That's an explanation in itself, it's wasn't the word for word assessment of the speech, rather the man.
By 1992 Buchanan’s views were well known.
His opposition to all forms of civil rights legislation was clear.
His opposition to integration was clear, the Negroes get their schools, we get ours, no harm, no foul, and there’s more of us than them. I'm not sure if the 15 points lower IQ (negroes, that's why you can't integrate them) memo was public yet.
He’d had his dalliance with Holocaust denial and the martyrdom fantasies of survivors, his columns published in the Spotlight.
He was clear that the recent war (Gulf War I) was opposed by everyone but Jews and the “Amen Corner”, not surprising in view of the Israeli occupation of Washington, DC.
He had suggested the Republican Party analyze David Dukes views and incorporate those “cultural” issues that were winners. His former employer, William Buckley had condemned him.
The list goes on. By bumping Ronald Reagan in favor of Pat Buchanan, the Republican party appeared at worst to embrace these views, at best to embrace those who hold them.
A stupid decision, imo, Pat had no place speaking for the Republican Party. Of course facts have born that out.
Yup.
When the GOP bumped Reagan, they committed electoral hara-kiri to try an appease the folks who were going to vote for Perot anyway, just out of spite for Bush.
Absolutely the truth, word for word.
That about sums it up.
His opposition to integration was clear, the Negroes get their schools, we get ours, no harm, no foul, and there’s more of us than them. I'm not sure if the 15 points lower IQ (negroes, that's why you can't integrate them) memo was public yet.>>>>
The most polite way to say it is that you are in error. Pat B. went to one of the first high schools to be intergrated in Washington D.C. His high school basketball team had to travel all over the place to get games as the other schools in the area would not play against an integrated team.
He had suggested the Republican Party analyze David Dukes views and incorporate those “cultural” issues that were winners. His former employer, William Buckley had condemned him.>>>>
I think you made the first part of the above up. Pat certain was concerned about cultural issues, but he didn't need any advice from David Duke.
I think Buckley said that he had made some remarks that could possibly be constued to be anti-semite. Buckley said the same thing about Joseph Sobran and was wrong about him too. Plus I don't think Pat ever worked for National Revue.
"The list goes on. By bumping Ronald Reagan in favor of Pat Buchanan, the Republican party appeared at worst to embrace these views, at best to embrace those who hold them.
A stupid decision, imo, Pat had no place speaking for the Republican Party. Of course facts have born that out."
Yep, thats a great summation. In hindsight, I've often wondered if Buchanan actually "planned" the negative reaction by average voters before the speech.
Because one thing is certain, from that point onward Buchanan was on his own personal "Jihad" against the Republican Party that dared to say "no thanks" to his views, his candidacy, and of course against the Bush family in particular.
I think the real "tale of the tape" however is the fact at this point Buchanan's resume' includes being cancelled on MSNBC due to complete and utter lack of interest.