radical a departure from what we’re used to seeing that he would be able legitimately to claim a mandate. This is how Reagan was able to beat the Left in so many instances. He could use his bully pulpit to pressure them to capitulate.

    I think he’s viable. And I believe that he means precisely what he says, and would carry through on his promises to the degree Congress allows.

  23. Thanks sdferr.

  24. Re: Rubio’ water, from @Hale_Razor…

    Rubio: drinking water. Obama: treading water. MSM: carrying water. Americans: underwater.

  25. Obama doesn’t tread water. He treads on water. Doesn’t even get his feet wet, or so I’ve heard.

  26. Google: Jindal excorcism.

    No getting over that.

    I don’t think it matters, we are so structurally broken elections at this point are a joke.

  27. PS: Houston congresscritter and general embarrassment Sheila Jackson Lee apparently came over on the Amistad, with Cinque.

    Who knew?

  28. Yea I’m pretty much done with the GOP except on a case by case basis. The Ruling Class Republicans are just power seekers competing with Democrats. Voters be damned, thye’ll do as they please.

  29. Oh, Marco, let’s.

  30. He’s not exactly philosophically inclined, that Marco, is he? Be that as it may, we’re nearly in the position of SecDef Rumsfeld, pointing out that we’re constrained to go off to war carrying the standards we’ve got. ‘Could be trouble now and again, was the SecDef’s point.

  31. What was Richard Windsor’s take?, one wonders…

  32. After hearing his name mentioned by Kirk lately in my reading, I decided to finally read a thing or two on John Randolph (of Roanoke). Anyways, I just came across one of the better public insults I’ve ever heard: “He is a man of splendid abilities but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks, like a rotten mackerel by moonlight.”*

    He was talking about a contemporary but it’s going to pop into my mind from now on whenever a certain political type shows its form.

  33. bh, that’s one of my favorites quotes. Thanks for posting it.

  34. you’re right we can’t nominate an exorcism person that would be silly

    too many weirdo rape philosophers have poisoned the well

    something along the lines of the perceived secularity of a Mr. Senator Paul may be the best we can hope for

    but those ones are few and far between

  35. CNN Asks If Rubio’s Career Is Over

    Depends. Does he have a mistress? A gay bath-house fetish? Any inappropriate social media interactions with interns?

  36. You’re one to speak of well poisoners.

    Go stir shit some other place.

  37. for drinking water

  38. The school of rape the philosophers has had a resounding success, we have to admit.

  39. we just all had a talk about how we’re gonna dial back on the whole carping on other commenters thing Mr. Ernst

    that’s ok this time but in the future let’s keep an eye on that

  40. The problem with the griefer commenting constantly in every thread is that it’s overly hard to avoid him.

  41. Yeah, that is a great line, leigh. Another one I’ve come across is “the household gods of freedom”. Still not exactly sure how to read that, even in context, but it certainly has a ring to it. I’m thinking I should read John Randolph of Roanoke by Kirk at some point but I’m far better at adding things to my reading list than crossing them off.

  42. A perceived secularity may be misleading, we should note, since Sen. Paul could be hiding something of Adam Smith’s own peculiar piety, either for ends of his own or in a simple failure to remark those pieties himself. But this is another issue, and one far afield from the mere presentation Paul would make.

  43. all

    That word may not mean what you think it means, chirpyfeet.

  44. I think right now what we can say for sure is the primaries will benefit from Mr. Paul’s participation.

    Roobs can emote and sip all he wants while Mr. Paul talks about the spendings and porky porky chris christie waits til the very end to kneecap the eventual nominee for so Hillary can win.

    Sounds like we got ourselves a game plan.

  45. Rubio is toast.

    I heard a SNL skit planned for this weekend has him saying “I can see Cuba from my house!”

    It’s over.

  46. it really and truly might be wise for him to wait… water bottle antics aside his speech was pretty underwhelming to where it reminded me of watching Ryan debate Biden

    you just kinda expected something more

  47. it lacked salsa

  48. Pingback: Executive Experience Less Important Than Libertarian Conservative Principles | Daily Pundit

Leave a Reply