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 Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza asks if former Harvard Pilgrim CEO Charlie Baker can be a replay of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts governor’s race later this year. Baker has an impressive resume in both the private sector and in government, serving in the Weld and Cellucci administrations. Governor is a rare office where Massachusetts voters favor Republicans — the GOP has won four of the last five gubernatorial elections — and incumbent Deval Patrick’s numbers are worse than Martha Coakley’s.
But there are two reasons I think a simple comparison to Scott Brown is unwarranted. Baker is going to have some problems riding the populist wave that benefited Brown. That’s partly because he is a stylistically different candidate. It is also because he has to face Christy Mihos, a more natural populist, in the Republican primary. If he wins the nomination, he’ll have to contend with Tim Cahill running as an independent fiscal conservative, potentially denying him a clean shot at Patrick.
Both Mihos and Cahill can be overcome, but I don’t think either of them can at this point be discounted. That said, Baker does have a decent shot of doing something Scott Brown did — win statewide office in Massachusetts while running as a Republican.
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?
H/T to National Review Online