While I obviously don't agree with everything he said, I found the address to be more bipartisan than I expected after his inaugural address. He seemed to acknowledge that 'modest' entitlement reform was necessary, as well as appearing to adopt the Romney campaign's strategy of "getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions" that he ran against.
He made some interesting proposals on education, citing German programs and P-Tech in Brooklyn that provide a technical degree in addition to a high school diploma, as well as a proposal to tie college affordability to federal aid programs.
What did I find most objectionable? Aside from legislative and constitutional issues, the statement that if congress won't act...I will.
Honestly, and I know it was written beforehand, Rubio's response seemed to be off target. It hit many of the Republican talking points, may have been a good speech, but it wasn't a response to the State of the Union address. Perhaps the Republican Party would be better served by a good extemporaneous speaker that can respond to the speech given than a speech well-written, but simply an independent regurgitation of talking points.
While sympathetic to many Tea Party issues I am not a Tea Party member, or even what could be considered a supporter. I did however find the Rand Paul response to be more of a rebuttal of the State of the Union address than the official Republican response. He made two somewhat memorable quotes:
It is often said that there is not enough bipartisanship up here. That is not true. In fact, there is plenty. 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. Bipartisanship is not what is missing in Washington. Common sense is.
The President’s massive tax hikes and spending increases have caused his budgets to get ZERO votes in both houses of Congress. Not a single Democrat voted for the President’s budget! But at least he tried.
We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor. When she arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. Hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line in support of her. Because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read "I Voted."Am I the only one that thinks making a 102 year old woman wait in line for six hours is bullshit?