Remember Buchanan's convention speech in Houston?

[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.

[Alberta's Child]

Ross Perot was nothing more than a "populist" himself, and yet his campaign was very effective.

[evilC]

>>>
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 :>).

[Hollywoodghost]

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.

[giotto]

This speech...was probably the single biggest event in getting Clinton elected.

That's the way I remember it, too. It was raw steak for the sharks in the media and DNC.

[SJackson]

Ross Perot was nothing more than a "populist" himself, and yet his campaign was very effective.

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.

[SamAdams76]

Well the speech was given and the result was a Clinton/Gore landslide.

[Consort]

if we're going to have a decadent liberal society, might as well let Democrats run it.

Defeatist and disgusting. No wonder we can't get rid of the Democrats.

[SJackson]

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.

You must have misunderstood me. Whatever Jewish support Reagan might have developed Bush Sr. dealt with, he didn’t need Pat’s 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 don’t see any conflict (or necessarily similarity) between “blue collar” issues and “Jewish” issues. Don’t 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, it’s more of a values thing, at least in the case of GWB, he doesn’t 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 haven’t heard much before). My opinions about Pat are clear, I think he’s a bigot. I think Ron Paul’s a bit naïve when it comes to isolationism, that’s 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 :>).

You’re 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. I’m still here, get over it :>)

[mac_truck]

McCain is pro-life? I have never even heard hints of that,could you provide anything to support that statement?

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

[novacation]

Ahnold? You've got to be kidding. "Books! Zie childrens need zie Books!" "I want to be zie governor for all of zie peoples"

Brillant!

[cajungirl]

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.

[evilC]

>>>
Zio-cons is a stupid term (which I haven’t 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 :)


>>>
You’re still here.
<<<

And intend to stay.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

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?

[SJackson]

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 mean an accurate, non-offensive term, you can’t. Israel isn’t an issue sufficiently detatched from other issues, other than to those for whom the “controversy” relates to the faith of Israel’s residents. If you oppose foreign aid, that’s not an “Israel” issue. Oppose foreign wars, that’s not about Israel. Support the Egyptioan-Saudi alliance, that’s not about Israel, it’s pro Arab.

I agree you about neocon, it’s 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 I’ve alluded to Pat’s 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 it’s easy to verify), Pat wasn’t completely certain. Who did he suggest the administration look into the issue?

Irving Kristol. Go figure.

[mr.pink]

Next time leave England off the list. I believe he's on record as prefering immigration from England over Zulu's.

I remember that specific arguement, and while your very brief synopsis paints a picture of racial bigotry, his arguement was in fact one of culutural adaptability and speed of cultural assimilation. His arguement was framed relative to the non-assimilation of some recent immigrant groups and how it would bode badly for the furture of a cohesive nation.

The exact same truths of his arguement would hold just as well if the comparative groups involved were say...Jamaican blacks as opposed to Tibetans.

His arguement was also an indictment of an educational system that is deluded enough to think that herding spanish speaking youngsters into a spanish only educational environment is somehow benficial to both the students themselves...and the nation itself.

A mexican friend of mine, who immigrated to America at age 13 and speaking no english, thanks god every day that her family moved to a small town where she was thrown immediately into an english only school and forced to learn the language quickly. She's done rather well in life as a result and is smart enough to realize how limited her opportunities would have been if she had ended up in say, the enlightened and compassionate NYC system.

[mr.pink]

...I've alluded to Pat?s memos to Nixon regarding the infeasibility of integration given negros 15 point I-Q deficit.

Geez, you're making it sound like Buchanan ghost wrote "The Bell Curve" (some 30 years after the Nixon admin).

I can't recall the author's names, but I'm sure you could google up the identities of the men who ushered that scientific study to academia.

[Texas Federalist]

First of all, you are too quick to mistake disagreement with an attack on you. Second of all, an "ad hominem" statement means a statement about the person, which your statement that Buchanan was "pompous" and "hateful" was. I said nothing inaccurate.

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.

[Texas Federalist]

I fault his critics here not so much for disagreeing with him, but for employing the same smear & guilt by association tactics the Left uses to villify without having to bother with intelligent debate.

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.

[Texas Federalist]

Well the speech was given and the result was a Clinton/Gore landslide.

Perhaps you might try to come up with some factual support for the statement that the Buchanan speech "caused" the Clinton landslide.

[k2blader]

a satin worshiper

Beats corduroy.