My must read of the day is "Rand Paul to deliver alternate response to State of the Union," in the Washington Post:
On Tuesday, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R.) will deliver his own response to President Obama’s State of the Union address, in yet another example of the presidential hopeful’s desire to build a national profile.
Last year, Paul gave a similar response to the president’s speech. He spoke from the National Press Club and focused on the agenda of the Tea Party Express, which sponsored the speech.
Next week, however, Paul will not speak as a tea party spokesman. Instead, he will prerecord his rebuttal in his Senate office and publish it on YouTube soon after the president finishes. He will then appear on CNN and Fox News that night and sit for several Sunday show interviews later in the week, all part of his drive to draw attention to his critique.
What’s the value in delivering what is still a Tea Party specific response? I understand Paul’s desire to provide his own criticism. I recognize that the Tea Party does have an agenda that is unique to the movement, but the Tea Party is not a political party, it’s a grassroots movement – and Paul is largely seen as the face of it.
They may have issues with some of the things that are occurring in the Republican Party, but Tea Partiers are still conservatives and most identify as a part of the Republican Party. Paul certainly does.
This separate response seems to be something that, more than anything, fuels the Democratic narrative of a divided Republican Party, the "GOP civil war." Why provide fodder for that, when the core values and goals of the movement align up with a conservative, Republican agenda? It seems like it would be more effective for a conservative agenda if the Tea Party Republicans were a part of crafting the Republican Party’s response.