PING: Georgians

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Man, Senator Zell Miller (D)-GA really wants to retire with a bang, huh? The only word I have for his speech tonight is..Damn! This speech is harsh - even for me.

What I really want to know is - what do Georgians think about Zell Miller?

[larrymcg421]

Georgians as a whole love Zell Miller and always will. I used to respect him despite his politics, but now I think he's gone off the deep end.

[Joe]

he is great. I had the chance to meet him while in Washington, DC in January for CPAC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I love the guy, particularly his use of descriptive language. I've probably borrowed more expressions and quotes from him in the past year or so than any other political figure. Growing up in the same general area, his phrasing is very comfortable to me I guess, his choice of words just ... fits.

Unfortunately I missed tonight's speech (had a birthday dinner to attend), but I'm looking forward to the transcript. To be honest, it was really the only part of the convention I was looking forward to

As a former Dem., he speaks to many of my concerns & does quite a bit to explain why I'm a "former".

{edit} right after posting this, I found a transcript. Presuming what the AJC has posted in the whole thing (and it appears to be), I'm very surprised to see you describe the speech as "harsh" -- I'm actually surprised that it was as mild as it was, not to mention as short as it was. The speech stops quite a ways short of the broader criticisms levied so magnificiently in his recent book, and although I think he did a fine job of summing up Bush v Kerry tonight, I'm a little disappointed at first blush that he didn't expand his remarks to other points.

[Eaglesfan27]

I thought it was very clever how he reframed a weakness of Bush as a positive "He may not be a smooth talker, but he is a straight shooter" (I may be incorrectly remembering the exact wording of the line)

Edited to add: I thought his speech as a whole was excellent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I thought it was very clever how he reframed a weakness of Bush as a positive "He may not be a smooth talker, but he is a straight shooter" (I may be incorrectly remembering the exact wording of the line)

Edited to add: I thought his speech as a whole was excellent.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Thanks for the perspective guys!

JIMGA, you missed one hell of a speech. It was short, sweet, and to the point (a rather sharp point). He was pissed off, and he let everyone know it.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, he could've just moved to the Republican Party if that's where he felt more comfortable, since he obviously is, but hell, that wouldn't sell as many books.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Well, he could've just moved to the Republican Party if that's where he felt more comfortable, since he obviously is, but hell, that wouldn't sell as many books.

Good to see you got Terry McAuliffe's talking points memo.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

Yeah, that was the quote. I thought the whole speech was good, but that part was great IMHO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Well, he could've just moved to the Republican Party if that's where he felt more comfortable, since he obviously is, but hell, that wouldn't sell as many books.

Oddly, since I made a different choice, I still think I sort of understand why Miller didn't. I'm just not sure if I can explain it while typing nearly as well as I could by talking.

The difference, I believe, is time -- in simplest terms, he's got a greater investment in the Democratic Party than I ever did.

Although I believe his efforts will ultimately be unsuccessful, he can't quite bring himself to write off completely something he has invested so much of his life in. I wrestled with the same thing, but with less than half his lifetime investment & a much much much smaller fraction of his "sweat equity", I ultimately recognized the situation for what I believe it is -- hopeless.

I choose to fight them tooth & nail from without ... but I believe I can understand why he chooses to fight them from within.

[Flasch186]

hey i supported the other guy's decision to switch parties, and deal with all the grief he got and is going to get. That i'll respect and pat him on the back for following his convictions.

This guy (Miller) has voted republican on most everything, so in that case why shouldn't I follow the same line of thought, not be hypocritical and say I dont agree with that. WELL, I dont. You should say what you believe and if that means declaring a party affiliation then you should declare for the party that suits you. Talk about a monumental flip - flop, just a little while ago he was denouncing the republicans (a while being 12 or so years ago). Now, he can make the argument that it is not he who has flip flopped, that it is the party itself that flip flopped as a whole. At least that argument, is unarguable, you cant debate that cuz its his opinion, and as we all know opinions cannot be wrong....just different.

****I will state that I am making the above comment upon very little information or specifics, just the bits Ive read the past few hours.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, it is a bit silly to say that the Democrats left him behind in 12 years when he was bashing George Bush, Sr., in the 1992 Convention. I mean 4 years before that Dukakis was the Dem nominee and before that it was Mondale. The Dems of 2004 are no more left leaning than Mondale was.

Though he was elected as a Democrat and I do respect him for keeping the party the people elected him as (and thus voting for Democrats for Senate leadership... which I believe he pretty much does, and thus is the only reason he has some decent Senate positions).

[ISiddiqui]

I wonder what happened in 3 years .

http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm

Introduction of Senator John Kerry

Democratic Party of Georgia's
Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

March 1, 2001

It is good to be back in Georgia and to be with you. I have been coming to these dinners since the 1950s, and have missed very few.

I'm proud to be Georgia's junior senator and I'm honored to serve with Max Cleland, who is as loved and respected as anyone in that body. One of our very highest priorities must be to make sure this man is re-elected in 2002 so he can continue to serve this state and nation.

I continue to be impressed with all that Governor Barnes and Lieutenant Governor Taylor and the Speaker and the General Assembly are getting done over at the Gold Dome. Georgia is fortunate to have this kind of leadership.

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."

John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.

As many of you know, I have great affection – some might say an obsession – for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know … Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry.

Oh my God! FLIP FLOPPER!

[Crapshoot]

Miller is a Republican- lets call a spade a spade. Why he doesnt just switch affiliations I dont know- they want to note that they have a Democrat speaking at the convention ?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well yeah Jon, the guy only voted with the Party about 15-20% of the time in his last term from what I've read. That's a sign you don't fit in the party anymore. But of course, the Democrat's are never going to turn into what you or Zell wants, as much as Nader wants to crow about that, their are differences between the parties.

Probably not as much as even in 1985 or 1975, but the funny thing is, that as the parties have both moved to the center publically, the fighting has just gotten more underhanded and low. Of course, we can thank Lee Atwater and 24 hour news partly for that. I mean, I'm a liberal. I'm proud to be that. But, twenty-thirty years ago, a conservatives and liberals could work things out in Congress.

Now, thanks to Gerrymandering and such, every incumbant is basically safe (96% of House races were won by the incumbant in 2000.) So, they can say whatever they want because a). they won't lose and b). even if their party won't be behind them, you can be damn sure some private organization.

Now, I know Libretarians are against this, but wouldn't it be alot simpler if we just gave each side 100 million in say, June and said have fun and leave it to that? I mean, it seems to have worked in other 1st World counties where elections are public financed. OK, now I'm rambling...

[sooner333]

Anyone catch the Chris Matthews interview after the night was over. Simply great TV. Matthews kept interrupting him, then Miller said he wished he lived in a time where he could challenge him to a dual.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Miller is a Republican- lets call a spade a spade. Why he doesnt just switch affiliations I dont know- they want to note that they have a Democrat speaking at the convention ?

When does Arlen Specter speak?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Yes, somebody disagrees with your views, so they're a of course, a Democrat in reality. Specter still votes with the party a whole hell of a lot more than Miller has, at least in this cycle anyway. In fact, he's probably moved farther to the right than you'd think since Santorum got elected and he had to deal with Toomey this year.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Isid, good post. I think it is clear someone pissed in his coffee at some point in the last 3 years. Sooners, that was probably one of the best Hardball moments of all time.

Not being from Georgia or knowing much about the guy, what I saw in his speech and on Hardball was a very angry (and somewhat crazed) man, who took some liberties with his speech. But I will say he showed some emotion at least.

Cheney looked like he was speaking to a half empty rotary club meeting. The text was good, but the delivery was not inspiring. And stopping for applause after each 8-word sentence got to be a little annoying after a while.

[Swaggs]

Wow! Ol' Zell sounds like he is almost... what is the phrase I am looking for?

Flip-flopping!

[stevew]

Okay, so i guess that Miller is really a republican, and Specter is just a republican that i dont agree with.

[Tekneek]

I caught a good bit of the speech, and while I don't agree with all of his points, it was the best Convention speech I've ever witnessed. I was locked in until he finished. Unlike most speeches, he kept coming back with big hits.

Zell Miller has been a Democrat his whole life. He should change just because party leadership doesn't like him anymore? He should change just because he doesn't fit into everyone's perception of what a Democrat is supposed to be? That's not a very convincing argument to me. Stop looking at the party labels and start looking at the individuals.

[Ben E Lou]

FWIW, I've wondered for quite some time how guys like Sam Nunn and Zell Miller could fall in step with the more liberal democrats, because they are *so* far apart. I've always just written it off as typical slutty sell-your-soul-for-votes partisan politics (like the Repubs putting the moderates on stage at this convention, the Democrats nominating the #1 and #4 liberals yet trying to act like moderates at the convention, etc...)

Zell Miller saying those things about Kerry in the past was Zell The Politician. I think what we saw last night was Zell, The Old Guy Who Is Retiring From Politics And Now Can Say What He *Really* Thinks. To be honest, I don't necessarily have more respect for him because of "sticking to his guns" now. I think he's been closer politically to being a Republican than a Democrat for quite some time; it's just that now he can say it because he's no longer running for re-election.

[JPhillips]

Conservative Andrew Sullivan nicely describes Zell and his speech:

THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following:
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.

OPPONENTS OR ENEMIES?: Here's another slur:
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear. Miller has absolutely every right to lambaste John Kerry's record on defense in the Senate. It's ripe for criticism, and, for my part, I disagree with almost all of it (and as a pro-Reagan, pro-Contra, pro-SDI, pro-Gulf War conservative, I find Kerry's record deeply troubling). But that doesn't mean he's a traitor or hates America's troops or believes that the U.S. is responsible for global terror. And the attempt to say so is a despicable attempt to smear someone's very patriotism.

THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country. Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals. What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.

[GrantDawg]

Give'm 'ell Zell!

[Ben E Lou]

http://www.wcnc.com/cgi-bin/bi/video...0104miller.wmv

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Conservative Andrew Sullivan nicely describes Zell and his speech:

You really think so? I think he totally missed it on all points. I especially like the "the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses " part, when it was the Democratic convention that did everything but march in goosesteps to show how strongly pro-military they were.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Conservative Andrew Sullivan nicely describes Zell and his speech:

THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following:
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.

OPPONENTS OR ENEMIES?: Here's another slur:
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear. Miller has absolutely every right to lambaste John Kerry's record on defense in the Senate. It's ripe for criticism, and, for my part, I disagree with almost all of it (and as a pro-Reagan, pro-Contra, pro-SDI, pro-Gulf War conservative, I find Kerry's record deeply troubling). But that doesn't mean he's a traitor or hates America's troops or believes that the U.S. is responsible for global terror. And the attempt to say so is a despicable attempt to smear someone's very patriotism.

THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country. Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals. What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.

This guy sounds like a weenie to me.

[JasonC23]

Zell did a great job of summing up most of the reasons I won't be voting for Bush. Thanks, Zell!

[Flasch186]

So apparently his speech 3 years ago about Kerry was full of praise and lauding. What happened in the past three years that he didnt know about before? So he was either lying then or he's lying now. Either way i dont care, a lie is a lie. If he's republican in his tendencies then he should be a republican, if not so be it. Honesty isthe key here for me. Like the new swift boat ads that have Kerry's quotes, "They chopped off ears, they fired into civilians....", well its been proven that there were cases of this happening....that is documented. Sure not everyone did it, but he wasnt lying when he said that some of it occurred. Shoot, I think its good when a whistle blower shows up....like the new Halliburton internal investigation that shows that when Cheney was CEO theyre were internal discussions about bribing Nigerians to get bids there. Nothing implicates him but I feel the same way about that as i do the abu gharaib stuff, Cheney is indirectly responsible and accountable for everything when he is the CEO of a company.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So apparently his speech 3 years ago about Kerry was full of praise and lauding. What happened in the past three years that he didnt know about before?

{Points upward}

Originally Posted by SkyDog, a few posts ago.

Zell Miller saying those things about Kerry in the past was Zell The Politician. I think what we saw last night was Zell, The Old Guy Who Is Retiring From Politics And Now Can Say What He *Really* Thinks. To be honest, I don't necessarily have more respect for him because of "sticking to his guns" now. I think he's been closer politically to being a Republican than a Democrat for quite some time; it's just that now he can say it because he's no longer running for re-election.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So apparently his speech 3 years ago about Kerry was full of praise and lauding. What happened in the past three years that he didnt know about before?

Look at the date on his speech. March 11, 2001. Perhaps something happened six months later that might have made him change the way he looked at his life and his party?

Not that I know for sure, but for many people September 11 made them think about life a little differently. Certainly it could have made someone change their minds about their political party.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So apparently his speech 3 years ago about Kerry was full of praise and lauding. What happened in the past three years that he didnt know about before?

I'm with SkyDog on this. As a member of the DNC, Miller was expected to support guys like Kerry or lose his committee seats. He was just playing politics. Now, that he's retiring, he is a little freer to say what's on his mind. It's like comparing what someone says in an exit interview after taking another job with what they said during company meetings.

Miller has also said that he doesn't want to leave the democratic party as he wants to try and pull the party back to the JFK days and not just leave it for dead as being run by the liberal fringe. I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell, but I guess I could see this line of argument given the time he has given the party.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oddly, since I made a different choice, I still think I sort of understand why Miller didn't. I'm just not sure if I can explain it while typing nearly as well as I could by talking.

The difference, I believe, is time -- in simplest terms, he's got a greater investment in the Democratic Party than I ever did.

Although I believe his efforts will ultimately be unsuccessful, he can't quite bring himself to write off completely something he has invested so much of his life in. I wrestled with the same thing, but with less than half his lifetime investment & a much much much smaller fraction of his "sweat equity", I ultimately recognized the situation for what I believe it is -- hopeless.

I choose to fight them tooth & nail from without ... but I believe I can understand why he chooses to fight them from within.

Jon,this would be the same Zell Miller who supported segregation ? Im not a democrat, but Im damn glad the party made the decision to abandon that ridiuclous stance. To defend Zell Miller and some of that crap would be interesting- your take ?

[Crapshoot]

Im curious how anyone can possibly vote for candidates that actively supported segregation in the past- doesnt that show them for what they are ?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Im curious how anyone can possibly vote for candidates that actively supported segregation in the past- doesnt that show them for what they are ?

Then you can't vote for a bunch of southern democrats in congress, starting with Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings. I think you will see most of these types retiring soon on both ends, and even their statements have changed drastically in the past 20 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Aadik

doesnt that show them for what they are ?

Umm ... you mean "political realists"?

{Read any number of biographies of prominent Southern politicians from, say,
the 40's through the 60's and you'll see what I mean.}

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Im curious how anyone can possibly vote for candidates that actively supported segregation in the past- doesnt that show them for what they are ?

I think that would depend on whether the candidate has truly changed their stance on the issue, and what the candidate has done since then in support of their new stance. IMHO, that shows them for what they really are. Do they play lip service to this change in thinking, or do their actions show they really have changed their way of thinking.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then you can't vote for a bunch of southern democrats in congress, starting with Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings. I think you will see most of these types retiring soon on both ends, and even their statements have changed drastically in the past 20 years.

I agree completely- your reason for supporting the likes of Miller then ?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Look at the date on his speech. March 11, 2001. Perhaps something happened six months later that might have made him change the way he looked at his life and his party?

Not that I know for sure, but for many people September 11 made them think about life a little differently. Certainly it could have made someone change their minds about their political party.

then he should change his political party and i would have the utmost respect for that, like i did the other guy who switched party affiliations. I am not a fan of saying stuff that you dont believe cuz it best suits your needs, as a matter of fact, its the antethesis of what i believe in. You have to say what you believe or else you are just a shell of a person and in my view open to being polluted, either by coercion, bribery, etc. Convictions is the key, stand for them, even if it means flip flopping.....selling out is inexcusable to me.

[miked]

Taking cheap shots at somebody you've promoted and defended on your way out is a crappy, not somebody "who feels like finally speaking his mind" or whatever he wants to say. He's a complete ass for turning on his party in that manner and for implying that people who don't support the actions of our president are traitors and putting his family at risk.

I seem to remember back in 2000 when W was running for office, somebody asked him in a debate what he felt about the state of our military...and he said something along the lines of "the purpose of our military isn't nation-building" or something like that. I'm tired of people trying to scare me into voting...I dislike Kerry, but I hate being told if I don't agree with the actions of our leader, who IS accountable to the people, I'm some sort of commie traitor.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Im curious how anyone can possibly vote for candidates that actively supported segregation in the past- doesnt that show them for what they are ?

Aadik:

Far too often, the politican asks himself not "What position is right?" but "What position is most politically expedient?"

Again, I stand by the same statement that I repeated about Zell The Politican, and it applies not just to him, but to the vast majority of those on both sides of the aisle. Again, recall the tough-talkin' military-swaggerin' DNC, and the moderates-on-stage RNC that this country has witnessed recently. For most, it is about acquiring and maintaining political power, not representing one's convictions.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... you mean "political realists"?

{Read any number of biographies of prominent Southern politicians from, say,
the 40's through the 60's and you'll see what I mean.}

That may be so, but political realists who campaigned against equal rights based on race dont get too many plaudits in my book. this is one of the things that differentiated Miller from the Democrats back in the late 60's early 70;s- and he deserves some degree of respect ? I hold some sort of standards for people- this was a man who as an elected senator, campaigned against letting black people have equal rights- political realist yes, but there are some things that are absolutely ridiculous.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

selling out is inexcusable to me.

I would venture a guess that there are VERY few, if any, who have been elected to the higher levels of government without selling out a GOOD bit.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I think that would depend on whether the candidate has truly changed their stance on the issue, and what the candidate has done since then in support of their new stance. IMHO, that shows them for what they really are. Do they play lip service to this change in thinking, or do their actions show they really have changed their way of thinking.

Farrah,
do you believe that Miller had some sort of revelation, or that it was a matter of convenience to him ? Im akin to believe that a politician early on shows his true colors, and then later becomes more adept at playing the game- you're still supporting a former segregationist.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Aadik:

Far too often, the politican asks himself not "What position is right?" but "What position is most politically expedient?"

Again, I stand by the same statement that I repeated about Zell The Politican, and it applies not just to him, but to the vast majority of those on both sides of the aisle. Again, recall the tough-talkin' military-swaggerin' DNC, and the moderates-on-stage RNC that this country has witnessed recently. For most, it is about acquiring and maintaining political power, not representing one's convictions.

Ben, no arguement on that. All Im saying is that at some point, I dont believe that political convenience is a justification for supporting vile crap like segregation- and Im amazed at the free passes that people like Miller get on it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I would venture a guess that there are VERY few, if any, who have been elected to the higher levels of government without selling out a GOOD bit.

not a fan, i am....thats crap......If you dont speak your mind and let your constituents know exactly what you stand for then you are not truly a representative of those people and thus you are simply trying to get paychecks and best keep your job. thats crap and his speech to me is a load of BS. I respected arnold's speech cuz it seemed to me that he was coming from the heart. If Im wrong then shame on me, but thats how i feel/felt.

[chinaski]

Zells a prick, the ballyhooed line "we need someone who doesnt see us occupiers, but as liberators!!!!!" What a load of shit, Kerry has never said anything remotely near that our forces are occupiers.

More of the constant spin from republicans, just like how they take Kerrys' "sensitive war on terror" line as him saying "we should coddle terrorists". jackasses. everyone else knows what he meant by it, in the context of that speech it was beyond clear.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Farrah,
do you believe that Miller had some sort of revelation, or that it was a matter of convenience to him ? Im akin to believe that a politician early on shows his true colors, and then later becomes more adept at playing the game- you're still supporting a former segregationist.

So you support the same issues and hold the same positions and opinions as you did when you were thirty or forty years younger? I doubt it. (I don't think you're that old, but you get my point. ) There has to be some allowance for change - either through personal experiences, debates or discussion and personal growth. We all go through it.

I don't know if Miller had some sort of revelation. I certainly don't remember him speaking about one in any interviews or what not. But I do think people can change their minds on what position they take on an issue, and politicians are no exception. I don't think all politicians play "the game". I think there are some (a few) that genuinely go to DC to try to make a difference. And when they are exposed to different opinions or perspectives might change their position.

I also think that the electorate is smart enough to see right through politicians who present themselves as one thing, without truly believing it. I don't think Miller would have had such a long career if he still believed in segregation.