they published a smear piece that all but accused him of being a psycho misogynist who was having an affair with a lobbyist

I remember this story. I thought it was one of the stupidest things on record, and it played right into McCain's hands. The real story -- the meatier part -- was not allegations that McCain had an affair, but rather an examination of his relationship with lobbyists, given his long-time reformer credentials. But for some reason, the Times chose to lead with the unsubstantiated affair allegation ...

Not a great piece.

Not that it matters, but of the current Republican crop, I could potentially vote for Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, or Mitt Romney. I'd prefer Chris Christie (one term only) though.

"Hell, Wizbang has only a fraction of the readership and influence of the Globe, but I'd wager that...."

Not so fast Jay T. They are slipping off the cliff. Read this from the Globe's own website, last October:

"The Globe’s daily circulation dropped 15.6 percent to 222,683, while its Sunday circulation dropped 12 percent in the period to 368,303."

The Globe, like the NYT's likes to think that it still has credibility and relevancy.

I'm sorry I read the Globe article you linked to. More of a hit piece than anything else.

You know, if a republican were to somehow cure world hunger, the globe would run an article accusing them of causing world-wide indigestion.

The globe is slowly dieing. Couldn't happen to a more deserving paper. I hope they take the NY Times with them.

Side note. Since I work in Lowell, I get my morning papers there. No, not the Globe. Over time I've noticed that the Herald has been increasing, with a larger stack of papers available each day whereas the globe has been decreasing, quite substantially.

James H-

Just like the Monica Lewinski scandal immediately derailed any serious look at the real potential Clinton scandal of Chinese and Indonesian campaign contributions buying political favors.

Our society is fundementally unserious and needs to grow up.

Let's not forget the timing: The Glob loved McCain and Despised Romney right to the millisecond Romney dropped out, THEN they pooped all over McCain, and said not unkind things about Romney's departure.

In true Alinsky form, they want to set-up the easiest opposition candidate to knock down... so whomever they like, that should be the last candidate we should vote for.

Lesson: always consider your opponents motives.

James,

I think Christie would provide endless hours of amusement through his interactions with some of the more onerous and traditional money-holes. Personally I'd be willing to purchase tickets to see all his interactions with the United Nations.

...but Christie gave an important job to a Muslim and set off the bat-shit-crazy-types. I don't think hating unions is enough to get through a primary, when it matters what people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old, and that Barack Obama isn't an American citizen, think of your candidacy.

What does it say about the guy that I would support him over any other Republican candidate?

Wonder, with Huntsman on ballot in UT, ID, NV and AZ, whether Romney can even win a Red State for the nomination.

So GOP would be absolutely helpless against a TEA grassfire. Almost hoping for the death of the GOP as POTUS player.

There goes hyper in one of his self proclaimed "well reasoned and thought out" rants. And he wonders why we don't respect his view. What a putz. ww

Hyper the dems have more people that think 9/11 was an inside job than the GOP has strict creationists.

WW was kind leaving it at putz.

There was one question I neglected to ask in my original article: "Is there anyone's opinion on potential Republican presidential nominees that is less relevant than the Boston Globe's?"

Hyper has just volunteered himself as the answer. Yup, just what we need -- a rabid, totalitarian, radical-left Canadian telling Americans who should be the Republican nominee.

Hey, hyper, can you advise me which shoes I should wear to work today? (Holding up two pairs)

J.

Jay, "Hey, hyper, can you advise me which shoes I should wear to work today? (Holding up two pairs)"

I'm sure he'd suggest the pair of shoes on your left.

Really jim? You believe that?

Where exactly is the Truther-Belt? On and around the campus at Berkeley, and...? On the other hand, there are entire states that want children to grow up with the understanding that evolution is merely a theory.

Comparison: fail.

Go on and support your socially moderate libertarian candidate, Jay Tea. Hey, I hope he wins! It would be incredible watching a presidential debate between two people who both piss off social conservatives.

Remember 2008? The New York Times hemmed and hawed about endorsing a Republican for president, then anointed John McCain. Within a week or so of announcing that, though, they published a smear piece that all but accused him of being a psycho misogynist who was having an affair with a lobbyist

You seem to think that when the New York Times endorses a candidate, they should only print positive articles about that candidate? That may be how political pundits behave, but not the New York Times.

But Tina, that's EXACTLY how the Times behaves...towards Democrats!

Who has more credibility and support from Americans.

A.) The glob.

B.) The slimes.

C.) The White House?

Answer: D.) None of the above.

Its easy ... we'll vote for the GOP candidate in the general election ...

Rasmussen had 35% of democrats saying that they thought that the US had something to do with 9/11. Zogby had the figure at 42%.

The comparison works for everyone but you. You say that no one can win the GOP nomination without catering to the creationist crowd. How will anyone win without catering to the troother crowd in the dem party?

Of course a CBS poll had 47% of dems who voted for Kerry in 2004 saying that they believe in creationism and denied evolution so what is your original point then? Also more Kerry voters supported teaching only creationism than Bush voters. Sounds like according to you standards it's the dems who are the backward fools.

Here's the poll
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

correction. it was more bush voters than Kerry that supported teaching creationism, but the graphic is poorly done so I erred. Still the 47% believing in Creation and not evolution is a problem for Hyper.

I was listening to a talk radio show the other day and the RINO host was bemoaning that fact that no Republican has had the guts to declare outright a run for the presidency. I say good to that. Consider the political situation at the moment. The American public (at least those they poll) still give Obama a high likeablity rating despite not having much enthusiasm for his policies. As far as I am concerned the liberal press would love to have a specific candidate so they could go into personal attack mode, attack a candidate personally and draw the public's attention away from policy issues. Right now the Democrats have a challenging time getting good marks for their policies so I would rather have the Republican Party stay focused on policy as long as is possible. Look at this Boston Globe article. All it is is a commentary on possible Republican candidates. They jam all those comments about all those possible candidates into a limited space and you get what you would expect, a superficial piece of very little substance. I think it benefits Republicans much more to hone the policy message and not have declared candidates early on. I am one of those who cannot understand why people find Obama so likeable because I think if one really, really knew him personally you wouldn't feel all that much personal warmth about him. We have not seen any personal friends of his up to this point. It is what it is, I guess

Let's see... I'm an agnostic (and therefore not a creationist by definition), I'm pro gay marriage, and have repeatedly kicked around the birthers, yet hyper keeps bringing those topics up as if they might have some kind of relevance. Why would that be?

I suspect it's because the leftists to whom hyper has outsourced his thinking have told him "these are wedge issues that can divide the right, so keep throwing them up at every opportunity." 'Cuz personally speaking, I think creationism and Obama birtherism have jack shit to do with any real issues for the 2012 election.

Much like hyper himself, come to think of it.

J.

The left want to bring up social issues because that's all they've got. They have already thoroughly demonstrated their incompetence and untrustworthiness regarding financial matters.

But the right has put social issues aside recognizing that without fiscal soundness you cannot have a safe and stable country. Social issues are totally beside the point currently even the right is not interested that much in pursuing them.

"The left want to bring up social issues because that's all they've got."

I could not agree more. And it seems the left is more obsessed with the so-called birther issue than anyone else. Chris Mathews and David Gregory come to mind.

All they have left is opposing cuts to the out-of-control fed budget claiming it will, of course, harm poor people, women and minorities.
They'll conveniently forget about this weeks GAO report about the absurd amount of duplication and waste in the federal govt.

"It would be incredible watching a presidential debate between two people who both piss off social conservatives."

And the only path to re-election for Lord of the Flies.

It would be incredible watching a presidential debate between two people who both piss off social conservatives.

Sigh... I know where you stand on those issues, Jay, and that they aren't a priority for you.

Still the 47% believing in Creation and not evolution is a problem for Hyper.

Actually I'd say it's more a problem for the future of American civilization, but whatever.

That's a heck of a note comming from the left, Hyper. Aren't you guys always saying how great other cultures are? Well the Middle East and Africa believe in creation in far higher percentages than people do here, but I never hear anyone from the left saying how that is a threat to civilization. No, it's always the US that's the threat.

When is the left going to get their story straight?

The Globe... read the obits every day then put it under the kitty litter.

clearmind:

Why are you even buying the Globe when you can read the obits on line?

Rance,

He's putting it under the cat litter. Wouldn't want to put your laptop under there. Of course I'm surprised the cats want to use the box with all the crap that's already in there once you put the Globe in there.

Getting advice from that rag trash can liner The Globe, or Hyper about Republican candidates...
would be like getting supper recipes from Hannibal Lecter.

Pretty f*cking disgusting!!
Glad I moved from mASS to NH, and WILL have a voice in this matter.

Hey, Rance... it's a figure of speech... I wouldn't buy the rag if it for sale here, but I grew-up in NE and it was the "bible" back then. Now, it's a best used for kitty litter, but they do have well-written obits...

Christie is good at somethings no so good at others. He would make a good labor secretary. Many people are more than one issue and want to evaluate candidates against all of them. If I find some who I agree with 70% of the time vs 50% that who I would want. I just do not want another moderate or compassionate Republican.

Since no Human was around when the Universe came into existence it is the realm of faith and philosophy. My belief in God creating it , or the Sumerian that the 4 did or Gases exploding are all equally valid.

Evaluation is theory and as such it has to be reevaluated as our scientific knowledge of DNA and new fossils are found. We might look like apes but we are more genetically similar to a wide variety of mammals. What Darwin called origins we know are variations.

.... I'm not looking to boost the Republican who will be the easiest for the "Democratic" National Socialist Workers' Party candidate to defeat ....

Nor are they.

Not one of the ratbag RINOs they've boosted meets the definition of "Republican."