Posted on 08/19/2014 5:13:39 AM PDT by cotton1706
It began on a snowy night in New Hampshire. The first-in-the-nation primary. February 20, 1996. The story’s origins, though, began exactly four years earlier in that same frigid state.pat
In 1992, Patrick J. Buchanan, a popular conservative television commentator who had served as a longtime aide to Richard Nixon, took on the sitting President of the United States in the primaries that year.
Party insiders considered his candidacy little more than a joke. But his 38 percent showing in the ’92 New Hampshire primary stunned the political world, and although he won no contests that primary season, he did garner over three million popular votes and forced President George H. W. Bush to shift his rhetoric and his message to the right.
No one expected Buchanan to unseat President Bush but he did showcase a winning message that resonated with a large portion of Republican voters who could not be ignored. In order to keep these folks inside the tent, the RNC gave Buchanan a prime time speaking slot at the national convention in Houston, Texas.
In his speech televised before the nation, Buchanan espoused true conservative values, spoke to those Americans who felt forgotten, mercilessly attacked Bill Clinton, and called on his supporters to stand “right behind George Bush!”
But when Bush lost to Clinton in November, with major help from Ross Perot, the establishment didn’t wring their hands over the failures of Bush’s administration, or mistakes in the campaign itself, but laid the blame at Buchanan’s feet. Had he not challenged Bush, had he not given such a “partisan” and “extreme” speech at the convention (which network news pundits believed helped Bush), independents and moderates would not have been frightened into Clinton’s camp and the President would have won another term.
(Excerpt) Read more at mississippiconservativedaily.com ...
Uniparty Ping!
GOP = The Party of RomneyCARE and gay marriage by Romney’s
imposition and the Party enshrined to GIVE.Obama.Power (GOP)>
Follow the money and power brokers. It isn’t hard to figure out who doesn’t really have Americans’ best interests at heart.
I guess there isn’t enough money to be made by actually acting in America’s best interest,so we all get to suffer because of someone’s greed.
It’s been going on a lot longer than 20 yrs.
Goes back to Ford-Reagan if not all the way to Goldwater.
50+ year war...
Good find, thanks!
I remember.
In that election, I voted AGAINST G. H. W. Bush because he broke his promise (”Read my lips!”) to NOT raise taxes.
And that was the LAST time I tried use my vote to “send-a-message” to MY political party.
I learned that lesson as I watched President Clinton do more harm to America than G. H. W. Bush ever would have done.
Now I fear that Obama will name Eric Holder as his next pick for Supreme Court Justice and I fear that a Harry Reid-led Senate will “confirm” him.
Ask yourself just what kind of “message” does giving MORE power to the folks that want to destroy America actually send?
And that’s why nothing is going to change. Both parties have us by the gonads.
The fact is the GOP is as committed to ever expanding Big Government as are the democrats.
amen BTTT
Sorry but a McConnell led senate will confirm any SC nominee obama sends to them. This same bunch confirmed all Clintons picks in the 1990’s why would they change now when they would at least attempt to fight Clinton, with obama they talk trash and then grab their ankles.
McStain, Grahmnesty and Limp Wrist Lamar along with the openly socialist senators from Maine have made it clear obama won and he gets his picks. All the GOPE is doing by using the SC bogey man is hoping they get their time at the public $$$ trough.
Sarge,
Sorry, but I don’t believe that pre-emptive surrender is sosmehow “more virtuous” or more praise-worthuy than a good faith effort for a difficult “win”.
I admit there is a chance that McConnell “might” vote to “confirm” Holder.
I’d like you to admit that there is NO chance that Grimes would NOT vote to “confirm” Holder.
If I believed that, then I would have “lost” before
Have you noted Mitch’s latest add:
“Mitch McConnell has a game plan to confront President Barack Obama with a stark choice next year: Accept bills reining in the administration’s policies or veto them and risk a government shutdown.”
Really? You are buying this load of horse crap? He could have done that as minority leader and yet he did your preemptive surrender thing on about every issue coming and going. Do you honestly believe the crap he is shoveling?
With no election pending Mitch would vote yes in a heart beat and if he did vote no would make sure enough of his fellow travelers would take up the slack. Mitch is about power, $$$ and himself. Kentuckians well they go to the back of the bus and the country is the least of his concerns.
What you haven’t figured out is you have already surrendered, you are going to vote Republican for Mitch, a man is not a conservative and has made it abundantly clear he detests conservatives. Mitch is not going to fight for conservatives issues, he has made that clear time and time again. He is a Republican and a liberal one at that.
You have preemptively surrendered to liberalism, not as radical as most but liberalism aka the Party, still the same.
No, you didn’t. You voted FOR someone because there is no space on the ballot to vote against.
Since you’re asking, ask yourself what message your vote to enable those whose vascillation and weakness has emboldened those who will destroy this country actually sends.
The people you’re voting for hate you. And like a Stepford Wife, you’re taking it.
Hi, Colonel,
I’m sorry, but I don’t see any difference between:
(1) voting for Banana’s brain-dead minions because you LIKE their attacks on America and
(2) voting for Obama’s brain-dead minions because you HATE the candidates that have been elected by the MAJORITY of America’s patriots to defend America from such attacks.
If Banana gets the “power” that you seem willing to simply surrender to him — what difference does your superior intellect, or superior character or superior patriotism make in the end? HIS superior DRIVE will have carried the day.
I seem to remember several conservatives who chose to not vote for Romney in the 2012 elections. They wanted to “...send a message...”. It was never clear to me just WHO was supposed to ACT on that message. The GOP establishment, I suppose...?
Anyway, Romney lost, so “...the message...” SHOULD have been received. What happened?
Did the GOP-e apologize for nominating Romney and resign? No?
Did the Tea-Party become more respected for its wisdom? No?
Did Conservatives gain enough power and moral authority in the Senate to actually “block” Banana’s foolishness? No?
So, objectively and scientifically, “sending-a-message” didn’t work out so well as a strategy, did it?
IIRC, the Spartans had a strategy of “Never compromise! Victory or Death!”.
Funny thing... they’re all dead now...
Hi Sarge,
When the Founders agreed that Congress would act in accordance with various motions approved by “the majority”, the “minority” lost its power to “rule”.
And so, when the Senate adopted “rules” to guide how it would conduct its business, those “rules” were designed to make it easy for the “majority” party in the Senate to control the agenda of the Senate. The result now is a Harry Reid enabled catastrophe.
So I say, let’s give Mitch a chance to show us what he can do when HE has the power to set the agenda for the Senate.
If America elects enough truly Conservative Senators, the “majority” of those Senators will have the power to remove Mitch — if THEY decide that is appropriate.
I feel confident that, if Jim DeMint had to chose between voting for Mitch or voting for Mitch’s Democrat opponent, Jim would vote for Mitch. You may disagree.
Do you also think that Eric Holder’s “experience” as Banana’s consigliore makes him a “good” choice for our next Supreme Court Justice?
Yes. Winning control of the Senate is THAT important!
Meh. Not really how I remember it. The news media made a lot of noise about Buchanan's "Take Back America" speech, but the Bush people either blamed Perot or were surprisingly candid about their own failures.
To be sure, the Establishment almost certainly didn't want Buchanan to speak at another convention, but I'm not aware that the Bush people or some GOP-e made a scapegoat out of him, however mad they'd been about his challenge during the primary season..
I seem to remember Mitch and his crew of eunuchs had control of the senate from what 2002 through 2006, how did that work out for us? Same bunch had control from 1995 to 2000 how did that work out for us? From 1995-2006 we got Sam Alito and nothing else but more big government tripe.
Eventually you have to realize the GOPE is not friends of any conservative unless they are willing to work their butts off for the Party, give $$$ freely with no strings attached, vote as they are told and then shut the hell up. Do these things and you can be in the Party, do them not well you are labeled a racist, kkk member, radical kook by these people who claim to want you in their Big Tent.
I am more than willing to vote for any candidate who can deliver 70/30 conservative but at some point you have to realize we are not even getting 5/95 out of the GOPE bunch. Oh they talk a good game, but look at their track record, they don’t even attempt to walk the walk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.