Video: Rand Paul on Obama's "Santa Clause Platform"

A great interview with The Blaze:

Rand Paul Endorses Filibuster of Chuck Hagel

I say block them all, especially those with ties to Iran and those who don't think it's wrong to kill American citizens with drones on American soil.  Anyway, here is what Rand Paul said on CNN:

The conservative Republican from Kentucky said in an interview to air on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" that his unanswered questions on Hagel – particularly speaking fees Hagel received since leaving the Senate – rise to the level where he might set a roadblock to the former senator's nomination.

"If they're not going to give us the information, the only way to get the information is to threaten to hold them to a higher standard of sixty votes," he said in the interview.

And here is the video:

Rand Paul Threatens Hold on Brennan Nomination for CIA Director

It looks like the good Senator is uncomfortable with someone who doesn't think it's wrong to potentially kill US citizens with drones INSIDE the United States.  We should all be uncomfortable.  From USA Today:

Paul said he would do "whatever it takes" to delay Brennan's confirmation until he directly answers whether American citizens legally can be killed by drone strikes within the United States.

...

"He was asked a very specific question. . . 'Can you kill an American with a drone in America?' And he refused to answer the question," Paul said. "I find that very, very worrisome (and) we're going to do whatever it takes to get the answer. Can the government, does the government, the president himself, claim the power to unilaterally kill an American in America without a trial?"

Video: Rand Paul's Great Response to the State of the Union

My favorite line (full transcript here, btw) is "the President offers you free stuff but his policies keep you poor." No truer words have been said.

 

Preview of Rand Paul's State of the Union Response

From National Review:

We are the party that embraces hard work and ingenuity, therefore we must be the party that embraces the immigrant who wants to come to America for a better future. We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities. We must be the party that says, "If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you."

The path we are on is not sustainable, but few in Congress or in this Administration seem to recognize that their actions are endangering the prosperity of this great nation.

Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses. It is time for a new bipartisan consensus. It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.

Not only should the sequester stand, many pundits say the sequester really needs to be at least $4 trillion to avoid another downgrade of America's credit rating. Both parties will have to agree to cut, or we will never fix our fiscal mess.

Washington acts in a way that your family never could – they spend money they do not have, they borrow from future generations, and then they blame each other for never fixing the problem.

If Congress refuses to obey its own rules, if Congress refuses to pass a budget, if Congress refuses to read the bills, then I say: Sweep the place clean. Limit their terms and send them home!

Rand Paul versus Marco Rubio

Some people are making a big deal about tonight's speeches by Rand Paul and Marco Rubio as if it's some great sign of a civil war in the Republican Party.  First, let me just say that it is 2013 and the election is not for another 3 years, are we supposed to be talking with one voice already, almost 3 years before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire Primary?  This is the time for jockeying for position and making the relationships that will pay off in the Presidential race (Romney spent the years before 2012 bribing local politicians with campaign contributions in exchange for future endorsements).  And a Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul battle in 2016 would hardly cause a "civil war".  Both have ACU ratings of 100 so far, represent the more principled end of the party and came into office on the backs of the Tea Party by battling establishment politicians.  

The big policy differences seem to come from immigration (where Marco Rubio favors what amounts to amnesty and Rand Paul favors a more measured approach) and foreign policy (though Marco Rubio did vote for Rand Paul's bill to cut off advanced weaponry gifts to Egypt) where conservatives often come down on both sides.  The biggest difference seems to come from style.  Marco Rubio has clearly been listening to his establishment handlers, like Bill Kristol, and has decided to lay low during the recent battles with Obama.  Where was he on the fiscal cliff or the debt ceiling?  MIA mostly.  And what bills did he sponsor?  Mostly stuff you really don't care much about like S. 3471, to eliminate the tax on Olympic Gold Medals won by our athletes and the seminal S. 3570, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act which is about as interesting as it sounds.  His handlers did tell him to go after immigration, which is actually a relatively safe issue given that the mainstream media would be on his side on it.  Conversely, Rand Paul has been at the tip of the spear on a variety of issues, from the fiscal cliff to the debt ceiling to aid to Egypt.  He has sponsored legislation to audit the Federal Reserve and a National Right to Work Act.  He has also constantly been in the media espousing conservative values regardless of what was the popular or "consensus" opinion.  

If I had to guess, Marco Rubio's speech will start off about his modest beginnings and then talk in some broad strokes about how immigrants are great for this country and government isn't.  That's pretty much how most of his speeches go.  People keep saying how amazing they are but then he never really gives specifics about anything.  There is really only so much of that one can take before you think someone is just a charlatan or has been talking too much to consultants (he's pretty impressive so I'm guess it's the latter).  My guess is Rand Paul will give a much more fiery and specific speech about actual issues, putting our dire straits into perspective and how increasing freedom can help save us.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how both do, both have 2016 at stake.

Rand Paul on CNN Discussing Marco Rubio, the State of the Union and Ashley Judd