But what, exactly, was Russert's thinking? President Bush faces significant political opposition from the Democratic Party and its leftwing base -- not from the Buchanan wing of the Buchanan Party. Ted Kennedy or Michael Moore would be more accurate and representative of political reality. Is it that it's unseemly to have Democrats shown-up for their lack of democratic idealism? Or did Democrats simply refuse to come on? Or, was Russert more attracted to the box-office appeal of Sharansky and Buchanan trading punches?
I assume that the last reason Goldberg offered is the most likely. I didn't see the show, and I generally avoid televised punditry these days; but Buchanan is one of the few pundits occasionally worth watching. In spite of Goldberg, the opposition to the Iraq War is broader than the Michael Moore left. Even his National Review colleage, John Derbyshire is now calling for a pullout and denouncing the Wilsonian claptrap that passes for conservatism these days.