Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remember Buchanan's convention speech in Houston?

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.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: patbuchanan; rncconvention
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-223 next last
To: bigeasy_70118
"Furthermore,McCain is unabashedly pro-life---."

McCain is pro-life? I have never even heard hints of that,could you provide anything to support that statement?

121 posted on 07/12/2004 11:37:21 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

Frankly, most of the reaction of this speech is merely a pavlovian response to the mainstream media coverage of it.


122 posted on 07/12/2004 11:38:04 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

That about sums it up.


123 posted on 07/12/2004 11:38:21 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Oops. That should have read "reaction to this speech."
124 posted on 07/12/2004 11:38:50 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: zarf

I loved the speech. Unfortunately, Pat has shown himself to be a bigoted twit in recent years.


125 posted on 07/12/2004 11:43:34 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I look at his speech and I don't see anything that would be overtly racist or bigoted. Maybe it he delivered it with his usual mean face and lecturing voice. However, I think that the difference is in the way the biased liberal media reported and how much influence they had in 92'. It is not the same today as there are different voices that can break through the liberal din.

Back then, there was not even the slightest couterweight. Remember the hoopla about Bush, grocery scanners, and milk prices? Or the non-existant reporting about the recovering economy? Or when George Steponallus was allowed to sneak attack President Bush on the Larry King show through the "caller line"? Or when "60 Minutes" personally stepped in and allowed the Klintons to lie on their TV show, thus saving their campaign? Today at least there are other avenues in the media.

126 posted on 07/12/2004 11:44:08 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
What makes you think that is unsupported? I support her view.

The similarities between the Bush haters and the Buchanan haters are remarkable. Their hatred for the man clouds their opinion of anything he says. Since there was nothing in his speech that was hateful, prople start attacking the person. Sound familiar?

I don't agree with much of what Buchanan believes, but he is an excellent speaker and that speech was inspiring.

127 posted on 07/12/2004 11:46:08 AM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
You're right about the media influence. Unfortunately, a lot of people can't get past that.

Mind you, I was a libertarian at the time, so I probably was not the best candidate to recieve a Pat Buchanan speech favorably. I frankly thought he was all wet on a number of issues, and still feel that way today.

That said, even I, at the time could not figure out why the GOP ran as fast as they could from that speech. That only emboldened the media to keep slapping them with it.

128 posted on 07/12/2004 11:47:14 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
Their hatred for the man clouds their opinion of anything he says.

Actually, I'm sure you wish it were that way; but for most of us, it's his WORDS and ACTTIONS that make us have such great distain for him.

And I don't hate Pat Buchanan. I openly mock him because he's such an opportunist. He'll go where the money takes him. And say whatever it takes to back it up.

129 posted on 07/12/2004 11:52:35 AM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Back then, if the media wanted to report on how Pat's speech was bigoted, then it would be hard to deflect that because of the unified liberal voice in the media. I was younger and did not pay attention to politics at the time and just knew it was the "culture war" speech, yet he never said those words. Looking back at it, there is not a whole lot I disagree with.

Let it be known that I think Pat is self serving near kook and I am not a big fan of his.

130 posted on 07/12/2004 11:53:52 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart

I think IRAQ might very well be a third reason. Once the heady rush of proclaimed "victory" AND the need to "support our booys" was over and done with,there were many thoughtful people who chose not to vote for any of the candidates.


131 posted on 07/12/2004 11:54:37 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I don't particularly like him either. But, at the time of the 1992 speech, he hadn't yet become the opportunist he is now. That being said, there was nothing wrong with his speech at the 1992 convention.


132 posted on 07/12/2004 11:59:03 AM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
"Imagine, a speach at a Republican convention touting conservative principles instead of trying to appear more like the Democrats. The horror! "

Just think how horrible it would be to hear a talk against illegal immigration, homosexual practices, abortion, outsourcing American jobs, defending America interest war against AQ but keep America out of foreign interest wars in Kosovo, Kuwait, Korea, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Formosa, and 100 other places that want our troops and money for Globo Cop.

133 posted on 07/12/2004 12:01:47 PM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all Things Truth Beareth Away the Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
Pat told the truth, but most people can't handle the truth.

Agreed...I don't see how anyone else that calls themself conservative could read that speech any other way.

134 posted on 07/12/2004 12:01:48 PM PDT by BureaucratusMaximus ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
But, at the time of the 1992 speech, he hadn't yet become the opportunist he is now.

Yes, he had; he was already trying to split this party.

135 posted on 07/12/2004 12:02:14 PM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Frankly, most of the reaction of this speech is merely a pavlovian response to the mainstream media coverage of it.

Unfortunately a political reality - perception (false or not) becomes reality.

136 posted on 07/12/2004 12:08:12 PM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: FrankWild
We ARE in a culture war and those that choose to ignore it are nearly as bad as the vermin in the Democratic Party.

I look at the nation as a house. It has a foundation,walls and a roof. Religion is the foundation,the culture provides the walls rising up from that foundation while the politics basically protect the foundation and the walls.

Our foundation is crumbling,the walls are creaking and bending and the roof is leaking.

The way I see it it doesn't much matter which contractor takes care of the roof for the next four years the house will collapse unless the foundation is shored up and the rotting walls rebuilt.

137 posted on 07/12/2004 12:14:23 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"Yes, he had; he was already trying to split this party. "

Yep, that's right. Pat was trying to keep the GOP conservative but the RINOs were in ascendancy and are now dominant.

Bush campaigning for Specter was the final straw. The convention speakers are anti-climatic.

138 posted on 07/12/2004 12:15:03 PM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all Things Truth Beareth Away the Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
I look at his speech and I don't see anything that would be overtly racist or bigoted. Maybe it he delivered it with his usual mean face and lecturing voice. However, I think that the difference is in the way the biased liberal media reported and how much influence they had in 92'. It is not the same today as there are different voices that can break through the liberal din.

As I sit here trying to remember what I liked about the speech, I realize it was because, frankly, it was the first time in 4 years I heard anybody loudly defend the Reagan record. Bush 1, to its shame, did not.

Thats undoubtedly why the press pounced on it.

139 posted on 07/12/2004 12:15:52 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
I don't particularly like him either. But, at the time of the 1992 speech, he hadn't yet become the opportunist he is now. That being said, there was nothing wrong with his speech at the 1992 convention.

It wasn’t the words in the speech, it was the speaker.

Though he’s padded his resume a bit since then, Hillary working for the Mossad, a second Jewish war, his association with Lenora Fulani, that type of stuff, essentially his views on Jews, blacks, women and homosexuals, as well as his affinity for fascists were well known by 1992. True, if you weren’t a member of those groups, or a hater of those groups, you probably weren’t aware of them. But plenty of people were.

This isn’t the kind of person the Republican Party need to highlight, no matter the words he speaks on the occasion, particularly to take the spotlight away from Reagan.

You’re right, he was an opportunist, the Republican Party didn’t follow his advice to, among other things, cherry pick David Duke’s platform for winning issues, so he left, in itself an act of admission that he didn’t belong on the podium in the first place.

140 posted on 07/12/2004 12:24:02 PM PDT by SJackson (Be careful -- with quotations, you can damn anything, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-223 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson