Ben Carson is a brilliant neurosurgeon and medical professor. He’s also becoming a rising political star. But first, doc, you need to learn how to speak with nuance and precision.

He recently spoke with conservative commentator Sean Hannity about gay marriage. Dr. Carson opposes it, he says, for Biblical reasons.

Then he began to ramble a bit about gay marriage and, while stringing together a list of collective associations, said that marriage is a “a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/291023-ben-carson-defends-gay-marriage-comments

Critics jumped all over the good doctor, saying he was “equating” gay individuals with those who practice bestiality. He said his comments were “taken out of context.” I don’t know about the “context” argument, Dr. Carson. Those comments seem pretty self-evident to me.

But whether they reflect the view his critics contend they do or not, Carson could have been a bit more, shall we say, discreet in his comparisons. He could have stopped at “be they gays,” and called it good.

But he didn’t. He talked a little too freely with his pal Hannity.

Carson is being talked about now as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016. He has said he will consider it in due course, once he quits his medical practice, which he’s already said he’ll do.

A word of caution, doctor: This political world into which you may enter is full of traps, which politicians are known to spring all by themselves with their own careless utterances.

National Republican Party leaders are nothing if not astute observers of the political trends that have damaged their party’s brand.

Witness the instant – and welcomed – lambasting of U.S. Rep. Don Young’s racial slur against Mexican-Americans.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290977-boehner-no-excuse-for-youngs-wetbacks-comment

Young, an Alaska Republican and the second-most senior member of the House of Representatives, referred to migrant workers recently as “wetbacks” while recalling his childhood growing up in central California.

Speaker John Boehner called the remark “beneath the dignity” of Young’s office. Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus, according to The Hill, “sought to distance Young from his party,” which is trying desperately to build some kind of link with ethnic minorities, such as Hispanics who voted nearly 3-to-1 in favor of President Obama in last year’s presidential campaign.

“My father had a ranch. We used to have 50 to 60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes,” young told an Alaska radio station. “It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine.”

Young did apologize immediately for his remark. But it might not be enough to assuage the outward anger of Republican leaders who must be fuming at their colleague while they are trying to make inroads with the very people Young has just insulted.

“During a sit down interview with Ketchikan Public Radio this week, I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in central California. I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect,” Young said.

You know, the more I look at Young’s apology, the more it reads like one of those “If I offended anyone …” non-apologies.

Oh, the danger of speaking from one’s heart and mind.

Alexander Burns, writing in Politico.com, posits an interesting theory about Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

The end of his political career may be at hand, given the absence of who he calls the “political knife fighters” who helped him become Texas’s longest-serving governor.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rick-perry-texas-governor-staff-consultants-89430.html?hp=t1_3

If only …

Perry’s spectacularly brief foray into national politics in late 2011 and early 2012 gave rise to a lot of questions about the product of Haskell County, Texas. Those questions centered on just how it is that he became such a political force in Texas while proving to be such a profound embarrassment beyond our state’s borders.

He entered the 2012 Republican primary contest and became an instant favorite to win his party’s nomination. But it all came crashing down in January 2012 when, after a series of amazing stumbles, gaffes and ghastly pronouncements, he dropped out of the contest.

Perry is now trying to decide whether run for an umpteenth term as governor and whether – and this one is beyond belief – whether he wants to make another run for president in 2016.

But as Burns points out, the hired hands who’ve been Perry’s brain trust have bailed on him. One of them, Burns reports, is former campaign manager Dave Carney, who reportedly has met with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s considering a run for governor himself in 2014. He might even challenge Perry in the primary if Gov. Goodhair (to borrow the late columnist Molly Ivins’s legendary label) decides to seek another term.

I’m so hoping that Perry has had enough. He’s been governor long enough, since December 2000, when he succeeded George W. Bush after Bush’s election to the presidency. That’s 13-plus years.

I keep remembering the comments I heard from many of my Republican friends when Perry entered the 2012 GOP presidential primary campaign. They told me they were pulling for him to win the presidency “if only to get him out of Texas.”

And this, mind you, came from those who live and work in the heart of Rick Perry’s Republican base.

I’m beginning to think the U.S. Senate Democratic majority is slipping away … and rapidly.

A number of Senate Democrats are announcing their retirements after the 2014 mid-term election. And a good number of those Democrats come from Republican-leading states. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., was just the latest. He joins Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., in saying he won’t seek re-election next year. Plus, you have liberal lion Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, bailing out next year – but that seat could stay in Democratic hands if Republicans nominate one of their fruitcakes, such as Rep. Steve “Birther” King to run for the seat.

Other Democratic senators may be facing trouble in states such as Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/morning-examiner-senate-democrats-2014-hopes-keep-getting-dimmer/article/2525637

But the question is this: Is that a bad thing for the country? Possibly no.

I recall in 1995 when the entire Congress flipped from Democratic to Republican control, while the White House remained in Democratic hands. Bill Clinton, who had been elected president two years earlier, learned quickly to work with Republican leaders in both congressional houses and managed to craft some good legislation into law involving welfare reform and tax policy.

If the Senate flips next year and the GOP holds its House majority, that will leave President Obama with the prospect of dealing even more directly with the “loyal opposition.” Can he do it? Will he do it? Like all second-term presidents, Barack Obama is hoping to build a legacy and that must mean finding even more ways to compromise.

Republicans already have shown their hand. They ain’t in the mood for compromise and with a stronger legislative position possible after 2014, they’ll dig in their heels even more.

Obama has several templates from which to work. The Clinton model is one. So, too, is the one that Republican George W. Bush faced when he became Texas governor in 1995, He had a Democratic majority in both legislative chambers but found a way to work hand in hand with a crusty Democratic lieutenant governor, the late Bob Bullock, and Democratic House Speaker Pete Laney, a son of the Texas Panhandle.

The Democrats’ political hand in D.C., though, isn’t looking so strong these days as we move toward the next off-year elections. President Obama had better start planning now for ways to turn bad political news into a positive policy development.

CNN has been all over a story regarding the May 2011 commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

It involves an apparent dispute over which of the SEALs fired the shots that took out the world’s most notorious terrorist.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/bergen-who-killed-bin-laden/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of this story is that it’s even taking place. Whatever happened to espirit de corps? We are now being treated to an exhibition of dueling accounts regarding the top-secret mission by a team of the world’s most elite fighting units. Frankly, I find the whole thing disgraceful.

Bin Laden’s death was conducted in the dead of night by a combined force of Navy SEALs, CIA operatives and Army Special Forces pilots. I always had understood that the men who took part in that raid lived by a code, that the team did the job and that none of them would take individual credit for firing the fatal shots.

Indeed, a lengthy article in The New Yorker not long after the raid told of President Obama’s visit with SEAL Team 6 at Fort Campbell, Ky., and how the men who met the president wouldn’t tell him who did the deed. The story told of how the Secret Service advised the president not to ask the question. He didn’t. Instead, he thanked every member of the team collectively for completing the harrowing mission successfully.

Now comes a member of the SEAL team saying in a recently published book that he fired the shot that killed bin Laden. Others are disputing the claim, saying that someone else did it.

As much as I would love one day to shake the hand of the man who put bin Laden out of our misery, there are some things none of us needs to know.

All that matters is Osama bin Laden is dead. Each of the SEALs who stormed bin Laden’s residence is a hero.

I might have a theory on why the University of Texas System regents can’t keep their hands off UT-Austin’s administrative tasks.

Could it be that the guy who runs the system’s flagship campus, Bill Powers, isn’t a true-blue Longhorn?

I looked it up. Powers received his undergraduate degree in chemistry from the University of California-Berkeley. He then earned his law degree from Harvard University. Both are fine institutions, two of the best in the world. However, it now seems that the regents – who are tasked with setting broad university policy – can’t seem to quit meddling in what ought to be Powers’s administrative purview.

Down the road, in College Station, the Texas A&M University System is being run by a bona fide Aggie, former Texas Comptroller/Railroad Commissioner/state Sen. John Sharp. I guess Sharp is fluent in Aggiespeak, enabling him to avoid the trouble that has befallen Powers over at UT-Austin.

I think the Dallas Morning News editorial board has it right in calling for the UT regents to let the man do his job.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130326-editorial-regents-quit-micromanaging-ut-and-bill-powers.ece

I realize that Sharp’s role as A&M chancellor is a bit different from Powers’s role as president of the UT-Austin campus. They don’t share the same standing on their respective systems’ organizational charts.

But they both have key administrative roles to play in each institution.

My own advice to the UT board? Butt out.

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert keeps bringing on the hits.

The East Texas Republican – who’s made a name for himself by questioning President Obama’s place of birth and by suggesting that citizens armed with semi-automatic weapons are the best defense against mass murderers – has now gotten into a spat with a U.S. National Park Service patrol officer over a parking violation.

What’s more, he reportedly pulled congressional rank by telling the officer he sits on the House committee that controls the Park Service’s purse strings.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/louie-gohmert-cops-parking-ticket-89375.html?hp=t3_3

In an odd way, I love having this guy in Congress. He’s good for a laugh. The problem is that when he makes us laugh, he’s also embarrassing many of his fellow Texans, such as yours truly.

Gohmert questioned whether should have gotten the ticket in the first place. The park officer who cited him, though, said he acted like a bully and “ranted” during the conversation with the officer over issuance of the parking citation.

Good grief. The guy pulls down a six-figure annual salary. He should just pay the fine and keep his trap shut. And spare me the notion that it’s “the principle of the thing.”

Carolyn Heinrich has it spot on. Texans often fancy themselves as being from the best state with the best of everything, but in terms of educational achievement, we’re falling short while leading the way in the taking of tests.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/26/guest-column/

Henrich’s essay in the Texas Tribune lays out some findings about the plethora of tests our public educators demand of our students. Her findings are rather grim. Texas still doesn’t rank very well in achievement. But we sure know how to administer tests.

Is this the kind of thing ol’ H. Ross Perot had in mind when he led the commission that carried his name toward some new educational reforms back in the 1980s? I rather doubt it.

You might remember the Dallas gazillionaire’s demand that the state should concentrate on educating students better in the classroom and worry less about whether we’re producing blue-chip football players. He popped off around 1983 about the lack of achievement. Then-Gov. Mark White called him out and said, in effect, “OK, Ross, I will appoint you chairman of a blue-ribbon commission to come up with educational reforms. Are you game?” Perot accepted the challenge.

The Perot Commission produced a comprehensive reform package, which Perot himself then pitched to civic groups, media representatives and educators all across the state. I saw him deliver one such sales job in Beaumont. He was impressive.

The Legislature then convened a special session in 1984 and approved House Bill 72, which laid out all kinds of new restrictions and procedures. They included a whole range of tests.

How have they worked? Not too well, according to Henrich.

“We have over-invested in testing (as if it was some kind of ‘magic bullet’) and under-invested in other tools for educational improvement,” she writes. Indeed, teachers hate all the tests. Parents don’t like them either. Students? Well, they do what they’re told.

I don’t disagree with the need to have standards that all kids must meet, but we’ve become addicted to the tests, assuming that the good test-takers are going to excel academically. The results say something else.

Maybe we need yet another blue-ribbon commission to fix the remedy.

Ann Coulter told fellow conservative Sean Hannity that the nation needs to elect a true-blue conservative for president next time or the nation is “finished.”

Here’s the exchange she had with Hannity.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/26/coulter_on_christie_we_have_to_run_someone_who_can_win_or_the_country_is_finished.html

We’re all entitled to our opinions, correct Ms. Coulter? It’s written somewhere that we are, even though she believes her opinions are worth far more than, say, mine. For that matter, I value my own world view more than I value hers … but I digress.

Actually, I’m uncomfortable using the term “finished.” We’ve gone through many serious crises and come out all right: the Civil War, World Wars I and II, presidential assassination, the threat of nuclear confrontation over missiles in Cuba, immense civil unrest over the Vietnam War, Watergate. Have you heard about those historical events?

I believe the nation would worse off if it elected a conservative cave-dweller who does not comprehend that the nation no longer resembles what it once did. We aren’t just a nation of old, Anglo, middle- and upper middle-class, heterosexual, “nuclear families.” We are changing every single year. The new majority population no longer is white. We are increasingly diverse, no matter how badly some folks want to limit its diversity.

Ann Coulter is an engaging and articulate advocate for her political point of view. She’s just misguided.

That chill under my feet must have been hell freezing over.

How else does one explain the sight of David Boies and Ted Olson – on the same side of a potentially landmark U.S. Supreme Court hearing.

Both men argued before the High Court against Proposition 8, the California law that bans gay marriage in that state. The justices heard their arguments, asked probing questions of both men and now will deliver their decision that same-sex marriage advocates hope determines that “marriage equality” is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

What needs our attention today, though, is how the law can bring two opponents together, fighting for the same outcome.

Boies and Olson once opposed each other. Bush v. Gore. Remember that one? Texas Gov. George W. Bush was elected president of the United States in 2000 after a Supreme Court ruling that ended a recount of ballots in Florida. When the counting stopped, Bush had 500-plus more votes than Vice President Al Gore, winning the state’s electoral votes and capturing the presidency by a narrow Electoral College majority.

Boies represented Gore; Olson represented Bush. Thus, the men – two top-flight lawyers – had been described as bitter legal rivals.

Then a funny thing happened. California voters approved Proposition 8 in 2008 and more than four years later, Olson – who went on to serve as solicitor general in the Bush administration – ended up arguing alongside Boies that marriage equality is a fundamental right of every American citizen.

Some alliances simply defy description. This is one of them.