Remember Buchanan's convention speech in Houston?

[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.

[SJackson]

With all due respect to that "GOP delegate," I think she was full of sh!t. She may have had good reason to believe that Buchanan was an anti-semite, but nothing in the text of his speech would have given any indication of that.

Gosh, we agree on something.

[Alberta's Child]

Ironically, the worst aspect of segregation was that it was usually government-mandated. The integrated school that Pat Buchanan attended was a Catholic school, which is simply one more reason why anyone with any sense of religious values should have a deep-rooted mistrust of public education.

[jmeagan]

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.>>>>>

You obviously have not seen Pat give very many speeches. For the most part he is humorous and good natured. Somebody once did a study on one of those political panel shows and surprise they found Pat was the politest one of the bunch.

[Alberta's Child]

Of course we do. Are you surprised? LOL.

[Alberta's Child]

To this day, Don Imus still calls Pat Buchanan one of his favorite radio guests. Anyone who has heard a Buchanan address or interview will tell you that he is remarkably bright and very entertaining (which is a big plus on a morning radio show).

[SJackson]

I don't have time to post links now, but a few minutes on Google will find you links to his memos to Nixon on integration, segregation, the I-Q memo, irrespective of the high school he went to. The same with the Duke comment, you'll find plenty of citations. He wanted the Republican party to incorporate the Duke constituency. To his credit he fired William Carter from his campaign, but kept several other Dukesters, including several from Louisiana.

I don't know what Buckley said about Sobran. I do know Sobran is obsessed with Jews, because he's said so.

[jmeagan]

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.>>>>

You are full of unmitagated B.S. and are defaming a very great man. About the only thing you have correct is his view on the homosexual movement, but that is shared by a lot of people in this country on moral grounds.

[ex-snook]

"You are full of unmitagated B.S. and are defaming a very great man. "

It's expected because Pat only sees American Red, White and Blue. He puts America first in Trade and War. He doesn't make too many friends that way among those who think their favorite country or multi-national company has been slighted. [Kosovo, Kuwait, Korea, Israel, England, China, Formosa and everyone on our trade or arms dole.]

[skeeter]

Thanks for posting the text of the speech. Over years of lurking here on Free Republic, I have always been fascinated by the hatred aroused by Buchanan.

I fault his critics here not so much for disagreeing with him, but for employing the same smear & guilt by association tactics the Left uses to villify without having to bother with intelligent debate.

A lazy (& dangerous) but sadly increasingly popular way to conduct political discourse.

[evilC]

>>>
why explain? ...
<<<<

Kind of like the "I hate George Bush" crowd.

[meadsjn]

Rove picking NYC was stroke of genius.

We're going to see a compare & contrast of moderate heroes like Rudy Guiliani speaking at the convention, while all the left wing kooks are raising hell outside.

The toughest part of history class for young students is remembering all the "moderate heroes" who made such a great impact on the direction of the nation (provided they can even find a footnote of reference).

[evilC]

I agree with you on the scheduling of Buchanan's and Reagan's speeches.

>>>
Just Pat Buchanan himself, who Jews intensely dislike, for good reason.
<<<

Have Jews ever voted for Republicans in any significant amounts? In any case I have to wonder what is wrong with taking the concerns of a group (blue-collar rural workers), who have supported the party, and make up about 30 percent of voters versus worrying about two percent of the voters who never really supported the party in the first place (not that the speech had anything in it to concern any rational Jew).

Buchanan had nothing to do with Bush's loss. Bush had everything to do with Bush's loss. He came across as an insipid blue-blood. He renounced Reagan's legacy with his "kinder gentler, thousand points of light" nonsense. We read his lips, but he still raised taxes.

It is interesting that Ross Perot won 20 percent of the vote addressing the concerns that Buchanan raised.

BTW, I am not a "Patsie" or "brigadier", but I see no "hate" in that speech. At one time, it might even have been considered mainstream conservative.

So let's see, in the name of "inclusion", Republicans have banished the social conservatives, rid themselves of the economic nationalists, and have removed the small-government types. So what is left?

[SJackson]

You are full of unmitagated B.S. and are defaming a very great man. About the only thing you have correct is his view on the homosexual movement, but that is shared by a lot of people in this country on moral grounds.

Exactly, you've done your research, and ole Pat's never said anything derogatory about blacks, Jews, Dukesters or women, only homosexuals. It's all BS.

Go, Pat, Go.

Since he's long gone from the Republican party, I don't much care. If the Greens get matching money, look for him to turn up there.

[SJackson]

It's expected because Pat only sees American Red, White and Blue. He puts America first in Trade and War. He doesn't make too many friends that way among those who think their favorite country or multi-national company has been slighted. [Kosovo, Kuwait, Korea, Israel, England, China, Formosa and everyone on our trade or arms dole.]

Next time leave England off the list. I believe he's on record as prefering immigration from England over Zulu's.

[SJackson]

Have Jews ever voted for Republicans in any significant amounts? In any case I have to wonder what is wrong with taking the concerns of a group (blue-collar rural workers), who have supported the party, and make up about 30 percent of voters versus worrying about two percent of the voters who never really supported the party in the first place (not that the speech had anything in it to concern any rational Jew).

I was about to ask you what on earth Jews had to do with the speech, which had nothing to do with Jews.

Of course you answered my first question, you noted not that the speech had anything in it to concern any rational Jew

I admit to being puzzled as to the conflict you perceive between blue collar workers and Jews. Pat talks about Jews (or Zionists, or Likudniks, or Israel or whatever you want to call them) a lot, but not in an economic context which is often used, mostly in the context of Jewish control of our government.

Do you believe that?

[mr.pink]

Right, the Zionist Occupied Government thing, for both wars, that has nothing to do with Jews, just Zionists. Thanks for clarifying that.

Actually you're simplifying things to make PB's position as radical/anti-semetic as possible (and I'll admit PB's given you some pretty good ammo over the years), but even "The Forward" is advising abandoning that kind of tactic, and I'll leave my arguements regarding that issue for another time as I appreciate the time you took to reply to my points, as well as your civility.

I'm not feigning offense, I think Pats a bigot who has no place in the Republican party. Needless to say he thinks he has no place in the Republican party either.

I don't think Buchanan's a bigot, but he certainly can be as delicate as a bull in a china shop, and his brawling style of arguement is a bad sell in today's society. But he has a better sense of humor than most pundits, is quicker on his feet than most pundits, has insider WH experience most pundits don't, and perhaps most importantly.....is loyal to and fights bare knuckles for the issues that matter to social conservatives.

Pat knows he has no place in the GOP, but he's still a voice that plays well on many topics with social conservatives ( who last time I checked...Bush can't win without).

Now even if he had not carpet bombed his bridges back to the party in 2000, I would not want PB on this years stage (it's time to move forward), but tossing a bone to the social conservatives might have been a smart move. Rick Santorum might have been a fine choice IMO, even at the risk of losing 1% of the gay vote.

Maybe Pat will come back.

Hopefully not, sometimes it's best to part ways.

[SJackson]

Maybe Pat will come back...Hopefully not, sometimes it's best to part ways.

I'm not simplifying things, Pat is, but I think I'll leave the thread at that. Pat's not a Republican, he's not really a politician, he's a rabble rouser, a wonderful trait for a media type. And Pat's good in that role, where the totality of one's beliefs aren't an issue.

Gosh, Pat knows he has no place in the GOP, leave out the knows he and I agree with you and alberta on the same thread, odd.

[Alberta's Child]

Say what you want about Pat Buchanan, but I have some real nostalgia for the days when a presidential candidate would show up at a campaign appearance, notice a group of reporters from a Chinese media outlet in the front row, and tell them to "go back and tell yer boss in Beijing that he won't be selling any more chopsticks in Chinese restaurants here in the U.S. if I'm elected."

[SJackson]

Say what you want about Pat Buchanan, but I have some real nostalgia for the days when a presidential candidate would show up at a campaign appearance, notice a group of reporters from a Chinese media outlet in the front row, and tell them to "go back and tell yer boss in Beijing that he won't be selling any more chopsticks in Chinese restaurants here in the U.S. if I'm elected."

Sounds great. Pat could say it better than you.

He's a good columnist, I love him on TV, perhaps not a Carville or a Morris as a political advisor, but that's about it, he's not Presidential material, nor a national spokesman.

Populism is just that, populism, a tactic, not a world view, and certainly not a system of governance.

I wouldn't consider him for dogcatcher, the cat's are probably receiving matching funds.