Buchanan could recite the constitution and his tone, his manner, his pompous self, the edge of hate in his voice would make it a bad speech. And those upthread who are saying if one didn't like the speech, one was ignorant, just like "vermin" in the dem party, stupid, etc make my point. That is the kind of talk I expect from Buchanan and his pitchfork mobs. I don't like the man. I don't like the black white posture of people on this thread. And I don't like anyone being called "vermin",,reeks of dehumanizing people and we know where that leads.
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.
These unsupported ad hominem attacks on Buchanan are no different than the justification the left uses to attack Bush.