Posted on 07/12/2004 7:52:29 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
I clearly recall Buchanan's speech at the Houston GOP convention having watched it live and recoreded it on tape for future review.
I listened to it at least 3 times. This was when Pat was still a Republican and before he went off the deep end.
Personally, I thought this was one of the greatest speeched ever given at a convention. The media went NUTS. They talked about His hate filled, mean spirited speech for MONTHS on every single TV show and in every article written on the convention.
This year our convention will be full of moderates and boring speeches. Would you prefer conservative speeches that speak to many of our values AND the months of media criticism and labeling of the GOP as hateful? I would. Reagan spread the conservative word and I think the GOP of the 21st century should do the same and stop trying to run from our values.
When did the Republicans ever have the Jewish vote? They love big government socialism in every country in which they vote. They are far more frightened of Christians than they are of Al Queda.
I also challenge, that Clinton won, not because of Buchanan, but because of the economy.. The economy was in a funk in 1992 and hadn't started to find it's feet yet.
Economy wins and loses elections.
The recovery was slowed by Bush 41's lack of fortitude to push a conservative economic agenda during his 4 years in office. He dug his own grave with "Read My Lips". He had no credibility left with the public.
Why not allow a broad spectrum to speak... moderates and conservatives. Not Buchanan though... like him or not, his issue positions are no longer those embraced by the GOP.
I don't like "diluting" conservatism. I live in NY. I know how moderate Republicans govern. People are leaving NY in droves because we have the highest taxes in the COUNTRY, the highest electricity costs due to regulations, the highest school education costs because we cow tow to the unions. Our state is FAILING because of moderate Republicans being afraid to stand up to radical liberals.
"I clearly recall Buchanan's speech at the Houston GOP convention having watched it live and recoreded it on tape for future review.
I listened to it at least 3 times. This was when Pat was still a Republican and before he went off the deep end."
And now, for another viewpoint.
Buchanan speaking in prime time cost the GOP the election, and gave us Bill Clinton.
You might recall who ended up speaking after 11 PM EST that night. A man you might recall, who gave one helluva speech that NOBODY HEARD.
That man was.....RONALD REAGAN.
Sorry, putting Buchanan in the prime time speaking role that night, and relagating former President Ronald Reagan to late night TV was one of many errors the Bush Campaign made in that election cycle. As Dan Quayle accurate summed it up, it was "the worst Reelection Campaign in Modern History".
Buchanan went off the deep end that night, not later. And we got 8 years of Clinton due in no small part to PJB's megalomania.
The outpouring of emotion last month demonstrates the error in a way a poster like myself could never put into words.
I find that hard to believe. I challenge anyone to read the text of his speech and point out a single thing in it that would drive someone to vote against Bush who wasn't already a leftist to begin with.
It was probably the single biggest event in getting Clinton elected.
Absolutely not. The single biggest event in getting Clinton elected was Ross Perot's decision to enter the race.
History shows that when an incumbent President faces a serious challenge for the nomination from within his own party, he loses. Being forced to run a campaign to be re-nominated drains resources from those that would otherwise be spent running for re-election in the general campaign. In many ways it neutralizes many of the inherent advantages that incumbency offers. The fact that Buchanan challenged Bush for the Republican nomination contributed to Bush's defeat in 1992.
Not likely. Bush LOST the election because he strayed from conservatism, lacked the fire in the belly to take on Klintoon, had mediocre advisors.
Oh, let's not forget Ross Perot
I agree.
I don't remember the speech. I really did not pay attention to politics until 93'. But I went back and read it - why is considered so hate filled? It it just the way Pat delivered it?
Bush LOST the election because he strayed from conservatism, lacked the fire in the belly to take on Klintoon, had mediocre advisors.
===
He strayed from conservative action during his 4 years in office.. That, resulted in a slower recovery.
I disagree with the second part of your statement,.. His reference to Millie the Dog's foreign policy knowledge was pretty aggressive I thought.
"Default" candidates often end up being mediocre at best. Just ask people like Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and Al Gore.
I think you're speaking of the self-hating 'Hollyweird' Jews, who not only reject their faith, but the faith of anyone who questions their hedonistic lifestyle (and they are a small total of the Democrat vote, though their dollar contributions are sizeable). I think you would find that observant Jews vote quite conservatively. I'm not Jewish, but have Jewish friends who ARE conservative and can't imagine Kerry or his ilk continuing the WOT.
You have a point. Although Giuliani and Ahnuld are RINO's a lot of the time, they are popular and likeable. They aren't going to anger a conservative enough to not vote for Bush, but they will do better at grabbing the mushy moderate vote.
No, it's considered "hate-filled" simply because Pat Buchanan delivered it. If Al Gore had stood up and delivered this same speech at the Democratic convention, he would have been praised for his "moral strength" or something like that.
Not in isolation. But each affront to the already battered conservatives increases their chance that they will not participate in this election. It is a bad idea to have a convention where your most conservative speaker is a member of the Democratic party.
you're joking right?
I don't agree with Arnold and Guilliani on everything but right now, they are the two most popular Republicans on the planet and it would be idiotic not to feature them prominently.
The media loves McCain. So it is that much more effective when he renounces Kerry and enthusiastically endorses Bush. A prime time spot takes away any ammo the Bush bash media may use. The recent Bush commercials featuring McCain are excellent.
Furthermore, McCain is unabashedly pro-life, so the social conservatives cries may ring hollow. But these people like to take their ball and go home whenever they don't get 100% of their agenda.
Nonetheless, I look forward to an excellent GOP convention.
I hated that speech.
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.