Without a hint of balance, Robert Kuttner of the Boston Globe thinks he has it all figured out -- 20 months before the election -- that the GOP candidates cannot win, while the Dems are the right ticket as he tries Taking stock of the 2008 field. Posted on 02/26/2007 6:57:37 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Without a hint of balance, Robert Kuttner of the Boston Globe thinks he has it all figured out -- 20 months before the election -- that the GOP candidates cannot win, while the Dems are the right ticket as he tries Taking stock of the 2008 field.
Naturally, his is another gusher for Barack Obama. But, he starts his piece in one way or another ripping each and every one of the GOP candidates, or those who would vote for them, before saying how "strong" the Dems field of candidates is.
Here are the results of his analyzing of the GOP field:
McCain – “...has lately emerged as more hawkish than the president himself. But by primary season, the war may be even more unpopular, and most Republicans will be distancing themselves from the Iraq mess, not urging its escalation.”
Giuliani – “...far too forthright ...”
Romney – “...is also on the defensive as a Mormon, since many fundamentalists don't consider Mormons Christians. Almost half a century after the civil rights revolution, this should not matter, but that's right-wing politics for you.”
And...
Of the also-rans, Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas fundamentalist, is unlikely to travel well. Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, has likewise failed to take off. And Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a traditional conservative, would make a good president; but he's too vocal a critic of the president to be forgiven by loyalists.Why Arnold was even mentioned is a mystery. His candidacy is a Constitutional impossibility. And it was nice how he just called every Republican voter a bigot.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is constitutionally disqualified as foreign-born. Jeb Bush might be plausible if his name were anything other than Bush. An oft-mentioned long shot, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has never run for office.
So, none of them can win. But wait, Kuttner is sure the entire GOP, not just this crop of candidates, is sunk.
And it gets worse. The Bush administration has collapsed on so many fronts that Republican officeholders up for re election will be torn between saving their own necks and remaining loyal to the hard-core base. Eight or nine Republican Senate seats could be at risk.So much for the evil GOP. Now the sunshine beams, the flowers open, and the birds start singing...
I have followed politics far too long to fall in love, but Obama is like nothing we have seen since Bobby Kennedy and maybe since FDR. If you haven't read his first book, "Dreams from My Father," you owe it to yourself.It's telling that with his rhapsodizing -- but he ain't in love, truly he ain't -- Kuttner pushes Barack's book. Curiously, it isn't his latest book, the dry and empty "The Audacity of Hope" the book that is supposed to present the candidate in the serious light in which he wants to be seen, but the far older and better book "Dreams of my Father".
The older book is one that presents a far different man, one full of ideas, candid reflection, and hope. Sadly, the newer one reveals a man who has gone bland and become but a calculating politician, a sad shadow of his earlier self.
Obviously Kuttner doesn't want to sully the man he says he doesn't love by present his latest work by which voters might judge him.
Kuttner... again in his show of non-love... then ridiculously equates Obama as someone on the level of a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Vaclav Havel. And, reaching for the height of absurdity, he then imagines Obama to be just like Thomas Jefferson. Yet, any perusal of these three men’s lives would show far more accomplishment, that they are men of far more consequence than Obama’s life has yet revealed. Obama appears as but a mere dabbler in achievement compared to Kuttner’s three men of history.
No, Kuttner hasn't fallen in love with Obama at all. You can REALLY tell that!
The syrup virtually drips from his pen.
Finally, Kuttner ends his piece with this laugher:
I could be wrong, of course. John Edwards, with his authentic populism, would also make a formidable nominee. Clinton, despite her flaws, has always done better than her detractors predict.“Authentic populism”? John Edwards!? The man who owns HOW many palatial homes is an example of “authentic populism”?
Yeah, Bobbie, you "could be wrong", indeed.
This guy is killin’ me.
Sadly, this is what passes for serious commentary in Boston.
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.
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
---"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!
Vilification bordering on demagoguery. The right needs to get better at slander and vilification and blaming others IMO.
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.
Just wait ...
"Kuttner". Well, at least it's truth in advertising.
This is so ridiculous. In EVERY SINGLE POLL, Rudy beats any of the Dem candidates.
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.
Osama Obama couldn't "kerry" Rudy's jock strap.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.