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?
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?