I and others disagree that it’s just a matter of money. Romney has vastly outspent his rivals in Iowa, NH, Michigan and SC and will win only one. (Yes, I’m not counting uncontested caucuses in Nevada and Wyoming.) Money didn’t buy him evangelical support in Iowa nor convince voters in his own backyard of his bona fides. The better argument is that if he had no money he would be in the worst position of any of the remaining contenders. Coming in third in SC (at best) leaves a fundamental problem: where is he going to win on February 5? The Red states of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas don’t seem any more accessible. Is he going to best McCain and Rudy in NJ, NY, California and Illinois? It seems unlikely. More importantly, he simply has never caught a surge, a bump of national excitement like any of the other candidates and remains mired in third place in national polls (which are the closest approximation to the landscape of February 5 out there). Could he win? Yes, but money is not the key or he’d be the undisputed frontrunner already.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?