Posted on 05/23/2019 4:50:08 AM PDT by madprof98
In his so-called “maiden speech,” delivered on the floor of the Senate on May 15, Hawley spoke with the coiled energy of a reformer, the intense passion of a muckraker, and the Trumanesque bluntness of a Show-Me Stater.
In his address, he offered no defense of the status quo and nary a word about his fellow Republicans—no ode to President Donald Trump nor paean to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He didn’t insult them; he simply didn’t mention them.
Instead, Hawley used his quick 14 minutes to strike a stark tone on other topics. He used the word “despair”—as in the feelings of ordinary people—four times. He used the word “middle”—as in middle class or middle America—nine times, a typical formulation being “middle America [is] under siege.” He used the words “work” and “workers”—as in “we need a society that puts American workers first, that prioritizes them over cheap goods from abroad”—15 times.
And he was equally detailed and dire about the culprits. He used the word “aristocrat,” or a derivation thereof, five times, and “elite” 10 times.
Just as interesting were the words not found in Hawley’s speech. Unheard was that staple of Republican platforming, “taxes”—not a peep about raising them, nor about lowering them. Nor did he mention “debt,” “deficit,” “spending,” “Constitution,” or “federalism.” Also unmentioned: “Reagan,” “Bush,” “terror,” “Iraq,” and “Iran.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
I have already been following him as I was an early follower of Ted Cruz before I found out he was a globalist and saw Trump as our only hope.
Hawley is, to my early opinion a Classical Conservative. He will not shy away from destroying the false Rino ideas or the Laisseze Faire (sp?) ideas so currently destructive and which march under the name of conservatism.
He is Trump refined.
I like him.
Future president ?
Senators make lousy presidents.
So far yes. Future President. But mis reading Cruz has made me slightly tentative.
Like Harry Truman ?
Hawley is no Teddy Roosevelt.
He came into elected office a few years back, with an impeccable resume, and a pretty slick campaign. He became Attorney General, with an understanding (it might have been a campaign promise, but I didn't pay that close of attention)that he would serve his full term. Then, just two years later, he won the US Senate race.
Ambition isn't necessarily bad. He was educated at Yale and Stanford; taught school in London, and worked for a Washington DC law firm. It just seems to me that he is much more interested in Josh Hawley than he is for Missouri. He grew up in Kansas City, but just doesn't seem like Missouri is in his heart. It's like he only came back here to run for office because the GOP is pretty strong here, despite two liberal urban areas.
To sum up, he talks a good game, but this is afterall, the Show-Me state, so I'm not all that sure of him, yet.
I agree with your assessment completely. I voted for Hawley solely because he was better than the alternative, McCaskill.
Compare that to coming in cold from a deliberative body where you have countless lackeys eager to address your every whim*.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.