[JimPrevor]

Allowing a speech at the convention that is discordant with a nominee’s positions is only going to lead to confusion and alienation. Bringing in advisers whose advice a nominee has already decided to reject is a recipe for a blow-up later on when supporters learn the advisory role was disingenuous.

[oblomov]

I think it’s better to have a nominee with actual opinions and policy ideas. Then the other speeches at the convention won’t confuse viewers.

Once Bush I broke his tax pledge, it was difficult to imagine him having conviction about anything.

[svcw]

Having alterPaul given any place of “honor” would be a stupid move. You would end up with a twenty-five minute speech of incoherent/delusional ramblings plus sound bites used against the nominee.

[Tribune7]

Many analysts believe that Buchanan’s angry speech, which, heavy to social issues such as abortion, became known as the “Culture Wars” speech, alienated moderates from the ticket.

If Ross Perot didn't run Bush would have won.

While Perot ran as a pro-abort -- as did Bush in '80-- what truly motivated him was

1. A dislike for Bush's economic policy

2. A really strong dislike for Bush

And Bush's bragging about a "new world order" was far more damaging to him than anything Buchanan said.