March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The latest Rasmussen poll shows Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) leading state Sen. Scott Brown (R) by just nine points in the race to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Coakley wins an anemic 50 percent of the vote to Brown’s 41 percent. A few caveats: Rasmussen results are often seen as more pro-Republican than other polls; it is hard to know who will turn out in a special election; even a high single-digit gap is a lot of ground for Brown to make up by the time the election takes place on Jan. 19.
But even if something like those numbers holds up, it could show that discontent with the national Democrats has reached even a significant slice of the Massachusetts electorate. Brown is winning 62 percent of independents, who are now a plurality of Bay State voters. Just breaking 40 percent of the vote against a heavily favored Democrat could position Scott Brown to run for another statewide office where Republicans usually stand a better chance than Senate races. Mitt Romney’s 41 percent against Ted Kennedy set him up to run for governor. Joe Malone parlayed an even weaker showing against Kennedy than that into two terms as state treasurer.
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?