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.
Politics, like chess, is won by controlling the center of the board. One of the inherent aspects (benefits?) of our two-party system is that it is virtually impossible for the country to swing very far in either direction. This was clearly beneficial to us during The 'Toon's administration. Now don't get all pissy because we have to live with it. I'd rather be in power and have to see us moderate our views in public than be out of power and feeling free to articulate our views while we foam at the mouth.
see post 101, he said it better than I.
Attacking me wont do anything to advance your cause or your opinion.
There was no "ad hominem" attack. My opinion was based on my personal reaction to that man. He gives me the creeps. His actions as described in post 101 seem to give credence to my reaction to him.
Now he may be your personal hero, but an awful lot of people responded the same way as I did if you remember. Are we all vermin?
Let us hope you're right. But we'll see what foaming at the mouth can accomplish after Nov 2 - while our side is busy 'moderating' the other guys don't feel so constrained.
From his last campaign wesite. Vince Foster was a Mossad agent too. Nothing bizarre about that statement, why not let him speak at the Republican convention. ...a second Jewish war,… I think he states the Iraq War as a neocon/Likud/Sharon driven war, not a Jewish war.
Right, the Zionist Occupied Government thing, for both wars, that has nothing to do with Jews, just Zionists. Thanks for clarifying that. Nothing bizarre about that statement, why not let him speak at the Republican convention.
...his association with Lenora Fulani,…You mean the same Lenora Fulani who has "associated" with, and had a working relationship with, both George Pataki and Micheal Bloomberg?....THAT Lenora Fulani?
That one. I’m aware she supported Bloomberg in the mayoral race, and she’s a NY politician, so clearly they associate with her. I wasn’t aware that, like Pat Buchanan, they had hired her as campaign co-chairman, like Pat. Thanks for the info, dumb move on Bloomberg and Pataki’s part, if they did.
....essentially his views on Jews, blacks, women and homosexuals,… Let's see here. Jewish votes for GOP candidates usually a robust 15-20%. Black votes for GOP candidates usually 8-15%. Women's vote for GOP candidate usually below 50%. Homosexual votes for GOP candidate usually what....10-15%?
They shouldn’t change their views based on that. If the Republican want’s to bring into their “big tent” David Duke supporters, along with platforms based on segregation, borderline holocaust denial, and the ZOG, Pat’s the man to do it. Face it, you can’t kill Jews with diesel engines, black are too dumb for integration, and women aren’t aggressive enough. Sounds like a winning platform to me.
This isn?t the kind of person the Republican Party need to highlight, no matter the words he speaks on the occasion, particularly to take the spotlight away from Reagan.….Now I fully agree that RR should not have been bumped for PB...but let's also keep in mind.
Make’s me wonder why you bothered with the first part of the post. When Bush 1 promised a "kinder, gentler, nation", it certainly didn't slip by Nancy's sharp eyes as she responded quite quickly by asking: "kinder, gentler, than whom?". Nancy knew that was an intentional "dis" directed at Ron from a man who only got be President by riding Reagan's coattails. There was no love lost bewteen those two families and the time slotting could very well have been a case of pettiness overriding poli-smarts….- Black Americans hated Reagan, and only if you were asleep during the RR/GB1 years could one think homosexuals were going to move to the GOP. Homosexual AIDs deaths were attributed directly to Reagan by gay activists.
Not sure the relevance of that.
The Jewish vote that had been comparatively strong (in comparison to it's history) for Reagan was dumping Bush, as was the "Amen Corner" for pressuring Isreal to cut back on the territorial Settlement grabs in exchange for American loan guarantees. Funny how you managed to leave that out of the `92 dynamics....but it's so much easier to just pin it all on PB.
I never pinned anything on Pat, other than point out why he didn’t speak for Republicans, despite the nature of this single speech, and why he shouldn’t have been on the podium. Bush Sr was going to lose. He ran a lousy campaign.
Now while you continue to feign offense that Buchanan did not subjugate his positions to cater to groups 3/4s of which (using your list) had nothing but contempt for the GOP, I'll look forward to recieving an explanation on why exactly the GOP should not show similar deference to the sensitvities of Arab and Muslim Americans (groups which have actually supported GOP candidates in impressive percentages....without expecting our candidates to disavow social conservatism). In closing I'll just say that I think this year's convention's line-up is pretty smart.....whether it's too smart by half, we'll have to wait and see.
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’ve no problem with Arabs voting for Republican party. If the Republican party wants to stand with Islam against Hollywood and Hillary, they can put that in their platform. Maybe Pat will come back.
Others disagree with you.
At least one (and she claimed there were more) GOP delegate to the 1992 convention told me that she left the GOP right after Pat's speech. She said that Pat's speech basically showed that the GOP was anti-semetic and that overrode the economic value of supporting them. I also know many Jews with conservative values (on social and economic issues) who will never GOP because of their belief that Republicans are anti-semetic.>>>>
Well, there is a link to the speech and it is also posted in the response thread. Perhaps you can point out one item that hints of anti-semitic feelings.
On top of that the Jewish people are about 5% of the population and are generally clustered in heavily democratic states. So any loss of Jewish voters, who vote overwhelmingly for demos already, is no great loss to the GOP.
This is just another example of the propensity for some Jewish people to raise issues of anti-semitism where none exist. It has been so over used that it has lost most of its meaning. To borrow a line from Pat, the Jewish people are just upset with Pat because he does toe the line to the wishes of the Israeli Lobby and its Amen Corner.
But, he says too many damned "my friends" in his speeches.
It was dead on. And imagine if they had let Alan Keyes give a keynote address.
The current regime is actually sorta embarrased to have us around.
His opposition to integration was clear, the Negroes get their schools, we get ours, no harm, no foul, and there’s more of us than them. I'm not sure if the 15 points lower IQ (negroes, that's why you can't integrate them) memo was public yet.>>>>
The most polite way to say it is that you are in error. Pat B. went to one of the first high schools to be intergrated in Washington D.C. His high school basketball team had to travel all over the place to get games as the other schools in the area would not play against an integrated team.
He had suggested the Republican Party analyze David Dukes views and incorporate those “cultural” issues that were winners. His former employer, William Buckley had condemned him.>>>>
I think you made the first part of the above up. Pat certain was concerned about cultural issues, but he didn't need any advice from David Duke.
I think Buckley said that he had made some remarks that could possibly be constued to be anti-semite. Buckley said the same thing about Joseph Sobran and was wrong about him too. Plus I don't think Pat ever worked for National Revue.
No, I'm not sure how you get there. Since you bring the topic up,
Do you support segregation?
Do you support separate but equal?
Do you oppose the concept of equal opportunity [not results], on the basis that blacks and poor whites are doomed to lower IQ levels?
Are women less successful in business because they're not endowed with ambition and the will to succeed?
Keyes would be good :)>>>>
I still prefer Pat on economic issues.
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.
In fact, I would make the case that this woman's reaction to his speech was anti-semitic at its root. When someone gives a speech calling for a preservation of our culture against the secular, nihilistic forces of abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc., anyone who calls that speech "anti-semitic" obviously holds a very dim view of Jewish people.
About 2.2% of the population, though if you only count Jews who respond I'm Jewish the first time they're asked in a survey, it's about 1.3% There's no reason the Republican party needs to worry about that.
I take it from your comment you believe that Gulf War I was supported by no one other than American Jews and those nasty "Amen Corner" Christian dudes.
Regarding Gulf War 2, do you believe in the ZOG? Did they start it? Do Jews control the world, or just the US?
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.