Pat Buchanan: Choice of Edwards might just work for Kerry

[quaoar]

I have found myself agreeing a good bit with what Pat Buchanan has been writing lately -- a scary thought indeed. Because of his opposition to the war, he seems to have been cast aside by many conservatives.

Here's an excerpt from his latest column. if he keeps writing like this, he'll be booted off WorldNet Daily.

"If Kerry-Edwards should win North Carolina and the nation, the choice of Edwards will go down in history as inspired as the gamble JFK took when he chose Lyndon B. Johnson, who had called his father an appeaser of Hitler. LBJ brought Texas to the ticket and was decisive in holding the Deep South against Nixon in that closest of all elections.

Nixon himself thought Kennedy's selection of Johnson showed both JFK's political shrewdness and cold pragmatic streak. What does Edwards bring?

Youth, charisma, energy – and the enthusiasm of that most critical of all Democratic constituencies, the liberal press.

And the campaign Edwards conducted, in the late primaries, where he took up the cause of a middle class whose access ramps to the American Dream are being closed off, is an issue on which this election could turn.

The Bush-Republican addiction to free trade, its refusal to police our borders or cut mass immigration, is eventually going to destroy the party. Edwards, whose home state has suffered terrible losses in the apparel and textile industries, senses this. He came close to seizing the jobs issue from Kerry in the primaries.

With factories shutting down all over America, with the new jobs being created largely in service industries as corporate profits soar, the issue of a middle class left behind by corporate conservatives in the West Wing could sink the Bush presidency."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39396

[AP]

1. Entuhsiasm of liberal press? Surely doesn't mean Wilgoren at the NYT...

...and I just saw Entertainment Tonight is doing a story on Kerry & Edwards's wealth tonight (conveniently leaving out Bush's from the promo and, no doubt, the story).

[spooky3]

2. Let them go ahead and harp on K&E's wealth. It will convince some Repugs

to vote for K&E.

[Stew225]

3. yes, but

did you see the latest poll for Kerry-Edwards in NC? It was an earlier post here on DU.

[spooky3]

5. If you're referring to Zogby interactive poll, those are so flawed

methodologically, they aren't useful. The Rasmussen poll showed completely different #s for NC.

[Darkamber]

10. It's like I have said many times....

The conservatives always talk about the "liberal" press. If you listened to fox, I heard their talking heads talk about how the 'liberal' press loves Edwards.

It's an argument that I have always ignored. Bush is doing his best to make "liberal" the great evil anyway.

[The Analog Kid]

4. Pat Buchanan. Really?

When has the VP candidate ever really mattered? Maybe when McGovern selected Tom Eagleton. History is littered with VP selections thought to be a difference maker. Ferraro, Benson, Lieberman et al. It's the guy lobbying to sit in the big oval room that matters. The VP is just a footnote.

[spooky3]

6. welcome to DU--but did you read the original post? There is the

answer to your question--when LBJ was selected.

You don't know, nor do any of us, whether this will be a year where it matters or not, until November.

[The Analog Kid]

7. Well...

I did read the post, and the impact of LBJ is debatable. I'm no friend of Camelot, and a conspiracy theorist. I think the Kennedy political machine, and a healthy dose of Daddy's riches, helped JFK along as much as, if not more then, the selection of LBJ. But I'm a kook, so there you go....

[yellowcanine]

8. There are exceptions - Pretty hard to argue that Johnson didn't help

Kennedy - close race - Johnson had a lot of "gravitas" that Kennedy lacked - Johnson probably cinched the deal for Kennedy in Texas and some other Southern states. Having said that, that may have been the only time the VP choice has meant much - one probably could make an argument that Cheney helped Bush in 2000 somewhat - none of this is proveable of course. I do think that if it is another close election Edwards could help Kerry, particularly in turning out minority voters. That small edge could make the difference in enough states to swing the electoral vote to Kerry.

[DaveSZ]

9. They've convinced themselves of their own lie about a liberal press

I watched the Today Show this morning, and they whored for Bush for over 5 minutes and trashed Kerry.

I had to put it on mute.

Liberal press my hairy ass.

[quaoar]

11. Yes, well,

Of course Buchanan is going to refer to the "liberal press." But how many conservative commentators have written such glowing things about Edwards?

Youth, charisma, energy -- do you see many other conservative columnists using those adjectives to descrive Edwards?

[LimpingLib]

12. CNN-USA-GALLOP Bush 59% Kerry 39% in NC

Though "only" 56%-41% with likly voters.

Still Bush is dead. Florida is going down the toilet for the GOP.

[salonghorn70]

13. I Disagree With Some Of The Article

Buchanan says that Kerry was forced into this by the Party and that it was a shotgun wedding. I don't believe that. Kerry was in a powerful enough position to choose whoever he wanted. He may have listened to others in the Party, but I believe that he chose Edwards because Kerry himself believed that this was the right choice to make.