Insipid Political Analysis, Cont.

Hunter at Daily Kos picks up on a Chuck "Not My Job" Todd line that this is "the strongest Republican party presidential field in 36 years", bolstering the evidence that, when it comes to analyzing Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party politics, our elite media sucks:

And here we have our problem: This notion that the current Republican field is "strong," the strongest in a generation, if it were not for the meddling of sideshow Donald. The current Republican field is numerous. It is not strong. A bag of mice is not stronger than a pit bull, no matter how much it wiggles, and a 16-person presidential field made up almost exclusively of embarrassments is not stronger than two, three, or five candidates who demonstrably might know what the hell they are talking about. Which are the strong candidates, then? The universally despised-by-his-peers senator? The other senator who achieved electoral success bequeathed by his father, and who has accomplished precious little since? The governor turned Christian radio shock jock? The senator who abandoned efforts to get his party to be slightly less racist after polls showing the party didn't think much of the idea? The indicted fellow? The not-indicted one? The one who touts union busting as his ostensible foreign policy credential? The universally acknowledged-as-a-failure last president's brother? If there was any one of these candidates capable of building more than a ramshackle case for leadership of their deeply fractured, ostentatiously paranoid party, they would not have fifteen mostly embarrassing opponents. Even the party financiers are finding themselves flummoxed on which of these three-legged horses to back.

So, step aside, Dan "I Got No" Balz and Amber "Waves of Grain" Phillips, you have some real competition for insipid political analysis by a Beltway "pudnit."