Boston Globe: GOP all Weak Candidates, Dems "strongest in decades" (more Obama gushing)

NewsBusters.org ^ | 2/26/07 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

Another Nutter... I mean Kuttner... heard from.

[TitansAFC]

Sadly, I agree with the observation.

The Liberals get to define the issues for the next four years either way - either with a Liberal Republican or a Liberal Democrats.

God help us that so many Republicans are no embracing Liberalism in the name of fear.

[pissant]

The Boston Globe thinks a crusty pantsuit with more baggage than Fed-Ex, and a big-eared, inexperienced, black socialist, and a ambulance chasing pretty boy who couldn't even win back his Senate seat are "strong". LOL

[TitansAFC]

---"Romney – “...is also on the defensive as a Mormon, since many fundamentalists don't consider Mormons Christians."---

Ummm......We don't consider Jews to be Christians, either; but we'd gladly vote for a Conservative Jewish Republican.

Get with the program, man!

Sheesh!

[tkathy]

Vilification bordering on demagoguery. The right needs to get better at slander and vilification and blaming others IMO.

[ShawTaylor]

"Dems "strongest in decades" "

If a no-achievement, 2-year congressmen Obama and an equally no-achievement, most evil and most hated women in America Hitelry, are the "strongest" RATS candidates in decades, then the RATS are in deep trouble.
Expect a clobbering of the retarded RATS by the solid-achievements Rudy come 2008

[politicalwit]

The Globe is stating the obvious. I've been saying the same thing for quiet some time know. Of course you have those broken glass republicans that think that the nation's survival depends upon the election of another RINO. They place blame on conservatives, independents, conservative republicans and Reagan democrats for their current minority status. They fail in accepting the fact that some of us simply will not compromise our conservative PRINCIPLES for the sake of the republican party...a party that does not respect conservative principles.

The only counter to a democrat presidency in 2008 (and there will be one) is to shift efforts to retake House and Senate election in 2008.

[BunnySlippers]

Another Nutter... I mean Kuttner... heard from.

Just wait ...

[6SJ7]

"Kuttner". Well, at least it's truth in advertising.

[Hildy]

This is so ridiculous. In EVERY SINGLE POLL, Rudy beats any of the Dem candidates.

[jveritas]

The only counter to a democrat presidency in 2008 (and there will be one)

You are absolutely sure of that?! You already surrendered before the battle has started. Please make sure you do not work on any single Republican campaign, you are too weak and too defeatist.

[mrmargaritaville]

Osama Obama couldn't "kerry" Rudy's jock strap.

[Rob Bishop]

This is so ridiculous. In EVERY SINGLE POLL, Rudy beats any of the Dem candidates. Like he said, the field for Democrats hasn't been this good in decades. That's because both parties are running them. Hey folks, take another look at Chuck Hagel. Say what you will about Iraq, and so far the guy's critism has been dead on, but he's the only guy with national electability to have any real conservative values. And with Bush's surge going through (which in my view it should and despite what most people think has a chance of working this time) we'll either be out of Iraq with some dignity left or out in disgrace by the time the next President takes office anyway. As a paleconservative who hates neoconservatism as much as he hates liberalism (is there a difference?), Hagel is the most attractive "real" candidate.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats can hardly wait for Clinton II.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[politicalwit]

Deafest?....Nope, I'm a realist. The simple fact is that the selection for a republican presidential candidate is weak at best. As a 35 year republican turned independent (2004) I worked to elect republicans. My 12 year political career included 2 terms in the NH House (Yes, there were real conservatives back then). I understand the game of politics. What is being offered right now is a group of RINOs and a few conservatives without the necessary name recognization to carry the republican party to a presidential victory. It's far more important to retake the House and Senate than the presidency.

[CommerceComet]

Like he said, the field for Democrats hasn't been this good in decades.

Ironically, the consensus top two candidates are the two weakest general election candidates. Richardson, Edwards, Gore (if he decides to run) would all be harder to beat in the general election than either Hillary or Obama.

[jveritas]

There is a very thin line between realism and defeatism. You are for sure a defeatist. How can you in 20 month before the election declare that the democrats are going to win the White House? Who is going to win the White House? Hillary Clinton? She is the meanest, rudest, nastiest, most arrogant candidate to ever run. Before the voters will know anything about her left wing lunatic and socialist politics, they will quickly realize that she is too mean, too nasty, too arrogant to be President. Her very nasty and very annoying voice and her scary wide open mean eyes will turn the majority of voters away from her at an early stage of the campaign. She and the liberal media cannot do anything to hide this or prevent it. Who else? Barak Obama? Just get real.

[jveritas]

It's far more important to retake the House and Senate than the presidency.

It is good to have but nothing compare to have the Presidency. The President has more power two third of Congress on domestic issues and almost has all the power on foreign policy and war. Look at the traitors and defeatists in the democrat party, they control Congress but they are too weak and too impotent fortunately to even pass a defeatist “non binding” resolution in the Senate.

[jveritas]

Agree 100% although I think that Richardson and Edwards are not easier to beat than Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, but Gore is for sure the toughest one to beat if he runs of course.

[dighton]

... more baggage than Fed-Ex ...

A blast from the past.