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 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last

1 posted on 07/12/2004 7:52:30 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

I far prefer Guiliani, Arnold and the rest. Powerhouse speakers that will galvinize the swing voters.


2 posted on 07/12/2004 7:57:36 AM PDT by tkathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

it was a great speech. sadly, the GOP for the most part is just an echo of democrats. my goodness if they can't figure out marriage is between a man and a woman, what are they good for? like pjb, rinky-dink tax cuts aren't enough for me and the record on judicial appointments is mixed at best.
senate gop seems to go along to get along. tax cuts is their point of interest.

both parties aspire to win elections via coalitions but there's no room at the table for social conservatives. if we're going to have a decadent liberal society, might as well let Democrats run it. maybe people will then know whom to blame


3 posted on 07/12/2004 8:02:12 AM PDT by Piers-the-Ploughman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
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.

Your recollection of the Houston convention is a bit hazy. Very few people remember this, but the initial media reaction to Pat's speech in 1992 was similar to yours -- they described it as one of the best speeches they ever heard.

The media didn't start referring to it as an "extemist" speech until about a week later, when the Clinton campaign began painting the GOP as a bunch of right-wing extremists. That's when "one of the best speeches ever heard" became a "hate-filled diatribe."

FWIW, the last 12 years in this country have utterly vindicated Pat Buchanan.

4 posted on 07/12/2004 8:02:27 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

This speech probably cost the GOP the Jewish vote for at least two generations. It was probably the single biggest event in getting Clinton elected.


5 posted on 07/12/2004 8:03:32 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Funny, I saw the same speech and I quit the Republican party.

I've been a conservative independent ever since.

6 posted on 07/12/2004 8:04:13 AM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Speech transcript: http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html

 

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-96-0622-texas.html

 

7 posted on 07/12/2004 8:05:15 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

I think we need a variety of good speakers who have credentials and have actually done something. The theme should be "action not words" to contrast with dems like Kerry and Edwards who have never lead anyone or done anything. Buchanan falls into that category as well.


8 posted on 07/12/2004 8:05:43 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
I far prefer Guiliani, Arnold and the rest. Powerhouse speakers that will galvinize the swing voters.

Your error is in imagining that there is only one group of potential swing voters. He who succeeds in defining the issues defines who are the swing voters. Those of us who are Conservative, would much prefer that it be our values, not our enemies values, that define the swing voter.

The ocean of difference between Reagan Republican politics and the present absurd farce may be explained in just these terms.

I am letting pass the idea that those you name are "powerhouse speakers." The present is hardly a shining era for American oratory, and what passes today would have been a joke in most eras.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

9 posted on 07/12/2004 8:05:44 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

Just win baby.

I'll challenge the assumption that Reagan won and got re-elected because he stood up for conservative values. He got re-elected because his conservative policies began working.

Reagan won in 1980 because Carter was a disgrace.
Reagan won re-election in 1984 because the economy started booming.

Reagan had approval ratings in the 30%-35% range in 1983.


Bush's re-election depends on one thing.. The economy. If the momentum continues until November, it's Bush by 6-8 points. If its stagnant, it's going to be dead-tight.

Simple as that. You also need to maximize your convention boost, and to do that you need star power like Rudy Guiliani, whose voice reaches everybody.

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 "Coalition of the Wild-Eyed" are walking right into the bear-trap.


10 posted on 07/12/2004 8:06:30 AM PDT by Josh in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
FWIW, the last 12 years in this country have utterly vindicated Pat Buchanan.

Pat sold all his stocks in 1996 and missed the single biggest run-up in the history of the market.

As for Pat being "vindicated," he was an angry, unpleasant messenger in 1992, and he still is.

His speech pushed Reagan's last major address to Republicans out of prime time, one of the single dumbest things the GOP has ever done at a convention.

11 posted on 07/12/2004 8:08:10 AM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Pat was blamed for the Bush loss and banished from speaking for the GOP for this great speech. [like Keyes is but he doesn't realize it yet] It would be given again if the GOP was still socially conservative.

Patrick Buchanan at the Republican National Convention August 17, 1992

BUCHANAN: Well, we took the long way home, but we finally got here.

And I want to congratulate President Bush, and remove any doubt about where we stand: The primaries are over, the heart is strong again, and the Buchanan brigades are enlisted--all the way to a great comeback victory in November.

Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden--where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists--in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.

One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis.

No way, my friends. The American people are not going to buy back into the failed liberalism of the 1960s and '70s--no matter how slick the package in 1992.

The malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not terrible years. They were great years. You know it. I know it. And the only people who don't know it are the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of history, jeering at 1 of the great statesmen of modern time.

Out of Jimmy Carter's days of malaise, Ronald Reagan crafted the longest peacetime recovery in US history--3 million new businesses created, and 20 million new jobs.

Under the Reagan Doctrine, 1 by 1, the communist dominos began to fall. First, Grenada was liberated, by US troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of Afghanistan, by US weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to hold free elections--by Ronald Reagan's contra army--and the communists were thrown out of power.

Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire collapsed, and the captive nations broke free.

It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity--with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. And it is time my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves--for leading America to victory in the Cold War.

Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt better about our country; and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world.

But we are here, not only to celebrate, but to nominate. And an American president has many, many roles.

He is our first diplomat, the architect of American foreign policy. And which of these 2 men is more qualified for that role? George Bush has been UN ambassador, CIA director, envoy to China. As vice president, he coauthored the policies that won the Cold War. As president, George Bush presided over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the termination of the Warsaw Pact. And Mr Clinton? Well, Bill Clinton couldn't find 150 words to discuss foreign policy in an acceptance speech that lasted an hour. As was said of an earlier Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to having had breakfast once at the Intl House of Pancakes.

The presidency is also America's bully pulpit, what Mr Truman called, "preeminently a place of moral leadership." George Bush is a defender of right-to-life, and lifelong champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which this nation was built.

Mr Clinton, however, has a different agenda. At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v Wade, he was told there was no place for him at the podium of Bill Clinton's convention, no room at the inn.

Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and exult: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do.

Bill Clinton supports school choice--but only for state-run schools. Parents who send their children to Christian schools, or Catholic schools, need not apply.

Elect me, and you get 2 for the price of 1, Mr Clinton says of his lawyer-spouse. And what does Hillary believe?

Well Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared marriage as an institution to slavery--and life on an Indian reservation.

Well, speak for yourself, Hillary.

Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.

A president is also commander in chief, the man we empower to send sons and brothers, fathers and friends, to war.

George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific war. And Mr Clinton? When Bill Clinton's turn came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft.

Which of these 2 men has won the moral authority to call on Americans to put their lives at risk? I suggest, respectfully, it is the patriot and war hero, Navy Lieutenant J G George Herbert Walker Bush.

My friends, this campaign is about philosophy, and it is about character; and George Bush wins on both counts--going away; and it is time all of us came home and stood beside him.

As running mate, Mr Clinton chose Albert Gore. And just how moderate is Prince Albert? Well, according to the Taxpayers Union, Al Gore beat out Teddy Kennedy, 2 straight years, for the title of biggest spender in the Senate.

And Teddy Kennedy isn't moderate about anything.

In New York, Mr Gore made a startling declaration. Henceforth, he said, the "central organizing principle" of all governments must be: the environment.

Wrong, Albert!

The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who put insects, rats and birds ahead of families, workers and jobs.

One year ago, my friends, I could not have dreamt I would be here. I was then still just one of many panelists on what President Bush calls "those crazy Sunday talk shows."

But I disagreed with the president; and so we challenged the president in the Republican primaries and fought as best we could. From February to June, he won 33 primaries. I can't recall exactly how many we won.

But tonight I want to talk to the 3 million Americans who voted for me. I will never forget you, nor the great honor you have done me. But I do believe, deep in my heart, that the right place for us to be now--in this presidential campaign--is right beside George Bush. The party is our home; this party is where we belong. And don't let anyone tell you any different.

Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for freedom of choice (word missing?) religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.

We stand with President Bush for right-to-life, and for voluntary prayer in the public schools, and against putting American women in combat. And we stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.

We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to rewrite our Constitution.

My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him.

My friends, in those 6 months, from Concord to California, I came to know our country better than ever before in my life, and I collected memories that will be with me always.

There was that daylong ride through the great state of Georgia in a bus Vice President Bush himself had used in 1988--a bus they called Asphalt One. The ride ended with a 9:00 PM speech in front of a magnificent southern mansion, in a town called Fitzgerald.

There were the workers at the James River Paper Mill, in the frozen North Country of New Hampshire--hard, tough men, 1 of whom was silent, until I shook his hand. Then he looked up in my eyes and said, "Save our jobs!" There was the legal secretary at the Manchester airport on Christmas Day who told me she was going to vote for me, then broke down crying, saying, "I've lost my job, I don't have any money; they've going to take away my daughter. What am I going to do?"

My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know they're hurting. They don't expect miracles, but they need to know we care.

There were the people of Hayfork, the tiny town high up in California's Trinity Alps, a town that is now under a sentence of death because a federal judge has set aside 9 million acres for the habitat of the spotted owl--forgetting about the habitat of the men and women who live and work in Hayfork. And there were the brave people of Koreatown who took the worst of the LA riots, but still live the family values we treasure, and who still believe deeply in the American dream.

Friends, in those wonderful 25 weeks, the saddest days were the days of the bloody riot in LA, the worst in our history. But even out of that awful tragedy can come a message of hope.

Hours after the violence ended I visited the Army compound in south LA, where an officer of the 18th Cavalry, that had come to rescue the city, introduced me to 2 of his troopers. They could not have been 20 years old. He told them to recount their story.

They had come into LA late on the 2d day, and they walked up a dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but 1, a convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met the 1 thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.

Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as they took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.

God bless you, and God bless America.

12 posted on 07/12/2004 8:08:22 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all Things Truth Beareth Away the Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA
You also need to maximize your convention boost, and to do that you need star power like Rudy Guiliani, whose voice reaches everybody.

Rudy's a natural choice and a good one. But Pataki? Why not showcase our younger guys like Santorum et al?

13 posted on 07/12/2004 8:10:40 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

I thought it was the greatist speach I ever heard at a convention. Pat was right, there was (and still is) a cultural war and unfortunately, the right side is not winning. Pat told the truth, but most people can't handle the truth.


14 posted on 07/12/2004 8:11:29 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden--where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists--in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.

LOL, what a line.

15 posted on 07/12/2004 8:11:50 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Pat was blamed for the Bush loss and banished from speaking for the GOP for this great speech.

It wasn't just the speech (though that was a big part of it). It was also the damage he did to Bush by challenging him in the primary.

16 posted on 07/12/2004 8:12:02 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
This speech probably cost the GOP the Jewish vote for at least two generations. It was probably the single biggest event in getting Clinton elected.

Those are two pretty wild statements. Do you have any figures to suggest that the Jewish vote for Republicans was measurably reduced in 1992 and thereafter? It wasn't that large in 1988, but you are saying that it plummeted from those figures. Did it?

As for Buchanan contributing to Clinton being elected? That is pure nonsense. Clinton's major asset is his insinuating boyish delivery and manner, that has a very strong appeal to women. It has nothing to do with what he is actually saying, or what others are saying about him. If you understand why Hollywood has succeeded in promoting Leftist values over the past two generations, you understand the Clinton phenomenon.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

17 posted on 07/12/2004 8:14:43 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro


I think the key for Bush/Rove, from this convention, is to not give any of the WhiffleBalls, CrossDressers, and Larry Queen Live talk shows any fodder to hammer the GOP on.

Parading very popular moderates like Guiliani and Arnold out there is the best way to achieve this. Arnold has some baggage, but everybody is sick of that.

It's not going to affect the conservative base like some people think it will.

By the time November comes around, social conservatives won't be holding their nose saying, "I'm not voting today because Arnold was at the convention". That will be long and forgotten by social conservatives who are smart enough to know that it's extremely important to keep the #1 and #4 Senate liberals out of the White House.

The grassroots campaign organized by Rove and the GOP has been extraordinary. No real social conservative is going to be staying home Nov. 2nd out of spite. Trust me.


18 posted on 07/12/2004 8:15:38 AM PDT by Josh in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
Pat was blamed for the Bush loss ....

Ridiculous

19 posted on 07/12/2004 8:15:43 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
It wasn't just the speech (though that was a big part of it). It was also the damage he did to Bush by challenging him in the primary.

Most of Buchanan's supporters likely voted for Perot in the election. Yes, his challenge to Bush damaged GHW's re-election chances just as much, or more, than this speech.

20 posted on 07/12/2004 8:17:31 AM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic


When did the Republicans ever have the Jewish vote? They love big government socialism in every country in which they vote. They are far more frightened of Christians than they are of Al Queda.


21 posted on 07/12/2004 8:18:26 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

I also challenge, that Clinton won, not because of Buchanan, but because of the economy.. The economy was in a funk in 1992 and hadn't started to find it's feet yet.

Economy wins and loses elections.

The recovery was slowed by Bush 41's lack of fortitude to push a conservative economic agenda during his 4 years in office. He dug his own grave with "Read My Lips". He had no credibility left with the public.


22 posted on 07/12/2004 8:19:33 AM PDT by Josh in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Why not allow a broad spectrum to speak... moderates and conservatives. Not Buchanan though... like him or not, his issue positions are no longer those embraced by the GOP.


23 posted on 07/12/2004 8:19:43 AM PDT by sdk7x7 ("This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA
Parading very popular moderates .......

I don't like "diluting" conservatism. I live in NY. I know how moderate Republicans govern. People are leaving NY in droves because we have the highest taxes in the COUNTRY, the highest electricity costs due to regulations, the highest school education costs because we cow tow to the unions. Our state is FAILING because of moderate Republicans being afraid to stand up to radical liberals.

24 posted on 07/12/2004 8:19:49 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 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."

And now, for another viewpoint.

Buchanan speaking in prime time cost the GOP the election, and gave us Bill Clinton.

You might recall who ended up speaking after 11 PM EST that night. A man you might recall, who gave one helluva speech that NOBODY HEARD.

That man was.....RONALD REAGAN.

Sorry, putting Buchanan in the prime time speaking role that night, and relagating former President Ronald Reagan to late night TV was one of many errors the Bush Campaign made in that election cycle. As Dan Quayle accurate summed it up, it was "the worst Reelection Campaign in Modern History".

Buchanan went off the deep end that night, not later. And we got 8 years of Clinton due in no small part to PJB's megalomania.

The outpouring of emotion last month demonstrates the error in a way a poster like myself could never put into words.


25 posted on 07/12/2004 8:19:54 AM PDT by Badeye ("The day you stop learning, is the day you begin dying")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
This speech probably cost the GOP the Jewish vote for at least two generations.

I find that hard to believe. I challenge anyone to read the text of his speech and point out a single thing in it that would drive someone to vote against Bush who wasn't already a leftist to begin with.

It was probably the single biggest event in getting Clinton elected.

Absolutely not. The single biggest event in getting Clinton elected was Ross Perot's decision to enter the race.

26 posted on 07/12/2004 8:21:00 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan; 1Old Pro
As for Buchanan contributing to Clinton being elected? That is pure nonsense.

History shows that when an incumbent President faces a serious challenge for the nomination from within his own party, he loses. Being forced to run a campaign to be re-nominated drains resources from those that would otherwise be spent running for re-election in the general campaign. In many ways it neutralizes many of the inherent advantages that incumbency offers. The fact that Buchanan challenged Bush for the Republican nomination contributed to Bush's defeat in 1992.

27 posted on 07/12/2004 8:21:55 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Buchanan speaking in prime time cost the GOP the election, and gave us Bill Clinton.

Not likely. Bush LOST the election because he strayed from conservatism, lacked the fire in the belly to take on Klintoon, had mediocre advisors.

28 posted on 07/12/2004 8:22:27 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Not likely. Bush LOST the election because he strayed from conservatism, lacked the fire in the belly to take on Klintoon, had mediocre advisors. ...

Oh, let's not forget Ross Perot

29 posted on 07/12/2004 8:23:55 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I challenge anyone to read the text of his speech and point out a single thing in it that would drive someone to vote against Bush who wasn't already a leftist to begin with.

I agree.

30 posted on 07/12/2004 8:25:14 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I don't remember the speech. I really did not pay attention to politics until 93'. But I went back and read it - why is considered so hate filled? It it just the way Pat delivered it?


31 posted on 07/12/2004 8:25:24 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

Bush LOST the election because he strayed from conservatism, lacked the fire in the belly to take on Klintoon, had mediocre advisors.

===

He strayed from conservative action during his 4 years in office.. That, resulted in a slower recovery.

I disagree with the second part of your statement,.. His reference to Millie the Dog's foreign policy knowledge was pretty aggressive I thought.


32 posted on 07/12/2004 8:26:08 AM PDT by Josh in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Bush also lost the election because he wasn't terribly "presidential" -- he really only became President in the first place by default, as Reagan's vice president.

"Default" candidates often end up being mediocre at best. Just ask people like Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and Al Gore.

33 posted on 07/12/2004 8:26:52 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

I think you're speaking of the self-hating 'Hollyweird' Jews, who not only reject their faith, but the faith of anyone who questions their hedonistic lifestyle (and they are a small total of the Democrat vote, though their dollar contributions are sizeable). I think you would find that observant Jews vote quite conservatively. I'm not Jewish, but have Jewish friends who ARE conservative and can't imagine Kerry or his ilk continuing the WOT.


34 posted on 07/12/2004 8:27:29 AM PDT by Az. Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

You have a point. Although Giuliani and Ahnuld are RINO's a lot of the time, they are popular and likeable. They aren't going to anger a conservative enough to not vote for Bush, but they will do better at grabbing the mushy moderate vote.


35 posted on 07/12/2004 8:28:45 AM PDT by RockinRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
Why is considered so hate filled? It it just the way Pat delivered it?

No, it's considered "hate-filled" simply because Pat Buchanan delivered it. If Al Gore had stood up and delivered this same speech at the Democratic convention, he would have been praised for his "moral strength" or something like that.

36 posted on 07/12/2004 8:29:04 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA
It's not going to affect the conservative base like some people think it will. By the time November comes around, social conservatives won't be holding their nose saying, "I'm not voting today because Arnold was at the convention".

Not in isolation. But each affront to the already battered conservatives increases their chance that they will not participate in this election. It is a bad idea to have a convention where your most conservative speaker is a member of the Democratic party.

37 posted on 07/12/2004 8:29:07 AM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA
His reference to Millie the Dog's foreign policy knowledge was pretty aggressive I thought.

you're joking right?

38 posted on 07/12/2004 8:29:25 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA
Josh-- I am with you on this one. But I see no reason for Pataki to be given a prime time speech. Other than that, I like the lineup and wouldn't mind seeing Nancy Reagan added.

I don't agree with Arnold and Guilliani on everything but right now, they are the two most popular Republicans on the planet and it would be idiotic not to feature them prominently.

The media loves McCain. So it is that much more effective when he renounces Kerry and enthusiastically endorses Bush. A prime time spot takes away any ammo the Bush bash media may use. The recent Bush commercials featuring McCain are excellent.

Furthermore, McCain is unabashedly pro-life, so the social conservatives cries may ring hollow. But these people like to take their ball and go home whenever they don't get 100% of their agenda.

Nonetheless, I look forward to an excellent GOP convention.

39 posted on 07/12/2004 8:30:40 AM PDT by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zarf

I hated that speech.


40 posted on 07/12/2004 8:30:52 AM PDT by cajungirl (wi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
I far prefer Guiliani, Arnold and the rest. Powerhouse speakers that will galvinize the swing voters.

Its a smart political move, but I would prefer watching a replay of the late-great Ronald Reagan's "Rendezvous with Destiny" speech. I may just have to do that after watching the GOP convention!

41 posted on 07/12/2004 8:31:04 AM PDT by HenryLeeII (Rest in peace, sultan88)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
I never knew that Buchanan displaced President Reagan. What puerile nonsense on Buchanan's part - the Great Man could have certainly helped much more than Buchanan did.

Regards, Ivan

42 posted on 07/12/2004 8:31:55 AM PDT by MadIvan (Ronald Reagan - proof positive that one man can change the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

Pataki is the governor of the state that the convention is being held in; it's SOP.


43 posted on 07/12/2004 8:32:29 AM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: zarf

Care to explain why the Buchanan speech made you quit the party. That seems a little extreme, considering it was the speech of a man who had been beaten like a gong in the primaries. It's not like he was representing the main-stream Republican voice. He was representing his 5% of primary voters.


44 posted on 07/12/2004 8:33:01 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Did I miss something, or were the words "culture war" never mentioned. I looked at the speech and say that there is nothing hate filled about it. I guess the talk about the mobs of people at the LA riots was supposedly taken as racial?


45 posted on 07/12/2004 8:33:54 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
would much prefer that it be our values, not our enemies values, that define the swing voter

Yeah, and I would much prefer that my mortgage company marked my account "paid in full" and that the IRS would lose all records that I exist. That ain't gonna happen either.

46 posted on 07/12/2004 8:34:39 AM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Pataki is the governor of the state that the convention is being held in; it's SOP.

Pataki could put an amphetimine addict to sleep.

47 posted on 07/12/2004 8:34:53 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl; zarf

So did I.


48 posted on 07/12/2004 8:35:53 AM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
the last 12 years in this country have utterly vindicated Pat Buchanan.

To the "REAL CONSERVATIVE" Americans Buchanan, and his views have always been considered patriotic, America first, and very eloquent. The liberals will always throw labels at you to vilify you, if you are good.

49 posted on 07/12/2004 8:36:29 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Actually the biggest factor in Clinton getting elected, by FAR, was Perot. Look at the low pluralities he won in state after state and in the nationwide popular vote. Without the big-eared dummy it would have been a very close election and Bush1 might well have prevailed saving us from years of Xlintonism.


50 posted on 07/12/2004 8:37:24 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 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