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.
Ross Perot was nothing more than a "populist" himself, and yet his campaign was very effective.
>>>
I was about to ask you what on earth Jews had to do with the speech, which had nothing to do with Jews.
<<<
That was my point. Your earlier comments (#141), seemed to imply that Buchanan cost Republicans the support of Jewish people. I doubted that there was any significant Jewish support to begin with.
>>>
I admit to being puzzled as to the conflict you perceive between blue collar workers and Jews.
<<<
I see no inherent conflict between Jews and blue-collar workers. My point was that you seemed to believe it was a bad idea to raise the concerns of these workers (who often support Republicans) at the same time as worrying ("...Buchanan himself, who Jews intensely dislike...") about a group the does not support the Republicans.
Regarding Israel, I believe that conservatives spend far too much political capital on supporting Israel, for which they get no thanks from Jewish Americans. I am a small government, non-interventionist type of conservative. I still like Ron Paul (he has fallen out of favor with most FReepers). I have no love for the Neo-Cons (my definition warfare/welfare state supporters). However, I see no "Jewish plot".
Zio-cons (conservatives, of any stripe who view support of Israel as important) are mostly Christian and there are probably as many prominent Catholic neo-cons as Jewish neo-cons.
Israel and Jewish interests barely register on my radar except when the "anti-Semite" charge is used to smack down conservatives (sadly that comes as much from the right as the left). I get tired of seeing good guys like Ron Paul get bashed because he questions our involvement in the Middle-East.
It says a lot about FreeRepublic and the "conservative" movement, that I am nervous that posting the above will get me put on the "kooks list". So again, for the record: there is no "Jewish plot", we do not live under ZOG (we may live under LOG - Leftist Occupied Government - though :>).
I was moved by his words. All the Hate stuff is mostly myth from the left. Pat has said things that need to be said--for that he has suffered. Like some Shakespearian Tragedy in which the Fool is the wisest one at court, so too with Pat B. He would have been a great President. Maybe he see the old America--the un-PC America that was long ago---and not the People's Republic of America we have today. Time will show that his was the right path all along--lets hope there is an America when that time comes.
That's the way I remember it, too. It was raw steak for the sharks in the media and DNC.
The best. He lost, I don't think he would have been much of a President, but he sure changed the focus of the deficit issue.
Defeatist and disgusting. No wonder we can't get rid of the Democrats.
You must have misunderstood me. Whatever Jewish support Reagan might have developed Bush Sr. dealt with, he didnt need Pats help
I admit to being puzzled as to the conflict you perceive between blue collar workers and Jews. I see no inherent conflict between Jews and blue-collar workers. My point was that you seemed to believe it was a bad idea to raise the concerns of these workers (who often support Republicans) at the same time as worrying ("...Buchanan himself, who Jews intensely dislike...") about a group the does not support the Republicans.
Not at all, but I dont see any conflict (or necessarily similarity) between blue collar issues and Jewish issues. Dont let Pat define the terms.
Regarding Israel, I believe that conservatives spend far too much political capital on supporting Israel, for which they get no thanks from Jewish Americans. I am a small government, non-interventionist type of conservative. I still like Ron Paul (he has fallen out of favor with most FReepers). I have no love for the Neo-Cons (my definition warfare/welfare state supporters). However, I see no "Jewish plot".
Presuming you consider Pat and Ron Paul conservatives, they spend no time on it at all. IMO, its more of a values thing, at least in the case of GWB, he doesnt think about Jewish voters in formulating policy much, he might consider the Amen Corner folks a bit.
Zio-cons (conservatives, of any stripe who view support of Israel as important) are mostly Christian and there are probably as many prominent Catholic neo-cons as Jewish neo-cons Israel and Jewish interests barely register on my radar except when the "anti-Semite" charge is used to smack down conservatives (sadly that comes as much from the right as the left). I get tired of seeing good guys like Ron Paul get bashed because he questions our involvement in the Middle-East.
Zio-cons is a stupid term (which I havent heard much before). My opinions about Pat are clear, I think hes a bigot. I think Ron Pauls a bit naïve when it comes to isolationism, thats a different thing.
It says a lot about FreeRepublic and the "conservative" movement, that I am nervous that posting the above will get me put on the "kooks list". So again, for the record: there is no "Jewish plot", we do not live under ZOG (we may live under LOG - Leftist Occupied Government - though :>).
Youre still here. I bet I get attacked as a kook, a terrorist, a radical leftist, a radical rightist, a satin worshiper, and a bunch of other things more than you do. Im still here, get over it :>)
McCAIN: "I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn. "
Source: (X-ref from Keyes) GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000
Brillant!
You aren't looking for an answer. You are looking to intimidate and demand I agree with you. Therefore it seems pretty silly to respond. I don't think theere is going to be any meeting of the minds here so I shall defer to someone else. You know if you really were interested we could talk but interest isn't shown by insulting the person you are attempting to engage.
>>>
Zio-cons is a stupid term (which I havent heard much before).
<<<
Probably because I made it up :). The description "neo-con" has been so abused that it is pretty much worthless now. I needed a term for a conservative who supports Israel (as opposed to a conservative who does not worry about Israel). Of course, using "neo" to describe a movement that is more than 40 years old is a bit stupid as well.
>>>
Presuming you consider Pat and Ron Paul conservatives
<<<
Yeah! I am a "big-tent" conservative :)
>>>
Youre still here.
<<<
And intend to stay.
correctomundo, Mr. Wild.
Given the activist judicial tyrrany, we are less a republic and more a nation of judges.
if our masters (er, public servants) in Washington can not see this, what is the point?
Presuming you mean an accurate, non-offensive term, you cant. Israel isnt an issue sufficiently detatched from other issues, other than to those for whom the controversy relates to the faith of Israels residents. If you oppose foreign aid, thats not an Israel issue. Oppose foreign wars, thats not about Israel. Support the Egyptioan-Saudi alliance, thats not about Israel, its pro Arab.
I agree you about neocon, its now morphed to mean a Jew foolish enough to support Republicans. Also not a term worth defining.
Since you bring up neocons, earlier in the thread Ive alluded to Pats memos to Nixon regarding the infeasibility of integration given negros 15 point I-Q deficit. Of course I was accused of making it, but if you believe me (and its easy to verify), Pat wasnt completely certain. Who did he suggest the administration look into the issue?
Irving Kristol. Go figure.
By the way, like you, I dislike Buchanan because of his anti-Israeli and isolationist views (neither of which was reflected in the 1992 speech). However, he is preferable to the liberal garbage that will be showcased in the 2004 Republican convention.
Exactly. It is amazing how much the terms "hate-filled" and "racist" have been thrown around on this thread without any factual support. Some of his speeches and commentaries enrage me and some inspire me, depending on the topic. But all are well delivered and supported, and none leave any basis for calling him a bigot.
Perhaps you might try to come up with some factual support for the statement that the Buchanan speech "caused" the Clinton landslide.
Beats corduroy.
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.