Posted on 07/12/2004 7:52:29 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
McCain is pro-life? I have never even heard hints of that,could you provide anything to support that statement?
Frankly, most of the reaction of this speech is merely a pavlovian response to the mainstream media coverage of it.
That about sums it up.
I loved the speech. Unfortunately, Pat has shown himself to be a bigoted twit in recent years.
Back then, there was not even the slightest couterweight. Remember the hoopla about Bush, grocery scanners, and milk prices? Or the non-existant reporting about the recovering economy? Or when George Steponallus was allowed to sneak attack President Bush on the Larry King show through the "caller line"? Or when "60 Minutes" personally stepped in and allowed the Klintons to lie on their TV show, thus saving their campaign? Today at least there are other avenues in the media.
The similarities between the Bush haters and the Buchanan haters are remarkable. Their hatred for the man clouds their opinion of anything he says. Since there was nothing in his speech that was hateful, prople start attacking the person. Sound familiar?
I don't agree with much of what Buchanan believes, but he is an excellent speaker and that speech was inspiring.
Mind you, I was a libertarian at the time, so I probably was not the best candidate to recieve a Pat Buchanan speech favorably. I frankly thought he was all wet on a number of issues, and still feel that way today.
That said, even I, at the time could not figure out why the GOP ran as fast as they could from that speech. That only emboldened the media to keep slapping them with it.
Actually, I'm sure you wish it were that way; but for most of us, it's his WORDS and ACTTIONS that make us have such great distain for him.
And I don't hate Pat Buchanan. I openly mock him because he's such an opportunist. He'll go where the money takes him. And say whatever it takes to back it up.
Let it be known that I think Pat is self serving near kook and I am not a big fan of his.
I think IRAQ might very well be a third reason. Once the heady rush of proclaimed "victory" AND the need to "support our booys" was over and done with,there were many thoughtful people who chose not to vote for any of the candidates.
I don't particularly like him either. But, at the time of the 1992 speech, he hadn't yet become the opportunist he is now. That being said, there was nothing wrong with his speech at the 1992 convention.
Just think how horrible it would be to hear a talk against illegal immigration, homosexual practices, abortion, outsourcing American jobs, defending America interest war against AQ but keep America out of foreign interest wars in Kosovo, Kuwait, Korea, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Formosa, and 100 other places that want our troops and money for Globo Cop.
Agreed...I don't see how anyone else that calls themself conservative could read that speech any other way.
Yes, he had; he was already trying to split this party.
Unfortunately a political reality - perception (false or not) becomes reality.
I look at the nation as a house. It has a foundation,walls and a roof. Religion is the foundation,the culture provides the walls rising up from that foundation while the politics basically protect the foundation and the walls.
Our foundation is crumbling,the walls are creaking and bending and the roof is leaking.
The way I see it it doesn't much matter which contractor takes care of the roof for the next four years the house will collapse unless the foundation is shored up and the rotting walls rebuilt.
Yep, that's right. Pat was trying to keep the GOP conservative but the RINOs were in ascendancy and are now dominant.
Bush campaigning for Specter was the final straw. The convention speakers are anti-climatic.
As I sit here trying to remember what I liked about the speech, I realize it was because, frankly, it was the first time in 4 years I heard anybody loudly defend the Reagan record. Bush 1, to its shame, did not.
Thats undoubtedly why the press pounced on it.
It wasn’t the words in the speech, it was the speaker.
Though he’s padded his resume a bit since then, Hillary working for the Mossad, a second Jewish war, his association with Lenora Fulani, that type of stuff, essentially his views on Jews, blacks, women and homosexuals, as well as his affinity for fascists were well known by 1992. True, if you weren’t a member of those groups, or a hater of those groups, you probably weren’t aware of them. But plenty of people were.
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.
You’re right, he was an opportunist, the Republican Party didn’t follow his advice to, among other things, cherry pick David Duke’s platform for winning issues, so he left, in itself an act of admission that he didn’t belong on the podium in the first place.
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.