Only noted idiot BigSkyBob could suggest that Edwards should switch parties before he is even elected as a Democrat.
OT: Freedom State, of course.
Your theory has the problem that I don't suggest "Edwards switch parties" precisely because I believe that John Bel Edwards is left of center. Other have stated thing like Edwards is a "conservative Democrat" and that Vitter [certainly a conservative] and Edwards agree on most major issues. If they are right, which I do not believe, then Edwards easiest path forward to govern from the right is to switch parties. [Nor, did I suggest he switch parties today. I merely speculated about him following the example of Buddy Roemer [sp?] and switching parties after he was elected as a Democrat, assuming he is a conservative, and wants to govern as a conservative, which are two things that I simply don't believe to be true.]
'Conservative Democrat' means 'conservative for a Democrat', not 'Democrat who is A Conservative'.
I've pointed out your tendency to speak as if 'conservative' is a binary, yes-or-no, non-relative descriptor before. It's a very curious belief you have there.
And, I consider your belief to be rather odd yourself. In general, "conservative" and "liberal" a nexus of beliefs about issues of public concern. Either "conservative" as a label refers to the former nexus or it does not.
The English language has a term for a somewhat liberal Democrat who is further to the right than a liberal Democrat: "a relatively conservative Democrat."
When you conflate, "a relatively conservative Democrat" with "an [actually] conservative Democrat" then you negate any ability to distinguish between the two [which, is probably the point to this particular abuse of the English language. "Conservative Democrat" is much easier sell than "somewhat liberal" south of the Mason Dixon line.]
OK, but nobody is going to campaign while referring to themselves "a relatively conservative Democrat" (and the media certainly won't either) because that essentially is word-vomit and sounds stupid.
