J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

Andy Borowitz’s humor column on how Fox News aired a scathing rebuttal to the State of the Union hours before its delivery was — in a case of politics imitating political satire — not too far off the mark. As is customary, Senator Marco Rubio wrote his “response” before President Obama even drove up to Capitol Hill, and sent advance excerpts to the press.

In his speech, Mr. Rubio followed the Republican rebranding strategy by rephrasing the party’s grand old policies without offering any new ideas. He did a pretty good job sounding like he learned the lessons of 2012.

“Mr. President, I still live in the same working class neighborhood I grew up in,” Mr. Rubio said. “My neighbors aren’t millionaires. They’re retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They’re workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills.”



And so, said the telegenic Mr. Rubio, addressing Mr. Obama, “I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.”

Mr. Rubio declared that he was particularly concerned about seniors who depend on Medicare, like his mother, and that “anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.”

Funny Mr. Rubio should say that, because on Tuesday night, Mr. Obama argued that we can’t leave Medicare as is: “Those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms.”

Mr. Obama said he was “prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.”

Mr. Rubio didn’t actually mention how he would fix Medicare. But we all know that he supported Paul Ryan’s plan to turn it into a voucher system.

In his rebuttal, Mr. Rubio also found time to remind voters that Republicans don’t like government or taxes. Here’s how he defined government’s role: “It plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life.” How inspiring! But “government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.” Later he added: “Raising taxes won’t create private sector jobs, and there’s no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That’s why I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.”

What a strawman artist. The president wants to reduce the deficit through taxes and cuts. He hasn’t proposed raising $4 trillion in new revenue.

Mr. Rubio is the absolutist, not Mr. Obama. Mr. Rubio wants to achieve deficit reduction entirely by cutting spending. He was one of only eight Republican Senators who voted last month against the fiscal-cliff deal that raised taxes for the rich and saved tax cuts for the middle class. (You know, Mr. Rubio’s “neighbors.”)

At least Mr. Rubio bothered to endorse immigration reform. He also recorded a version of his response to Mr. Obama in Spanish, which I’m sure will convince millions of Hispanics to vote Republican at their very next opportunity.

The other response to Mr. Obama on Tuesday night came from the Tea Party faction in Congress, represented by the always entertaining Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who seemed to be talking to fellow Republicans as much as Mr. Obama.

In excerpts of the speech distributed ahead of time, Mr. Paul said the sequester, which will force reckless across-the-board cuts in everything the government pays for, including the military, is actually not as severe as he would like.

Both Mr. Rubio and Mr. Paul laced their remarks with the usual G.O.P. propaganda that Mr. Obama hates jobs, small businessmen and entrepreneurs. Judging from these two speeches, the Republicans don’t intend to respond constructively to Mr. Obama’s call for a new direction in Washington. And they don’t intend to move beyond their failed, 1980s-vintage economic policies.