LBJ., Revised Edition

President Johnson's stock soared with the press when he announced he would not seek another term. Harsh criticism, which had been turned on by columnists from all sides, was abruptly turned off. Such was their shock, in fact, that many commentators took a searching second look at the man in the White House and revised their earlier views. "Many of the personal things said in this column, as well as other places," wrote Joseph Kraft, "now look to be petty and cheap. Johnson has set a stan dard of self-restraint that many of his critics could well emulate." Calling L.B.J.'s renunciation "heroic,"Kraft declared that it is the "supreme achievement of a career rich in significant accomplishments."

To Atlanta Constitution Editor Eu gene Patterson, the President's decision was in keeping with his character. The so-called change was all in the eye of the critical beholder. Because L.B.J. is inept at communicating, said Patterson, "many Americans did not believe that his silences masked rational pursuit of results, or that his conciliatory blurring of issues represented a healthier ap proach than sharpening them. So his enemies have brought down their man. They are going to miss him."

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Chicago Daily News Columnist Mike Royko wrote that it was time to reconsider not the President but his venomous critics, especially the more youthful ones, "who were offended by him in so many, many ways. For one thing, he was old. They might have forgiven him that if he had at least acted young. But he acted like a harassed, tremendously busy, impatient man with an enormous responsibility. Just like their old man. If you live in a big city you see the hate that threatens it. He lived in the whole country and looked at it all. And he couldn't see a way to unite it. Maybe he wasn't the best President we might have had. But we sure as hell aren't the best people a Pres ident has ever had."

With Johnson's withdrawal, the bot tom dropped out of the prediction mar ket. Mary McGrory had pointed out that the pundits were wrong about Romney, wrong about McCarthy, wrong about Bobby, wrong about Rocky. "Everything is unintelligible," she wrote, "unless one takes the position that pub lic men of both parties are meeting in cellars and plotting new ways to make idiots of reporters, particularly those who earn their bread predicting what public figures are going to do."

Unnoticed Hints. A few columnists seemed genuinely chastened by the experience. "The main lesson of the cam paign so far," wrote James Reston, "is that both prophets and voters should be ware. This is a time for a little watch ful and judicious stalling." But others were not about to admit to error. They suggested they had known about L.B.J.'s decision all along. He had considered not running two years ago, said Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, because he was so upset when his close aide Bill Moyers went off to Newsday. "I had known for 18 months he wasn't going to run," said William S. White, who had just produced a column outlining the President's campaign plans. "But the news was imparted to me in the strictest confidence. So, in my columns, I could only give hints, which apparently went unnoticed. Every time I would refer to the campaign, I would say 'If he is going to run,' instead of 'When he is going to run.' "

But past mistakes have not deterred pundits from risking some new ones in the future. With the necessary disclaimer ("If among the unaccountable forces we know to be at work in our society there remain any susceptible to traditional ways of measuring"), the New York Times's Tom Wicker predicted that McCarthy will be "crushed" by Kennedy. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak prophesied that Hubert Humphrey would be shunted aside. William S. White assured readers that the Republicans would produce a Nixon-Rockefeller ticket.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.