Tuesday evening, after President Obama completes his “State of the Union” speech, Republican Senator Marco Rubio, of Florida, will deliver the GOP response. This has become tradition, that the ‘other’ party nit picks the President’s remarks and attempts to attack what he said for their own benefit.
Rubio, an expected Presidential candidate in 2016, will give the “official” Republican view. But, wait, don’t touch that dial, for a third time there will be another person giving opinions about the speech. You won’t want to miss being part of the dozen or so who will actually listen to him.
Intentionally separating himself from the GOP, and pressing for his own agenda, that of supporting his wealthy donors, ‘nobody’ Rand Paul will give the TEA Party’s response.
The Senator from Kentucky is technically a Republican. In reality he is not representative of the “Grand Old Party” in any fashion. Politically ambitious, as is his father, he moved far to the right of mainstream Republicans. He is a large part of why nothing is accomplished within our government.
The TEA Party has been an obstacle to effective legislation for far too long. Most people have forgotten what TEA stands for. It means “Taxed Enough Already”. This should reveal who funds this pitiful group of obstructionists. There are dozens of extremely rich individuals who fund their election campaigns including the Koch brothers. The wealthy don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes, while yours and mine get raised.
The true purpose of having Paul make an unnecessary speech is to place him in front of the American public. Those behind the party obviously plan to make him their Presidential candidate in 2016. The last two TEA Party members who gave the address ran for President in 2012, and failed. Not that that was a surprise, they were Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain.
Some examples of Paul’s extremism, and evidence of who he is legislating for, follow.
When President Obama was severely critical of BP for the explosion of their oil platform offshore near New Orleans, and citied negligence, lack of foresight and planning for an emergency, and their eventual ineffectual clean-up efforts, Paul demonstrated where his loyalties lay.
“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.’ I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.” Really!
Who can forget his position that private businesses who offer service to the public should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act? In his opinion, a coffee shop should be able to display a sign stating, “Blacks Not Welcome Here”.
Paul is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act. He also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, but supports use of the morning-after pill. He opposes federal funding for abortion. He takes a states’ rights position, favoring the overturn of Roe v. Wade and allowing states to decide on the legality of abortions without federal involvement. Simply stated, he is in opposition to women’s rights.
On immigration, Paul believes in more fences and more helicopter patrols. He opposes citizenship for children born in the United States, whose parents are illegal immigrants. He favors repealing the 14th amendment.
Not all of his policies are complete idiocy. He is anti-Patriot Act, in favor of campaign reform, including limits on corporate contributions, and says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq. But he is too extreme. He believes in disbanding the Department of Education, opposes same-sex marriages, and any form of gun control.
When I think about it, if he does run in 2016, he’ll be fodder for people like myself. I would be forced to restrain from writing dozens of satirical articles about him daily.