Nancy Pelosi (a.k.a. Granny Rictus McBotoximplants) managed to part her severely stretched and tightened lips long enough to vow that Democrats will “stand tall” on Obamacare and run on it in 2014.

Oh, please, please Nanny Botox, please run on Obamacare in 2014.

Please be running ads in October of 2014 praising Obamacare just as about 150M Americans with corporate health care plans should start finding out that their policies have been canceled and the new, Obamacare-approved policies will cost much, much more.

Yes, do run on that. I’m begging you.

Also, gun control. Definitely run on gun control. You guys keep saying 90% of Americans support gun control, so a national push for Colorado-style gun restrictions should be a winning proposition. Right? And if any women say they want to keep their guns to protect themselves from rapists, make sure you tell them they are too weak and stupid to defend themselves.

Please run on this.

… this should explain everything.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

A number of conservative commentators and writers have been speculating for some time how long it will be from the time it is implemented until Obamacare collapses under the weight of its own poorly-conceived structure.  I think few have anticipated the situation we’ve been witnessing in the past two weeks, where first the administration announces that businesses won’t have to comply with the “employer mandate” until January 2015, and more recently, that the administration won’t be investigating eligibility for Obamacare subsidies, thereby opening the door to massive fraud and abuse.

Although the reasons that the Obama administration is making these changes are cynically transparent to anyone who realizes that the Democrats don’t want to lose big in the 2014 election cycle when voters will have a chance to express their displeasure with Obamacare at the ballot box once again, the more interesting question at the moment concerns the meaning and implications of the administration’s latest maneuvers for its ability to enact policies and govern going forward.

I think some people believe the public is paying closer attention to all this than is most likely the case, but that doesn’t mean I’m not enjoying the triumphalism and mockery of the administration’s opponents.  After the last election, it’s refreshing to see the administration increasingly on the defensive over the actions it has taken with regard to its signature piece of legislation.  Even better is getting to watch the likes of Dick Durbin (D-IL) admit that the disastrous bill “needs changes and improvements.”

But beyond getting to see and hear the bill’s defenders feel the heat, it is gratifying to see pieces like this one speculating that the Republicans in Congress may wise up enough about the administration’s actions to finally kill “immigration reform”:

“They have shown no respect for traditional Constitutional separation of powers,” Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., told National Review‘s John Fund about the impact of the Obamacare delays on the immigration debate, “and that makes it difficult to pass laws where the fear is that they will simply ignore the parts they don’t like.”

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, who is on the House Judiciary Committee and had been a member of a bipartisan group working on immigration reform, echoed Roe’s concerns on Meet the Press. “In fact, if you look at this Obamacare debacle that they have right now, this administration is actually deciding when and where to actually enforce the law. And that’s what some of us in the House are concerned about. If you give to this administration the authority to decide when they’re going to enforce the law, how they’re going to enforce the law … what’s going to happen is that we’re going to give legalization to 11 million people and Janet Napolitano is going to come to Congress and tell us that the border is already secure and nothing else needs to happen.”

Even the Wall Street Journal is writing about the administration’s actions in language reminiscent of that we saw with the rise of the Tea Party four years ago:

President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II’s use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”

Needless to say we can certainly hope that this lively piece by Tony Katz on Townhall.com is more than just a humorous reflection on the administration’s latest foibles:

For years the Right has said that the Obama Administration was thuggish, was hell bent on revenge, and was vindictive.

The IRS scandal was perhaps the tipping point. At first, The Left tried claimed that not just conservative and tea party groups, but progressives as well had been targeted. But, as the Inspector General’s report showed, that was not the case. Obama’s minions attacked Americans who disagreed with him. The Left knows they voted for hate.

Obama is not the man (messiah) they thought he was. The Left was blinded by his skin color and duped by mainstream media.

But now they know he lies. And now they know he surrounds himself with sycophants, ready and willing to lie for him, in poetry and prose.

Lets not let them ever forget it.

Take a gander at this screen capture from the Washington Post web=site (taken at 7:32 PM GayPatriot blog time on 05/30/13):

The editors of the left-of-center Washington Post and its readership are all abuzz about the retirement of a four-term Republican Congressman from Minnesota, a woman who withdrew from the only race for House leadership she entered and came in sixth place (with only 5% of the vote) in the one presidential caucus she contested. During her congressional tenure, Mrs. Bachmann neither moved a major piece of legislation nor  spearheaded efforts to promote conservative legislative initiatives.

Like other charismatic former legislator from the Midwest, she won her prominence not based on her work product, but on her public appearances. She is an effective speaker who can move a partisan crowd.

Her departure should not generate this much media attention.  Her charisma notwithstanding, she is not a leader of the GOP.  Yet, despite the failure of her congressional colleagues to support her bid for leadership and of Republican voters to embrace her, manyliberal activists (just check your Facebook feed) as well as their allies in the media have tried to portray her as the face of the GOP.

And in so doing, they have unfairly maligned and otherwise mocked her — and have failed to fault crazy left-wing activists from publicly insulting her. With her outlandish claims, Mrs. Bachmann has a great deal in common with such Democrats as California’s Barbara Boxer, Iowa’s Tom Harkin and Florida’s Alan Grayson, the primary difference being that the media downplay rather than highlight those Democrats’ odd statements and don’t pretend they are the leaders of their party. (more…)

I realize that this whole “almost ran for Senate” thing is going to get old and I’m the last one to beat a dead horse.  But someone suggested today that I write some stuff about the experience that might be interesting for other people to read.  And there are some things I touched on (a bit) during the radio show that I didn’t include in the “official” blog post.  Also, need I remind anyone, a blog is supposed to be for crap like this.

GayPatriot Report – March 27 edition

One of the other big reasons for not tackling the Senate campaign is my health; the majority of which deals with my decade-long struggle with clinical depression.  Again, this isn’t breaking news — I’ve discussed it on the blog here in the past. 

However, everyone of a certain age still remembers how mental health issues derailed the Vice Presidential candidacy of Thomas Eagleton. (And no, I haven’t had electric shock treatments!).  More recently, former US Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. seems to have dealt with depression to some extent – as well as criminal legal problems.

The fact of the matter is — I’m not sure I will ever be “cured” of my depression.  I had a really bad turn in 2010 which resulted in my life changing in ways I couldn’t imagine.  This is very personal stuff to discuss, folks, and not fodder for a political campaign — in my opinion.

Anyway, despite having my medication adjusted in 2010 – I still have bad days.  Well, I’d have to imagine one cannot have a “bad day” if one is running for public office.  And my brain doesn’t cooperate with me now — Lord only knows what it would have had in store for me.  And what people would have thought about those “bad days.”

As I mentioned on The GayPatriot Report last night, our mental healthcare system is a total mess.  Since I’m not running for public office, I can even call it a clusterfuck.  Thankfully, I have only had to personally be involved at a primary care level — but my previous corporate job (also mentioned on the radio) involved obtaining an in-depth knowledge of the mental health system in the USA.  Did I mention it SUCKS?

Read this book: Crazy: A Father’s Search Through America’s Mental Health Madness.  It involves a much more serious case of mental health than I could ever imagine dealing with.  But I witnessed glimpses of this in my job.  We treat our seriously mentally ill citizens in this country in our prison systems.  That’s messed up.

I also mentioned last night on the radio show my struggles with back pain.  There probably isn’t a day where I can sit in a chair longer than 20 minutes without being in pain the rest of the day.  I have worsening arthritis in my lower spine.  And yeah, that also sucks.

(more…)

If you don’t want to listen to the entire show (see post below), I’ll cut to the chase — I have decided not to run for United States Senate in 2014.

I mostly spoke about my life and background as well as the process of due diligence that I undertook to see what it would take to run a campaign.  The support I received from the conservative grassroots was nothing short of amazing.  I will never forget the organic excitement that my musing created.  God works in mysterious ways, folks.  I’ve seen it.

The bottom line is that my partner John and I made a mutual decision that we didn’t want our entire lives invaded in a way that we couldn’t control.  On the show tonight, I discuss the fact that a gay leftist activist harassed me at my place of private employment in 2005 shortly after this blog was born.  My job was in jeopardy for a while then and other people at my company of employment were threatened.

The magnitude of those type of attacks would only have increased exponentially had I chosen to move into a role seeking public office.  The Gay Left concerns me the most; I’ve witnessed good people’s lives and families destroyed over public policy differences. They are beyond the pale.

However, my team had planned to run a guerilla-style campaign that would have upset others as well — those who have made a career and money in politics in South Carolina.  I wanted to run as a “citizen-legislator” but the system is not made for that anymore.

Finally, the week after CPAC, I noticed this unmarked van casing our house for over two hours.  We tried to confront them, but they drove away. I have no idea who it was or what their intent was, but it got me thinking more seriously.

When all is said and done, all I have in my life is my privacy, integrity, family and property.  I am just not strong enough of a person to put all that on the line for a high-risk gamble against a sitting United States Senator.

I hold out hope that someone else in my state is braver than I am.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

When the grassroots effort began which led to me strongly considering a challenge to Lindsey Graham for US Senate in 2014 — I promised that I would conduct my efforts in a transparent manner through social media.

I’ve been relatively quiet about my decision making process this week.

That was by design. After the enormous reception I received at CPAC, my team of advisors and I thought it best that we keep a lower profile this week.

This has allowed us to do the quiet due diligence that we need in order to make a final decision on whether to enter the race.

I promised that there would be a decision by mid-April, and there still will be.

I’d just ask everyone’s patience with me as I consult with my family, friends and members of the conservative grassroots that I respect dearly.

Thanks and have a great weekend.

-Bruce

It is with mixed feelings that I announce my resignation this morning from the gay conservative group GOProud that I helped found in 2009.  I was recently elected Vice Chairman of the organization in order to concentrate on expanding GOProud’s chapters and grassroots strength nationwide.

Last week, speculation grew in South Carolina and on social media outlets about my interest in challenging incumbent US Senator Lindsey Graham who has been in Congress for 18 years.

In the spirit of transparency and honesty, I informed my fellow GOProud board members that I could not dedicate the time to the organization while I seriously considered the effort it will take to challenge Senator Graham in the 2014 Primary.  

I felt it best to resign from GOProud in advance of the CPAC conference this week so that my position in GOProud would not be a distraction from my serious deliberations regarding my potential future plans in South Carolina public service.

I wish only the best to my colleagues and fellow supporters of GOProud moving forward and I’ll always do what I can to be helpful from the crowd.

Over the next few weeks, I will be studying the resources, time and effort it would take to do my part in holding Lindsey Graham accountable for his voting record and his attitude toward the voters in South Carolina.  

This is important: I do not make major decisions hastily; I will take adequate time to realistically look at all of the evidence (pro and con) and consult with a diverse group of people that I trust and that also have the best interests of South Carolina at heart as I do.

If I believe I could provide a serious alternative to Senator Graham for the voters of South Carolina, and I can find the financial and moral support to join me in that effort, then I will take those next formal steps needed to do so.

Someone needs to be the Conscience of South Carolina’s Voters during the 2014 Primary.  I hope I can accept that challenge.

Sincerely,

Bruce M. Carroll Jr.
York, South Carolina

In an article posted today on the Natonal Review’s website, Mona Charen quips that there “are two major parties in the United States: the party that wishes to govern, and the party that wants only to campaign.”

And to show that the latter party is that of the incumbent President of the United States, one need not turn to the commentary on various conservative blogs, but instead to the reporting of the left-of-center Washington Post:

After delivering his election victory speech in November, Obama walked off the Chicago stage and made two phone calls related to his political plans — one to Israel and one to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the last Democratic House speaker.

Israel said Obama told him “how focused he would be on winning a House majority for the Democrats,” many of whom complained that the president did not do enough during his first term to help members on the Hill.

In other words, in the immediate aftermath of his election victory this past November, the president already started looking ahead to the next election.  Since the people didn’t elect the Congress he wanted, he chose to start focusing on electing that Congress, even if the 2014 elections were two years hence.

No wonder he is blaming the sequester on the current Republican House even though he made little effort to work with the leaders of that chamber after it passed the “fiscal cliff” legislation at the end of the last Congress, delaying the sequester until last week.

RELATED: GOP accusation confirmed: Obama out to break it

Charles Krauthammer suggests that the GOP House play it small:

Can you govern from one house of Congress…shrink government, restrain spending, bring a modicum of fiscal sanity to the country when the president and a blocking Senate have no intention of doing so?

…The more prudent course would be to find some offer that cannot be refused, a short-term trade-off utterly unassailable and straightforward. For example, offer to extend the debt ceiling through, say, May 1, in exchange for the Senate delivering a budget by that date — after four years of lawlessly refusing to produce one.

Not much. But it would (a) highlight the Democrats’ fiscal recklessness, (b) force Senate Democrats to make public their fiscal choices and (c) keep the debt ceiling alive as an ongoing pressure point for future incremental demands.

Read the whole thing. Agree/disagree?

The San Francisco Democrat announced today she’s staying on as House Democratic Leader.  Ed Morrissey thinks this “sounds like a pretty bad idea for a couple of reasons“:

First, the most likely successors to Pelosi will come from current leadership within the caucus, which isn’t exactly a youth movement.  Steny Hoyer has the inside track for Pelosi’s job, and he’s 73 years old, one year older than Pelosi herself.  Jim Clyburn might make a bid for the leader position and become the first African-American to chair a House party caucus, but he’s 72 years old.  John Larson, the caucus chairman, is a relative youngster at 64 years old.  None of these leaders will gain much more than pension benefits by waiting another two years.

Second, another two years gives Republicans another two years to make Pelosi the face of the party.  Every Democrat in a purple-to-red district who votes for another Pelosi term will end up having to defend that vote in the next midterm election.  Without Obama at the top of the ticket, the turnout in 2014 is going to look somewhat different than 2012, and some of those new freshmen coming into the House on a platform of change might not be able to explain why their first vote was to support a sclerotic and failed status quo within their own party.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.  Contrast the ages of the House Democratic leadership with that of the House Republicans.  Speaker John Boehner at 62, is the oldest, two years younger than the youngest Democrat in their leadership.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is 49.  House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy is just 47.

UPDATE:  Writing before Mrs. Pelosi decided to stay on for another term, Townhall’s Guy Benson offered that he’d “be amazed if she stays on as minority leader.  She’s unpopular and polarizing, and she’s presided over two consecutive unsuccessful cycles for House Democrats.”  Well, the unpopular and polarizing leader is staying on.

“The president,” wrote Jennifer Rubin yesterday, “who ran with no agenda and is now a lame duck, has not distinguished himself by tackling tough problems.” His reelection campaign made his, as his campaign manager put it, the party of “the micro stuff“.

(Perhaps Mitt Romney would have won last week had he been better at articulating the bigger picture.)

WIth such a small ball focus, Obama doesn’t seem willing to address the big challenges facing our country, notably the coming insolvency of entitlements, out-of-control federal spending and the increasing burdens of the regulatory state.

Last Thursday, Glenn linked a piece suggesting he has no interest in tackling these problems:

The sound and fury will be over big fights on taxes and spending. They will look like replays of the last four years and not end up accomplishing much. The big changes to our economy will be the metastatic expansion of regulation, let by ACA, Dodd-Frank, and EPA. There will be no change on our long run problems: entitlements, deficits or fundamental reform of our chaotic tax system. 4 more years, $4 trillion more debt.

Why? I think this follows inevitably from the situation: normal (AFU). Nothing has changed. The President is a Democrat, now lame duck. The congress is Republican. The Senate is asleep. Congressional Republicans think the President is a socialist. The President thinks Congressional Republicans are neanderthals. The President cannot compromise on the centerpieces of his campaign.

Result: we certainly are not going to see big legislation. Anything new will happen by executive order or by regulation.

Read the whole thing. And this is what is truly sad.  We need real reform right now, big changes to address fiscal problems looming beyond the cliff.  We have a debt problem.  And a regulatory problem.  And yet now we have an administration committed to moving us in the opposite direction, writing ever more regulations and increasing the costs of compliance to job creators. (more…)

Four years ago, appearing on PJTV the night of the election, I said that Rush Limbaugh had then become the interim leader of the conservative movement. Roger Simon, as I recall, disagreed.

In retrospective, I may have had a point. Rush did give a great speech at the following CPAC (2009) challenging the new president and articulating the conservative vision. But, that talker is more a cheerleader and a motivator, than an actual leader. To be sure, he helps us deliver our message and encourages us.

Perhaps Rush came to mind at the time because, in the first eight years of this century, the conservative movement had become increasingly moribund. The Tea Party was not yet born. Few outside Florida had ever heard of Marco Rubio. Bobby Jindal hadn’t even completed his first year as Governor of Louisiana.

Two years later, a whole host of articulate conservatives would rise to the fore, with Bob McDonnell elected Governor of Virginia the following year, then several thoughtful Republicans including Rubio elected to the U.S. Senate, including Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, Rob Portman from Ohio and Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania.

Paul Ryan would soon take over the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee. The Tea Party would become even stronger. (more…)

Amidst the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in the wake of Mitt Romney’s narrow loss earlier this week to Barack Obama, a few cool-head conservative strategists and pundits have reminded us that all is not lost, that the party suffered a minor setback not a fatal blow.

Today, Charles Krauthammer, as could be expected, offers perhaps the most sage insight into the way forward for the GOP:

They lose and immediately the chorus begins. Republicans must change or die. A rump party of white America, it must adapt to evolving demographics or forever be the minority.

The only part of this that is even partially true regards Hispanics. They should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented and socially conservative (on abortion, for example).

He outlines a way forward on immigration reform, then reminds us that on core fiscal issues, the GOP should not moderate:

Tuesday’s exit polls showed that by an eight-point margin (51-43), Americans believe that government does too much. And Republicans are the party of smaller government. Moreover, onrushing economic exigencies — crushing debt,unsustainable entitlements — will make the argument for smaller government increasingly unassailable.

Bear in mind, given that GOP turnout was down from 2008, that eight-point margin might actually be considerably larger.  It wasn’t conservative ideas which did Republicans in, but the standard bearer’s imperfect articulation of them: (more…)

In the wake of Mitt Romney’s narrow popular vote loss in the presidential election yesterday, Republicans need to do some soul-searching if f they want to regain the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.  And right away, there are three big questions they need to ask:

1. Why did Mitt Romney fail to get as many votes as did John McCain in 2008?
2. How can the party better reach out to Hispanic and Asian Americans and other minorities?
3. How does the GOP recruit, as per my last post, the type of “genuine” conservative candidate “with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected”?

Two men elected to the U.S. Senate in the last two cycles, Florida’s Marco Rubio and Texas’s Ted Cruz could help Republicans explore both the second and the third questions.

Interesting that some of the leading lights of the GOP, these two men, along with Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico, are Hispanic.

As careful readers of this blog know, I had wanted former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to enter the 2012 contest for the White House.  Perhaps the Democrats would have run against him as the scion of the Bush dynasty.

He had been, however, a successful reform-minded governor of a major state, has withstood a fierce partisan challenge in 2002 and successfully reached out to Hispanic voters.  Perhaps, Jeb had (at least politically) a lousy last name, but I feared, as Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel put it, in their election post-mortem, that Mitt Romney’s

. . . biography hurt him. During a cycle when voters remained angry at Wall Street, Romney bore the weight of a finance background. And because of his own history in Massachusetts, he could never effectively go after President Obama on Obamacare, the president’s biggest political weakness.

None of this was ever a secret, but the Republicans nominated Romney anyway. They had no choice. The alternatives were unacceptable.

Exactly.  The remaining alternatives all carried more baggage that Mitt did.  Democrats were able to define him as a out-of-touch plutocrat rather than a real reformer.  (And I do wonder if some Republicans stayed home because they didn’t think the man who signed Romneycare into law was committed to repealing Obamacare.)

Anyway, Carlson and Patel wrote a great piece–one that I highly recommend.  They help define what kind of candidates Republicans need to nominate if they are to win elections.

We need, as they put it, “genuine conservatives . . . with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected.”  Fortunately, it seems, the two freshman Republican Senators are cut from that cloth.

May we see more of their like in 2014.

Yes, yesterday was a bitter blow, particularly given how many of us expected Mitt Romney to win.  And perhaps it was the difference between that expectation and the actual result that has caused so much despair in conservative ranks.

We should, however, not despair.   We have the better arguments and we have the deeper bench.  Our leaders have ideas for reform.  The president’s party may present themselves as the party of the future, but its leaders lack many new ideas, trotting out little more than retrofitted versions of the failed ideas of the past.

Eight years ago, Democrats too were glum.  Their nominee from the Bay State lost a narrow race to an incumbent from the opposing party.  Our party gained seats in the U.S. Senate, increasings its majority to 55, just as the Democrats did last night.

But, they didn’t then win the House, as we did last night.  And they didn’t any new ideas, as we do.  But, they still managed to come roaring back two years later, as we will.

We may be down today, but we’re far better off than the Democrats were when they lost in 2004.