Interesting stuff over at NRO.

The top Republican consultants of today are Baby Boomers like Karl Rove and Mike Murphy. Rove wasted $300 million in 2012 trying to get voters to oppose Obama. Murphy is wasting over $100 million trying to get Republican primary voters to support Jeb Bush.

The old political shorthand no longer works. It means nothing to Millennials. Cutting taxes to revive the economy is something that rich people say. Rove’s 2012 anti-Obama ads were terrible.

Voters think that conservatives (especially establishment Republicans like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush) are ignorant and hostile to their interests. They have never heard a reasonable conservative argument for anything. They have only heard incomprehensible cliches that were designed to manipulate different people from a different generation.

It is something I have been saying for a long time. Low-information voters, especially millennials, have been brainwashed by the Democrat Media Complex into believing that Republican was synonymous with Conservative, and Conservative Republican was shorthand for “hates gays, hates blacks, hates Hispanics, and wants to outlaw sex.”

The Republican Party has been a poor apologist for Conservatism because the Republican Party is not, at its core, conservative, nor does it exist to advance conservative values.

The Conservative Movement needs to take an entire generation of voters to school and teach them what conservatism really means; which, at its core, is that people can be trusted to make their own decisions rather than having them dictated by Government bureaucrats; and this results in a stronger, more prosperous, and more civil society.

Of course, it will have to be dumbed down a bit for the LIV’s.

First off, in the UK, a left-wing politician gets surprisingly candid about immigration’s importance:

Stella Creasy, the Labour & Co-operative MP for Walthamstow, said that Britain either needs immigration or a massive baby boom in order to support the growing number of pensioners, or else “our ability to sustain our economy” will collapse. She added that this would leave the NHS in crisis.

In an interview with Progress magazine, Ms Creasy said: “There are now more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 16 in Britain, so unless women like me have a lot of children very quickly, our ability to sustain our economy, to sustain our public services [will come under threat].”

Perhaps her horror at the thought of women “like her” needing to have children feeds into the horror that UK establishment parties feel about the rise of the UK Independence Party?

She said that this made UKIP leader Nigel Farage “deeply unpatriotic” as his party has campaigned for an end to mass immigration. UKIP are “basically talking about managing the decline of Britain” she said.

And it is true that UKIP voters believe that Britain needs tighter border controls. But does that make them “deeply unpatriotic”? Perhaps over-the-top name-calling is a tactic of the Left in the UK, as well as in America.

In reality, the UKIP stands in a libertarian-Thatcherite tradition; hardly unpatriotic, and not even very anti-immigrant. Its leader, Nigel Farage, has explicitly said “We’re not going to join in with extremist-nationalist groups” in the European Parliament. To the extent that Farage is required to ally with parties from other countries, he prefers Beppe Grillo, the comedian who leads Italy’s anti-establishment 5-Star movement.

“I met Beppe Grillo last week … I am hoping we can do a deal with him and our group will sit bang in the middle politically of that parliament with a strong Europsceptic agenda,” Farage told the BBC in an interview…

Farage repeated previous comments that he would not work with France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen, who this week struck a deal with four other Eurosceptic parties. “They come from a different political family,” he said. “We want nothing to do with that party at all.”

Which brings us to the point. To its great shame, the UK’s Conservative Party *is* now going to work with parties that it calls “unacceptable”, against Farage and the UKIP. Because the Conservative establishment is that frightened of Farage’s upstart movement, or of any effective challenge to Big Government.

I am reminded of nothing so much as how the Republican establishment treats the Tea Party (i.e., stab them in the back whenever possible, and even if it means betraying principles). It’s a sad moment for the once-great party of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

CPAC speeches! These guys, at least, understand what’s wrong with America – namely, Big Government – and the corresponding importance of liberty and small government:

• Rick Perry on why Red States do better than Blue States.
• Ted Cruz (scroll down). “If you were to sit down and try to design an agenda to hammer the living daylights out of young people, you couldn’t do better than the Obama economic agenda.”
• Marco Rubio. “They love to sell Big Government as a way to help those who are trying to make it. What they don’t tell you is that they actually hurt the people who are trying to make it.”
• Rand Paul. “You may think I’m talking about electing Republicans. I’m not. I’m talking about electing lovers of liberty. It isn’t good enough to pick the lesser of two evils.” And it gets better from there.
• Sarah Palin. “There’s no free ride. Someone always pays. And if you don’t know who that someone is, it’s probably you.” – And too many other zingers to count. I love this woman!

That’s all I could watch in one sitting, while fighting my cold. Here is the full playlist; if you have a favorite, call it out in the comments!

I think the argument could be made, re: the recent confrontation over the debt ceiling and Obamacare. Via Ed Morrissey, Sen. Cruz hints at it in his ABC News interview:

“I will say that the reason this deal, the lousy deal was reached last night, is because, unfortunately, Senate Republicans made the choice not to support House Republicans,” Cruz told ABC News. “I wish Senate Republicans had united, I tried to do everything I could to urge Senate Republicans to come together and stand with House Republicans.”

First, let’s note that eighteen GOP Senators did stand with House Republicans, leaving 27 who didn’t.

But what about the 27? Some seem clueless about the larger issues, as for example, Sen. McCain who said “The real losers [in the shutdown] were the American people,” when the reverse is true: Americans lost when government re-opened under terms of greater debt, and with Obamacare intact.

As Morrissey didn’t support the recent confrontation, he goes on to argue that “The only way to dismantle ObamaCare is to win [future] elections.” I disagree.

Since raising the debt ceiling brings America closer to its coming default, and since Obamacare is bad law that harms our economy: then patriotic lawmakers should use any legal, constitutional means available to obstruct or delay them, with whatever votes they can muster today. Yes, rock the boat!

But 60% of Senate Republicans, it seems, would rather undercut the boat rockers – or even attack them. If their problem isn’t a form of Stockholm Syndrome, then I suspect it’s the GOP’s real civil war, K Street vs. the Tea Party.

K Street, or the GOP’s Washington / Big Government wing, has won a round and now presses the advantage by trashing the boat-rockers in the media. But I say, kudos to Sen. Cruz for at least having tried to do the right thing.

As former Sen. Jim DeMint has just said, of Obamacare:

The reason [we fight] is simple: to protect the American people from the harmful effects of this law…

More and more people have had their work hours cut, their jobs eliminated and their coverage taken away..

We know that premiums are going up due to ObamaCare—Americans are getting notices in their mailboxes every day…

[Americans] shouldn’t have to wait three more years for Congress to give them relief from this law, especially when the president has so frequently given waivers to his friends. Full legislative repeal may not be possible while President Obama remains in office, but delaying implementation by withholding funds from a law that is proven to be unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is a reasonable and necessary fight.

Raising the debt ceiling is equally bad law. Would that more of the GOP had seen clearly on that as well as Obamacare, and stood up to obstruct both.

Interesting piece from Timothy P. Carney / Washington Examiner, Tea party loosens K Street’s stranglehold on the GOP.

…the Tea Party smashed K Street’s monopoly on Republican fundraising. The Club for Growth was founded in the late 1990s, and early last decade, it began targeting liberal Republicans in primaries…
In 2009, Sen. Jim DeMint founded the Senate Conservatives Fund…

While GOP leaders backed candidates like Charlie Crist (Fla.) and Trey Grayson (Ky.) in 2010 primaries, the SCF backed Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. K Street and the National Republican Senatorial Committee worked hand-in-hand — but for a change, there was a countervailing force.

Which led to Rubio’s and Paul’s victories:

The Club for Growth was Paul’s biggest source of funds, giving him $105,000…[SCF] kicked in $36,685. These two groups, together with FreedomWorks, also spent big on independent expenditures for Paul.

Ted Cruz also came to Washington by defeating K Street. The Club for Growth spent more than $2.5 million helping Cruz in the Texas GOP primary, while the SCF spent about $800,000. K Street was backing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst — he got $500,000 from business PACs (33 times Cruz’s take), and GOP lobbyists hosted a fundraiser for him at the Capitol Hill townhouse of Democratic superlobbyist Tony Podesta.

As Cruz put it, “Everyone who makes their living from continuing the government-spending gravy train is supporting Dewhurst.”

[...]

“I don’t think there’s a way for Wall Street to punish the 25 to 50 hardcore House Republicans,” one Wall Street lobbyist told Politico in the first couple days of the shutdown. Referring to an anti-establishment libertarian freshman congressman, the lobbyist said, “I don’t think Justin Amash cares if Bank of America gives to him or not.”

A Republican who doesn’t care about Bank of America checks wasn’t possible before the Tea Party.

“Follow the money.”

All this may tie in with President Obama’s demand that the GOP reject the Tea Party. He said (8:46 in Beck’s clip):

I’m not going to [negotiate] until the more extreme parts of the Republican Party stop forcing John Boehner to issue threats about our economy.

First, remember that Obama is the one issuing threats about our economy. But his comments reflect that the Tea Party, because they want to actually halt the growth of government spending and change the Washington spending game, are an existential threat to Obama’s “Big Government” brand of politics.

And so, Obama wants the GOP to expel them and go back to Washington’s business-as-usual. They’re all in it together. The Democrats are 100% Big Government; the GOP are less so, but nonetheless have an establishment (K Street) which is fairly Big Government and 100% dedicated to playing the Washington game.

Our freedom is at stake. Ted Cruz and the GOP so-called “bomb throwers” protect it.

Hat tip, DrewM at Ace for airing Carney’s article.

At the time of the Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage this summer, it seemed to me that by ruling as it did, the Supreme Court had involuntarily handed many conservatives a great opportunity to move beyond the issue of gay marriage in ways that they hadn’t in the past.  Instead of making it a social or cultural issue, many conservatives could have sidestepped the issue entirely by talking more about economic issues and questions of taxation and state-sponsored benefits instead.

After all, the plaintiff in the case which challenged the Defense of Marriage Act was moved to file suit largely because of the estate taxes she incurred when her partner passed away.  So instead of viewing  it as a social or cultural issue, they could have taken up the cause of greatly reducing estate taxes for all regardless of marital status.

While I’m obviously biased on the issue, it seems to me that running on an anti-gay agenda is not a winning issue for conservatives.  I recognize that social conservatives played a very big role in the Reagan revolution, and I acknowledge that social conservatives are still an important part of the base that the Republican Party needs to keep winning elections.  But I believe that there are ways to accommodate social conservatives without alienating other potential voters.  Talking about court appointments is one way of doing this, because one needn’t be a social conservative to believe that the court should focus more on applying and interpreting the actual intent of the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench.  Likewise, one can have an honest debate about tax policy and whether or not it is in the state’s interest to carve out special exceptions for marriage or whether the state should get out of the marriage business all together and just simplify the tax code instead.

There are some signs that more and more Republican are getting this message.  On September 11 of this year, Politico reported on a survey that showed that more and more Republicans are embracing libertarian views about government.  (Hat Tip: The Blaze.)

FreedomWorks commissioned a national survey of registered voters last month, shared first with POLITICO, that finds 78 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents self-identify as fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

It’s not that Republicans are suddenly self-identifying as “libertarians” and devouring Ayn Rand novels, but more that they seem to be embracing underlying libertarian priorities and views about the role of government.

The Politico piece goes on to quote the Republican pollster who ran the poll saying that more and more voters are disturbed by both the size and the intrusiveness of government in the Obama era:

Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, who ran the poll, said she’s seeing a spike in voters who feel the government is too expensive, invasive and expansive.

“The perfect storm is being created between the NSA, the IRS, the implementation of Obamacare and now Syria,” she said. “People are looking at the government more suspiciously. They’re looking with deeper scrutiny and reasonable suspicion.”

Congratulations to Tony Abbott and Australia’s Liberal Party, for their victory in Australia’s elections on September 7!

Note that “Liberal” is considered conservative, in Australia. I suspect it’s something like “classical liberal” (my own preferred political designation), the concept that it is liberal to believe in liberty, that is, in individual rights under a small(-ish or small-er) government.

HotAir has it covered, including links to Tony Abbott’s victory speech, and a Townhall link about how “War on Women” distraction tactics did not work for Australia’s Left.

As a bonus: Center-right bloc takes power in Norway, headed by Ms. “Iron Erna” Solberg, who also deserves our congratulations. Not that she’s perfect – for example, I do not like what I’ve heard of her past stances in favor of Islamic Sharia councils in Norway – but Norway has turned a new leaf, and let’s hope she leads it wisely.

My good friend and Match Game celeb regular, Tony Katz, is on a new mission.  And I’m going to help as much as I can.

He is launching a new late-night talk show, from a conservative perspective.  I LOVE the concept.

Tony Katz Tonight is what happens when Politically Incorrect meets Playboy After Dark. Upbeat interviews, honest discourse and huge laughs – without all the PC political garbage. Please, go to our IndieGogo campaign and donate. We have great swag to give away for all our contribution levels including customized videos, mugs, t-shirts, cigars and your ticket to attend a Tony Katz Tonight taping and be a part of the show!

I’ve donated, so please do the same.  This is the ultimate in pop culture, conservative crowdsourcing fun!

DONATE NOW TO BRING TONY KATZ TONIGHT TO EVERY LIVING ROOM!

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Rest In Peace, Margaret Thatcher.

-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

Just some tasty red meat:

The interview touches on the key issue of Paul’s recent filibuster. In my own words: If the government can execute American citizens, on American soil, pre-emptively (without an active crime or combat situation and without due process), simply by designating them ‘terrorists’ first… well, who’s a terrorist? Please note that:

• Bernard von Nothaus, domestic ‘monetary protestor’ (for lack of a better term), was accused of ‘domestic terrorism’ by his prosecutors.
• Some reports say that the FBI investigated Occupy Wall Street as possible ‘domestic terrorists’.
• A 2011 poll showed that 53% of Democrats considered Tea Party members to be ‘economic terrorists’.
• In 2011, no less a personage (cough) than Vice President Biden allegedly compared Republicans / Tea Partiers to terrorists, over the debt ceiling negotiations.[^^]

With such examples, we see that the Obama – Big Government – Big Banking nexus is indeed prone to labeling its domestic ideological opponents as ‘terrorists’.

Fortunately and as we know, the Obama administration did answer Paul’s filibuster with a clarification of the limits on domestic drone strikes.

[^^I can’t recall Biden’s GOP counterparts – Vice President Cheney, or VP candidates Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan – ever saying that their domestic, non-violent political opponents were terrorists. If you think any of them did, I invite you to find a solid reference and post it in the comments. Quotes about Bill Ayers won’t count, since Ayers was actually violent for awhile.]

UPDATE: Rand is on a roll. “For liberty to expand, government must shrink.” Link is timed to that line, but watch the whole thing.

From last Friday on Piers Morgan (ugh), McCain complains about the flak he’s been catching, for all the flak that he himself spewed on Rand Paul’s recent filibuster:

“Well, you know, I am always intrigued by the fact that when I disagree with my own party leadership, my own president — like saying that Donald Rumsfeld ought to resign, [or] we need to do the surge — then I’m a brave maverick,” McCain said. “When I’m taking on others, then he’s just an angry old man.”

Here’s a clue for you, Mr. McCain. You are not the only one who gets to be a maverick and take principled stands that disagree with your party leadership. In fact, the year 2008 called and claimed that you ARE your party’s leadership. That would mean others get to be mavericks and take principled stands which disagree with YOU.

Or at least they should be able to, without your whining and pissing on them like a cranky old man, um, teenager.

The title is Jonah Goldberg’s. Apologies for forgetting who/what tipped me off to his recent speech. It wanders, but covers much interesting ground.

• On the 2012 election: Romney is a good man, but was a poor candidate from a poor field. His consultants’ disdain for ideas and making conservative arguments led to Romney often sounding like nothing more than a right-wing greeting card. This let Obama paint him (however wrongly) as a rich, greedy prude and to win voters on the basis of “who cares more about people like me”.
• On the 2016 election: It’s rare for a party to win a third term, and we can be sure the Democrats won’t do it with Vice President Biden. Meanwhile, the Republicans will have a stronger field.
• On the GOP’s long-term prospects: The GOP has the right ideas, the ideas that work, but a huge ‘persuasion problem’. Democrats are better at deploying the language of community – such as “government is the one thing we all belong to”, or Clinton’s remark on the politics of “you’re on your own” vs. the politics of “we’re all in it together”. This is a pity, because in real life, conservatives tend to be better involved in their families, communities and causes larger than themselves.

(more…)

Rand Paul’s filibuster ended yesterday, after 13 hours. Neither Bruce nor I were clear on how to turn off GP’s post that was counting it, so…it’s gone. We executed it (so to speak). But where did America end up?

• Before: A poll showed that fully 41% of Democrats think the president should be able to order pre-emptive drone strikes on American soil without review or oversight (that is, “on his own” in the poll’s wording).
• After: The Democrat-led Senate has refused to pass this resolution, “Expressing the sense of the Senate against the use of drones to execute Americans on American soil”.

I think that means: according to the Senate, if Obama decides that you are a “suspected terrorist”, he could execute you and your family in a drone strike on your home. At least, the question is open. Obama’s America, Forward!

UPDATE (from the comments): heliotrope informs us that Senator Paul has just received a letter from Attorney General Holder, writing that the president does NOT “have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil.” That’s better.

UPDATE: Republican senators McCain and Graham are clueless as ever, while liberal comedian Jon Stewart praises Rand Paul, sort of.

Busy with a number of projects today, including entertaining Bruce with whom I just had a nice lunch and to whom I just showed a gas station selling a gallon of regular for over $5, but did want to remind our readers despite the CPAC dustup, many conservative institutions favor the inclusion of gay conservatives.

Shortly, after returning home (from spending my early afternoon with Bruce where CPAC came up), I caught this headline on the National Review’s homepage:

On Sunday, Bruce reported that “nothing has changed [since] The CPAC Board voted before CPAC 2012 to remove GOProud as a sponsoring organization.” Today, the flagship conservative magazine offered “Five reasons CPAC should embrace the gay conservative group.”

CPAC’s decision to exclude this gay conservative group is not sitting well with all movement conservatives. Daniel Foster, the National Review’s news editor, makes a strong case for inclusion:

GOProud is consistently big-C “movement” conservative on the important issues — especially on fiscal policy and the size of government, but also on social issues such as abortion. After all, GOProud was founded by a couple of Log Cabin Republicans dissatisfied with that group’s Main-Street-partnership-style centrism. This alone is a pretty good reason for their inclusion at CPAC. But arguably more interesting, and more important for a powwow that’s ostensibly about making conservative advocacy more effective, is GOProud’s lower-case conservatism.

Read the whole thing.  Foster holds that “the move against GOProud does seem to be all downside.” Indeed.

Just another reminder about the broad-based conservative movement.  The current organizers of CPAC don’t speak for all conservatives.

To some degree, I regret not having blogging during the fiscal cliff negotiations.  They may, to be sure, represent a low point for congressional Republicans, but they may also represent a turning point.  The once-divided House Republicans emerged unified from their Williamsburg retreat.  And Congress has now disposed of one of the few issues Obama emphasized in the campaign — and demagogued after his victory — increasing taxes on the wealthy.

He will not longer be able to use that issue (i.e., “tax the rich) against Republicans as effectively as he did in the campaign.  And he now gives Republicans a chance to remind Americans about the second part of his “balanced approach” to deficit reduction: spending cuts.

Las Friday, we learned that despite his successful reelection campaign, President Obama does not have the power he needs to “fundamentally” transform the nation as he would like.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the incumbent’s attempt at constitutional overreach, striking down his use “the Constitution’s recess appointment power to make appointments despite the absence of a recess” to appoint members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

This ruling will make it relatively easy for employers to challenge all the pro-union rulings the NLRB has made since Obama announced the appointments.  The Democrat cannot willy nilly put policies into place increasing regulation and giving more power to favored special interests.

And despite a largely favorable press, Obama’s current approval rating hovers just below that of George W. Bush at a similar point in his term, indeed, as George Will observed, the Democrat enjoys “the lowest approval rating (according to Gallup, 50 percent, four points lower than that of the National Rifle Association) of any reelected president when inaugurated since World War II”, with the eminent pundit opining that the incumbent’s “contradictory agenda [is] certain to stimulate a conservative revival.” (more…)

I’m at the NRI Summit in DC this weekend. It’s great catching up with blogger friends. And I’m finally meeting some of the folks I love to read everyday from the National Review.

It’s hard for me to listen and blog, so while Gov. Scott Walker and US Sen Ted Cruz speak a lunch, I’m just going to listen.

I’m giving real time updates on GayPatriot on Twitter.

More later. Maybe photos.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

I had the honor and privilege to be a part of this year’s March for Life today in Washington, DC.  GOProud organized a group and we were welcomed warmly, despite the frigid temperatures.

Despite the touch of Global Warming, the March was quite personally fulfilling to me.  I’m the one in the back, holding the sign, by the way.

Sometimes life has moments that you aren’t expecting and today was one of them.  Please note Michael, the man in front of me in the yellow coat.  He sought out GOProud today because, “I had to be here today.”  I spent a lot of time listening to Michael today and I hope that my listening was as helpful to him as his story was to me.

Michael spent the last two years in prison and now he’s trying to make things right.  He is gay and pro-life.  He ostensibly served his time because of  his principles.  Let me explain…

Michael’s sister was pregnant and her boyfriend gave her the funds to abort the baby.  His sister refused and instead used the money to buy clothes.  The boyfriend was so enraged that the baby hadn’t been aborted, that he threw Michael’s sister down the stairs, inducing a miscarriage. Michael stabbed the boyfriend in an attempt to help his sister.

I’m not in a position to judge Michael, that’s God’s role.  And I wasn’t told if the stabbing resulted in serious injury or death of the boyfriend.  But there is something admirable about a gay guy taking matters in his own hands to protect his sister from a violent attack.

Michael now makes the money he needs to live in a cheap residence by shining shoes.  After the March was over, Michael — with quite a lot of embarrassment — asked me if he could shine my shoes.  I told him that I appreciated the offer, but that I would give him the money he needed to stay in a warm home without the shoe shine.   He began to cry and we hugged each other.

Life is funny.  Which is why all life is precious.  And why the government should be protecting all rights of self-protection, not trying to restrict them or incentivize death.

[RELATED: Hundreds of Thousands Gather for Record-Breaking March for Life]

-Bruce (@GayPatriot) 

This piece was originally posted by my good friend Billy at the Charleston Tea Party webpage and at RedState.  It is re-posted here in full.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

*********

New US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) hits the nail squarely on the head in this piece for the Washington Post. The Republicans MUST become more effective at presenting the idea of the opportunities that conservatism provides. The GOP no longer needs to be known as the Grand Old Party, but the Great Opportunity Party. Our principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and a desire to make tomorrow better than today, are what make us uniquely qualified to address our nation’s challenges in the most productive manner. We MUST become salespeople of conservative ideals.

What is the opportunity that the GOP provides? We have a belief in the power of the individual to improve their own lot in life. We understand that it is hard work and a desire to learn that allows people to invest in their future. We KNOW that America and our founding principles are what continue to make America that “shining city on a hill” that John Winthrop spoke of as he reached the shores of this great land. I believe that we are at a time for choosing, and we must do as Reagan said, ““Four years ago we raised a banner of bold colors – no pale pastels. We proclaimed a dream of an America that would be a ‘shining city on a hill’.” We’re talking about the same bold colors today – crafting a message of opportunity and then communicating that message eloquently, forcefully, and without apology.

We offer a spirit of entrepreneurship. This idea is not only confined to those that own their own business, it applies to everyone as they seek to do their job to the best of their ability. I remember a store manager early in my career said to me, “Billy, in order for us to be successful, we need to run it like we own it.” He meant to take pride in the job that I did, and if I took ownership of the job I was assigned, I would be rewarded. This lesson paid off, as a short period of time later I entered the management training program. I continued to carry that philosophy throughout my time in the grocery business, and continue it today as I have a small business of my own. Any person can be an “entrepreneur,” whether it is the men and women that keep the office clean, the folks that make the products we use everyday, or the people that take care of us when we go out to eat. Anyone that takes pride in their job, and seeks a way to improve, is an entrepreneur.

We offer a way to invest in their future. The ability of an individual to keep the fruits of their labor is essential to investment. When we speak of “investing,” we don’t mean merely putting money in a 401(k), we mean saving to buy a place that you can call home, to buy books for your children so they may learn, to afford a family vacation so that you can make memories that will last a lifetime. Investment can take on many of these forms, but it is about one fundamental idea, “I want to make tomorrow better than today.”

We know that personal responsibility is essential to success. When you play by the rules and work hard you CAN succeed, however a burdensome government can often make this more difficult. The wages that people earn should not be used to bail out irresponsible business owners and others that have made poor decisions. The ability to fail is essential to success, I have learned far more from my failures, than I learned from my successes. If that opportunity to fail was not there, I would never have learned those valuable lessons. When people make bad decisions in business, they need to be allowed to fail, so that we all may learn these lessons to ensure success in the future. It is much better to learn not to touch a hot stove by watching someone else burn themselves, than putting yourself through that pain.

We have many other reasons for why we truly are the “Great Opportunity Party,” and this is just a start. I challenge each of you to think of ways that opportunity can lead to success, and to become salespeople of these ideals. Change begins at home, and I hope many of you will join us in this fight. We must shout our message from the rooftops, and liberate everyone from the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” We can continue to ensure that America remains that “last best hope for mankind,” but it will take all of us working towards a common goal to get there.

I didn’t want the post below to be the lead item on what is a very historic day for my state.  So I want to add some brief personal thoughts about Tim Scott.

He is an awesome pick.  Unlike most of the politicans who embraced Tea Party, limited government principles AFTER the movement forced them to, Tim Scott already possessed those principles.  He is a smart, funny, engaging guy who has a way of making everyone around him feel included.

I daresay that he will rival some of the more notable Senators as one who will go into the history books based on his record and accomplishments.

I had the unfortunate pleasure to follow US Rep. Tim Scott at the October 18 Charleston Tea Party rally.  He had the crowd on its feet, singing and full of energy; he was a hard act to follow.

It is worth noting that Tim Scott is the only black Senator from the Confederate South since Reconstruction.  And the only black Senator from the South since the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed.  Only Illinois and Massachusetts have had African-American Senators in modern America.

Until today.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)