A State of the Union response or a 2012 match-up?

Disclosure:  Paul Ryan was a classmate of mine at Miami University, so I am a little biased.  The link to the Washington Post article is here.

"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) had the unenviable task of responding to the State of the Union. You can't compete with the president in pomp and setting, and it is absurd to try to match him line by line and program by program. Ryan smartly didn't try. Instead, he crisply set out a vision and the rationale for his vision.

"As the camera moved in, the initial image of a very young man in a very big room turned into a relaxed, almost intimate conversation.

"His comments were sharp, but his demeanor was friendly. He went after Obama's approach to the central issues of spending and the economy:

The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies -- an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus.

All of this new government spending was sold as "investment." Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.

Then the President and his party made matters even worse, by creating a new open-ended health-care entitlement.

He emphasized the central contradiction at the heart of the president's speech: Obama said he's for fiscal discipline, but he want to keep spending:

Whether sold as "stimulus" or repackaged as "investment," their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much, taxes too much and spends too much in order to do too much.

And during the last two years, that is exactly what we have gotten -- along with record deficits and debt -- to the point where the president is now urging Congress to increase the debt limit.

We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.

But Ryan did what Obama did not: He explained why his approach is superior his opponents'. First, was the statement of principles: "So I'd like to share with you the principles that guide us. They are anchored in the wisdom of the founders, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and in the words of the American Constitution. They have to do with the importance of limited government and with the blessing of self-government."

Next came the explanation for how that philosophy results in prosperity, while the liberals' approach does not:

Our nation is approaching a tipping point.

We are at a moment, where if government's growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America's best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency. Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness, and wise consumer choices has never worked -- and it won't work now.

He added a caution about doing precisely what Obama did -- kicking the can down the road:

Just take a look at what's happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn't act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.

Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.

And in case the voters missed it, he reminded us that we should be skeptical of an approach based on the combination of big government and big business:

We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative -- not political clout -- determines who succeeds.

Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise -- but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals; because of poor decisions made in Washington and Wall Street that caused a financial crisis, squandered our savings, broke our trust, and crippled our economy.

He went directly after ObamaCare:

What we already know about the president's health-care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees. . . .

Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.

Health-care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the president's law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy.

And he pointed out an internal and glaring inconsistency in the president's rhetoric:

Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama administration for waivers from the mandates. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The president mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree -- and we think his health-care law would be a great place to start.

No, he didn't mention foreign policy; he's not the commander in chief. No, he didn't offer a specific budget or entitlement-reform plan, but, then, he already set out his ideas in the Roadmap for America and in the Ryan-Rivlin entitlement reform proposal.

What he did do was put a youthful, engaging face on the Republican Party and tap into the concerns of the center-right country that government and our debt have become too enormous and now threaten our economic progress. It also wasn't long-winded, flat or boring.

He also demonstrated why Tea Partiers and establishment Republicans might, if given the chance, choose him as the standard bearer in 2012. Judging by tonight, he is fully capable of besting Obama.