PING: Georgians

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Man, Senator Zell Miller (D)-GA really wants to retire with a bang, huh? :eek: 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

:rolleyes: 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/makeadplaylist.pl?title=www.kgw.com/090104miller.wmv

[GrantDawg]

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]

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]

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}

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Flasch186]

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.




Pardon me but isnt that exactly what theyre holding Kerry's feet to the fire on? So Zell "flip flopped"...im fine with it, I just think he should change parties so that it isn't deceiving. Remember all along, Ive said that i thought flip flopping can be a good thing, ie. his and many's stance(s) on segregation.....good that they flip flopped on that.

[Buzzbee]

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).

A little point of clarification for those who aren't in the know. Zell Miller was NOT, I repeat NOT elected as a democrat!!


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.


Hmmm...he hasn't voted with the party very often. Perhaps that's because the constituents he represent elected a REPUBLICAN senator. That's right. Zell Miller's constituents are decidedly republican.

How can that be? Zell Miller is a Democrat. A member of the Democratic party. Is a Democratic former Governor of Georgia. What do you mean Zell Miller wasn't elected as a Democrat? What do you mean his constituents are a majority Republican?

Remeber Paul Coverdell? The REPUBLICAN Senator from Georgia? The one who died of a stroke in 2000? He was replaced by Zell Miller. Not elected. Appointed. Appointed by Democratic governor Roy Barnes.

Even when Miller was Governor he earned the nickname "Zig Zag Zell" because he didn't always follow the Democratic party's ideals. Nothing has changed. I agree with SkyDog's analysis that Zell was being a "good Democrat" in his comments regarding Kerry, but that now that he is retiring is able to speak his mind without having to conform to a party platform.

He has 5 months before he retires. He has stated that he wants to go out as he came in, a Democrat. After 40+ years of political life as a Democrat, if he chooses not to switch to the Republican party for the last 5 months, I give him that prerogative. Also, to those making comments regarding "calling a spade a spade" I agree. Zell has been a Democrat, and has voted and governed as a Democrat for over 40 years. While recently he has sided more with the Republicans, I still have no problem considering him a Democrat. But that's just me.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Pardon me but isnt that exactly what theyre holding Kerry's feet to the fire on? So Zell "flip flopped"...im fine with it, I just think he should change parties so that it isn't deceiving. Remember all along, Ive said that i thought flip flopping can be a good thing, ie. his and many's stance(s) on segregation.....good that they flip flopped on that.

Ahh....I wondered when someone was going to bring this up. I direct you to my first post about this issue:

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.

What has John Kerry DONE to support his new position on the military? Or his new position on intelligence spending? Or his new position on how life begins at conception? Nothing except talk. Lip service. Hot air.That tells me he hasn't changed anything.

[chinaski]

What has John Kerry DONE to support his new position on the military? Or his new position on intelligence spending? Or his new position on how life begins at conception? Nothing except talk. Lip service. Hot air.That tells me he hasn't changed anything.

Look up every single vote Kerry has made involving military/intelligence spending, and youll see many, MANY familiar REPUBLICAN (Ashcroft, McCain, Specter) names voting exactly the same way as Kerry. McCain has voted the same way as Kerry countless number of times in regards of Military/Intel spending. uh oh!

You should really stop getting your 'facts' from RNC talking points.

This will get you started..
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00206

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Look up every single vote Kerry has made involving military/intelligence spending, and youll see many, MANY familiar REPUBLICAN (Ashcroft, McCain, Specter) names voting exactly the same way as Kerry. McCain has voted the same way as Kerry countless number of times in regards of Military/Intel spending. uh oh!

You should really stop getting your 'facts' from RNC talking points.

This will get you started..
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00206

I was asked about Kerry. Not Ashcroft, McCain, or Specter.

Thanks for paying attention.

Edit - In case you were wondering, I am not a fan of either of those three. In fact, I am actually considering challenging McCain for his seat.

[Glengoyne]

More of the constant spin ... jackasses. everyone else knows what he meant by it, in the context of that speech it was beyond clear.I remember saying that about Trent Lott's statements at Strom Thurmond's Birthday. In that case it was Democrat spin artists makins something out of nothing.


Regarding Zell Miller and segregation. I'd say it's ancient history. The country is not the same country, and Zell is not the same man.

I haven't read the transcript of the speech, but I have long liked Z. Miller. I felt that he often stood up and separated himself from the Democratic party, when he felt he had to.

I don't buy the arguments, that he SHOULD have changed parties. He's been a democrat a long time, and the party has changed more than him. The Democratic party has gone WAY to the left in the last twenty years. If you don't think so, take another look at Nancy Pelosi.

I think I would have rather he just go quietly into retirement, than actively take shots at his party's candidate, but if the party leadership has been rough on him in recent years, then I can see understand him striking back.

[Franklinnoble]

I was asked about Kerry. Not Ashcroft, McCain, or Specter.

Thanks for paying attention.

Edit - In case you were wondering, I am not a fan of either of those three. In fact, I am actually considering challenging McCain for his seat.
That would be pretty sweet. :D

If I still lived in AZ, I'd vote for you. McCain is a crook. He married into the biggest organized crime family in the state of Arizona for a reason.

[chinaski]

I was asked about Kerry. Not Ashcroft, McCain, or Specter.

Thanks for paying attention.

Edit - In case you were wondering, I am not a fan of either of those three. In fact, I am actually considering challenging McCain for his seat.

But look at the votes and the situation of the country at that time. You cant even fathom why dems and repubs would vote to cut military spending during the early 90's?

Why would you look at someones decade old vote and think thats what theyre going to do in a completely different world situation?

[Glengoyne]

...
Edit - In case you were wondering, I am not a fan of either of those three. In fact, I am actually considering challenging McCain for his seat.

I wish you better luck than the guy they put up against Specter.

Well actually I can't, because I think McCain represents the best things the Republican party has to offer.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

But look at the votes and the situation of the country at that time. You cant even fathom why dems and repubs would vote to cut military spending during the early 90's?

Why would you look at someones decade old vote and think thats what theyre going to do in a completely different world situation?

Of course I can fathom - they were trying to balance a budget. I'm doing that right now with my personal income. It means I have to make tough choices, as those gentlemen did. I just disagree with their decisions and choices when it came to cutting the military, or voting not to increase spending (not necessarily a cut in spending, but just not increasing the spending at the rate of inflation).

I don't have to look at a decade old vote - we can look to the past four years. Let's look at Senate Bill 1689, the infamous $87 billion for Iraq. I have yet to hear a reason for why Kerry voted against it. $65 billion of that was for troop funding in the theater of operations - why would he vote no if he supports the troops? It's not a trick question or anything, I genuinely want to know.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I wish you better luck than the guy they put up against Specter.

Well actually I can't, because I think McCain represents the best things the Republican party has to offer.

Thanks, I think. :p

[miked]

Of course I can fathom - they were trying to balance a budget. I'm doing that right now with my personal income. It means I have to make tough choices, as those gentlemen did. I just disagree with their decisions and choices when it came to cutting the military, or voting not to increase spending (not necessarily a cut in spending, but just not increasing the spending at the rate of inflation).

I don't have to look at a decade old vote - we can look to the past four years. Let's look at Senate Bill 1689, the infamous $87 billion for Iraq. I have yet to hear a reason for why Kerry voted against it. $65 billion of that was for troop funding in the theater of operations - why would he vote no if he supports the troops? It's not a trick question or anything, I genuinely want to know.

I believe the first bill made no specifications about where the money would go. It was sort of an open-ended, blank check sort of thing. Most voted against it and lamented that they wanted to send money to the troops, but the bill had no accountability and a bunch of it was being earmarked for other foreign policy things. Also, the original bill was written so as not to be a loan, which would mean we break the promise to have Iraqis pay us back for some things. Just trying to go on memory, but I believe the sticking point was it was an open 87B and the majority (remember it wasn't just defeated by democrats) wanted some specifics about where the money was headed.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I believe the first bill made no specifications about where the money would go. It was sort of an open-ended, blank check sort of thing. Most voted against it and lamented that they wanted to send money to the troops, but the bill had no accountability and a bunch of it was being earmarked for other foreign policy things. Also, the original bill was written so as not to be a loan, which would mean we break the promise to have Iraqis pay us back for some things. Just trying to go on memory, but I believe the sticking point was it was an open 87B and the majority (remember it wasn't just defeated by democrats) wanted some specifics about where the money was headed.

The final bill he voted 'Nay' on had plenty of detail. The funds were broken down by military sector, and what the funds were to be used for.

For example, Senate Bill 1689 included "additional amount for `Aircraft Procurement, Navy', $128,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006" and "For an additional amount for `Military Construction, Army', $119,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That such funds may be obligated and expended to carry out military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law." Link To Bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1689:)

That's pretty detailed. There's even a section about war profiteering, and a section requiring reports on progress and spending to be submitted to congress.

[Flasch186]

I have a problem with all of this stuff, period, cuz were running on credit. During almost every other time of war the american people have been asked ot sacrifice and so have the business community. We should pay more in taxes, whatwever that may be, temporary nat'l. sales tax, or close some of the loopholes in the capital gains tax laws, but regardless.....we need to recoup some of the money were spending....cuz as Ive said before, eventually, we have to pay it back.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have a problem with all of this stuff, period, cuz were running on credit. During almost every other time of war the american people have been asked ot sacrifice and so have the business community. We should pay more in taxes, whatwever that may be, temporary nat'l. sales tax, or close some of the loopholes in the capital gains tax laws, but regardless.....we need to recoup some of the money were spending....cuz as Ive said before, eventually, we have to pay it back.

Or we could just stop throwing so damned much money down increasingly dry holes such as some welfare programs, public education, and foreign aid.

[Ksyrup]

I have a problem with all of this stuff, period, cuz were running on credit. During almost every other time of war the american people have been asked ot sacrifice and so have the business community. We should pay more in taxes, whatwever that may be, temporary nat'l. sales tax, or close some of the loopholes in the capital gains tax laws, but regardless.....we need to recoup some of the money were spending....cuz as Ive said before, eventually, we have to pay it back.
Instead of "tax more," how about "spend less" on other programs?

On that point, I agree. Bush has not been a good conservative. I think he had it in his mind to give the tax cut, and while 9/11 should have changed his priorities, it didn't. He kept the tax cut and didn't do anything to descrease spending, and when we heaped the unforeseen costs of the war and security on top, things got out of control.

But again, your immediate reaction of "tax more" is precisely why I'm sticking with Bush.

[Flasch186]

i dont want to diverge fromt he topic, but you cannot cut programs overnight....you can examine and reorganize but you cannot pull the rug out from programs without, LITERALLY, killing some of your fellow citizens.

[JonInMiddleGA]

i dont want to diverge fromt he topic, but you cannot cut programs overnight....you can examine and reorganize but you cannot pull the rug out from programs without, LITERALLY, killing some of your fellow citizens.

Hmm ... if you give me a choice between that & additional taxation ...

[Ksyrup]

Flasch has a new take on the old line - now it's "Give me taxes or give them death!"

[Buzzbee]

i dont want to diverge fromt he topic, but you cannot cut programs overnight....you can examine and reorganize but you cannot pull the rug out from programs without, LITERALLY, killing some of your fellow citizens.

I am QUITE confident there are programs that could be cut, overnight, that would not LITERALLY kill fellow citizens.

[Ksyrup]

I am QUITE confident there are programs that could be cut, overnight, that would not LITERALLY kill fellow citizens.
Yes, but could those programs be cut LITERALLY overnight?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yes, but could those programs be cut LITERALLY overnight?
I bet FedEx could do it
:D

[VPI97]

In response to the thread's original question (before the derailment) - this Georgian thinks that Zell Miller is one cool cat.

[Franklinnoble]

In response to the thread's original question (before the derailment) - this Georgian thinks that Zell Miller is one cool cat.
I agree. I think the Democrats should have nominated him for president.

[BishopMVP]

I don't have sources in front of me, but I'm pretty sure Miller spent a good deal of political capital and effort to remove the confederate emblem from the Georgia state flag, an unpopular move. Also, if he was so bad in the 60's, why was he chosen to give the keynote speech at the DNC convention in 1992?

And for Kerry's record on defense, you can look at his positions when he ran for Senate in 1984 (before the Cold War ended) (and yes, I know it's a biased site) hxxp://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/kerry84memo.htm

[Glengoyne]

Thanks, I think.
Perfect!

That was exactly the sentiment I was trying to convey.:)

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I have a problem with all of this stuff, period, cuz were running on credit. During almost every other time of war the american people have been asked ot sacrifice and so have the business community. We should pay more in taxes, whatwever that may be, temporary nat'l. sales tax, or close some of the loopholes in the capital gains tax laws, but regardless.....we need to recoup some of the money were spending....cuz as Ive said before, eventually, we have to pay it back.

I see your point, but of course I disagree ;).

I look at it this way...since I'm working on my personal budgeting right now. I have two jobs, and work pretty much all the time (suppossed to be working right now actually :D ). Both incomes are fixed at X amount a month. I have many expenses right now including housing and cars, but legal fees being the most important. My attorneys bill at $350 an hour. But the situation being what it is currently, my professional reputaion and the control over significant intellectual property depend on them. It's the most important expense that has to be paid. So, I look at my other expenses and make cuts. I determine what I can live without. I cut my lunch allowance in half and bring lunch more, I rent movies instead of going out. I turn the thermostat up three degrees (when its 110, its a big sacrifice). I don't have the option of increasing the income side of the equation, so I make the tough choices.

I think raising taxes has become the easy way out for politicians. They don't have to take risks of making a decision on what is really vital to the nation and what is just pork. Instead of being attacked for cutting this program and that program, they only have to deal with being attacked for raising taxes. An attack that can easily be fended off.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty sure Miller spent a good deal of political capital and effort to remove the confederate emblem from the Georgia state flag, an unpopular move.

And you would be correct. It's the one thing I've never completely forgiven from his career.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Dola - sorry for continuing the thread jack.

Zell's been making the rounds today. He hasn't calmed down at all. If anything I think he's more fired up.

[Flasch186]

I see your point, but of course I disagree ;).

I look at it this way...since I'm working on my personal budgeting right now. I have two jobs, and work pretty much all the time (suppossed to be working right now actually :D ). Both incomes are fixed at X amount a month. I have many expenses right now including housing and cars, but legal fees being the most important. My attorneys bill at $350 an hour. But the situation being what it is currently, my professional reputaion and the control over significant intellectual property depend on them. It's the most important expense that has to be paid. So, I look at my other expenses and make cuts. I determine what I can live without. I cut my lunch allowance in half and bring lunch more, I rent movies instead of going out. I turn the thermostat up three degrees (when its 110, its a big sacrifice). I don't have the option of increasing the income side of the equation, so I make the tough choices.

I think raising taxes has become the easy way out for politicians. They don't have to take risks of making a decision on what is really vital to the nation and what is just pork. Instead of being attacked for cutting this program and that program, they only have to deal with being attacked for raising taxes. An attack that can easily be fended off.


what would you do to your budgeting if you now got involved in say, a lengthy war!! You might have to pick up a 3rd job, since evrything else cannot be adjusted anymore then it already is eSPECIALLY overnight. Hence my point.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

what would you do to your budgeting if you now got involved in say, a lengthy war!! You might have to pick up a 3rd job, since evrything else cannot be adjusted anymore then it already is eSPECIALLY overnight. Hence my point.

Did I not just say there are lawyers involved? I am involved in a lengthy war.

[BishopMVP]

what would you do to your budgeting if you now got involved in say, a lengthy war!!It's not Iraq that's giving us huge future deficits. It's Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But no politician of either party will touch either of those for at least 10-15 years (maybe SS.)

[Glengoyne]

I agree. I think the Democrats should have nominated him for president.
I would be gladly voting with the vast majority of Californians to send W packing.

[Dutch]

Look up every single vote Kerry has made involving military/intelligence spending, and youll see many, MANY familiar REPUBLICAN (Ashcroft, McCain, Specter) names voting exactly the same way as Kerry. McCain has voted the same way as Kerry countless number of times in regards of Military/Intel spending. uh oh!

You should really stop getting your 'facts' from RNC talking points.

This will get you started..
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00206

Hey, look, Kerry and McCain have voted the same way 50% of the time. When Kerry Flipped they agreed, when Kerry Flopped, the didn't! Amazing! :D

[ISiddiqui]

Remeber Paul Coverdell? The REPUBLICAN Senator from Georgia? The one who died of a stroke in 2000? He was replaced by Zell Miller. Not elected. Appointed. Appointed by Democratic governor Roy Barnes.

Um.. I don't know if you know how things work when a Senator dies. What happens is that it is a special appointment made only until the next national election (so at most 2 years). Zell, who thought a Republican should replace Coverdell, was appointed by Governor Roy Barnes. In the next election he RAN for office and won. Remember when Jean Carnahan (widow of Mel Carnahan who died right before the 2000 election) lost her reelection in 2002? Senators don't have 2 year terms, only those who have replaced other Senators would have such a short term.

The Democratic party has gone WAY to the left in the last twenty years. If you don't think so, take another look at Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi is that much further to the left that Hubert Humphery? Ed Muskie? McGovern? Mondale? Sorry, but the mainstream Dem Party has been fairly left since Zell first joined up.

Or we could just stop throwing so damned much money down increasingly dry holes such as some welfare programs, public education, and foreign aid.

Yes, that HUGE less than 1% of budget spending on foriegn aid is such a budget buster :p.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yes, that HUGE less than 1% of budget spending on foriegn aid is such a budget buster :p.

That's less than 1% that would require a further tax increase.

Now, wanna tackle the first two items on the list?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, yeah, we could cut welfare and stuff, I mean, after all, none of those people actually need the help. They all have plasma TV's, new SUV's, and a stereo system. Right Jon? But hell, my mom who would be in a wheelchair because of MS if not for those horrible programs like Medicare, Food Stamps, and SSI should've just sucked it up and worked, right?

[ISiddiqui]

That's less than 1% that would require a further tax increase.

Now, wanna tackle the first two items on the list?

You really think so? I don't think anyone would you give you tax cut because less than 1% of the budget got cut.

As for welfare programs, I think those are of vital importance to ailing individuals, whether old or poor. There are good reasons why they were enacted in the first place: people didn't like seeing them dying on the streets... which, also creates public health problems.

As for eliminating public education, what a way too keep poor kids poor. They don't need education anyway, right?

[Buccaneer]

Yes, but could those programs be cut LITERALLY overnight?
Yes, most definitely so. Watch any program's 4q spendings and you will see so much wasteful spending that it is comical. If a program/department/etc. does not spend its budget allocations, then it will likely not receive a measured increase in next year's budget. Washington does not operate on a zero-based budget because all budget proposal are measured in relations to the current spending allocations. Military budgets are worse in some respect because not only do they spend on wasteful programs, but Congress push for expensive expenditures that the Pentagon, the President, the DoD do not want. Such weapons programs get added solely for the "benefit" of local constituants, regardless of value. I would argue that even further in cases of Dept of Education and Dept of H and H expenditures. Depts of Interior and Commerce are usually pretty good, value-wise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, yeah, we could cut welfare and stuff, I mean, after all, none of those people actually need the help. They all have plasma TV's, new SUV's, and a stereo system. Right Jon? But hell, my mom who would be in a wheelchair because of MS if not for those horrible programs like Medicare, Food Stamps, and SSI should've just sucked it up and worked, right?

Oh please get the fuck over yourself.
Or go drown in the fucking river you're crying me here.
Or something useful, like taking care of your mother's needs.

But stop wasting bandwidth to post on the friggin internet when you clearly aren't paying enough attention beyond trying to start your own little pity party.

Next time, try reading what I actually wrote ... particularly the word some which was included in the post.

[Buccaneer]

You really think so? I don't think anyone would you give you tax cut because less than 1% of the budget got cut.

As for welfare programs, I think those are of vital importance to ailing individuals, whether old or poor. There are good reasons why they were enacted in the first place: people didn't like seeing them dying on the streets... which, also creates public health problems.

As for eliminating public education, what a way too keep poor kids poor. They don't need education anyway, right?
10th Amendment, Imran. If the States had more revenue streams, as oppose to the black hole of DC, then poorer school districts in various States would be better managed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You really think so? I don't think anyone would you give you tax cut because less than 1% of the budget got cut.

What is this, attention deficit disorder night at FOFC?

The comment was not a suggested tax cut ... it was in response to a suggested tax hike. An illustration that there are options beyond just raising taxes again.

Then again, that seems like a popular form of math these days -- I guess I'm supposed to believe that a tax hike avoided = a tax cut.

[Buccaneer]

What is this, attention deficit disorder night at FOFC?

The comment was not a suggested tax cut ... it was in response to a suggested tax hike. An illustration that there are options beyond just raising taxes again.

Then again, that seems like a popular form of math these days -- I guess I'm supposed to believe that a tax hike avoided = a tax cut.
Shouldn't the last thing you want an organization (individual, family, company, govt, etc.) do if they are very much in debt is to encourage more spendings that a tax hike implies?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Shouldn't the last thing you want an organization (individual, family, company, govt, etc.) do if they are very much in debt is to encourage more spendings that a tax hike implies?

I am utterly & completely lost on your point here. I've read it three times, I understand all the individual words, I'm just not getting where you're headed.

I haven't "encouraged more spendings that a tax hike implies" ... I was suggesting a reassignment of existing funds to cover the highest spending priorities.

[Buccaneer]

Jon, the only point - as I am always apt to make - is that the highest priority should be on reducing spenditures (real and budgetary).

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

What is this, attention deficit disorder night at FOFC?


What? Who are you again? :D

[ISiddiqui]

The comment was not a suggested tax cut ... it was in response to a suggested tax hike. An illustration that there are options beyond just raising taxes again.

Then again, that seems like a popular form of math these days -- I guess I'm supposed to believe that a tax hike avoided = a tax cut.

Did Bush cut a Hell of a lot of taxes or did he not? In able to KEEP the tax cut, you are suggesting to eliminate the utterly minor foriegn aid we give (which we should be shameful that it is so low). So yes, it is to get a tax cut.

[JPhillips]

Jon: We could completely eliminate welfare and it wouldn't make a significant dent in the deficit. Same for foriegn aid. If you are serious about the deficit you have to significantly cut SS/medicare, the defense budget, or cut in half most everything else. The only other option is raising taxes. Little cuts around the margin won't fix the problem and changing SS to a private system will significantly increase the deficit over the next generation or two.

Now I don't think either party is being honest about the deficit, but in large measure Bush has gotten us into this mess with absolutely no inclination to do anything about it. Tonight he offered another round of tax cuts coupled with tremendous spending and then had the gall to slam Kerry for being a big spender. He didn't mention the deficit once because he knows he is only going to make the problem worse. He has no plan nor concern for the deficit.

[clintl]

Borrow and spend. The Official Fiscal Policy of the Republican Party since 1981.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, Zell appears on CNN... the results for him weren't pretty ;).

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Senator Miller, the Democrats are pointing out that John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came through Congress while he was in the Senate, and many of these votes that you cited (in criticizing John Kerry in your speech), Dick Cheney also voted against, that they were specific weapons systems.

MILLER: What I was talking about was a period of 19 years in the Senate. I've been in the Senate for four years. There's quite a few years' difference there. I have gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about here today. I've got more documentation here than the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library put together on that.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: You also were, I would say, almost indignant that anyone would possibly call America military occupiers, not liberators, on at least four occasions. President Bush has referred to the presence of American forces in Iraq as an occupation, and the question is: Are you not selectively choosing words to describe the same situation the president of the United States is describing?

MILLER: I don't know if the president of the United States uses those words, but I know Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry have used them on several occasions.

GREENFIELD: Yes. So has President Bush.

MILLER: Well, I don't know about that.

GREENFIELD: Well, we'll...

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You know that when the secretary -- when the vice president was the secretary of defense he proposed cutting back on the B-2 Bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons systems.

MILLER: Look, the record is, as I stated, he voted against, he opposed all of those weapons systems. That, to me, I think shows the kind of priority he has as far as national defense. Look, John Kerry came back from Vietnam as a young man unsure of whether America was a force for good or evil in the world. He still has that uncertainty about him.

WOODRUFF: You praised him...

GREENFIELD: Then why did you say in 2001 that he strengthened the military? You said that three years ago.

MILLER: Because that was the biographical sketch that they gave me. This young senator -- not young senator, but new senator had come up there, and all I knew was that this man had won the Purple Heart three times and won the Silver Star and...

Look, I went back and researched the records, and I looked at these, and I -- when I was putting that speech together, I wanted to make sure, whenever I sat down with people like you who would take these talking points from the Democrats and who also have covered politics for years, that I would know exactly what I was talking about, and we don't have time to go through it on the air, but I can go through every one of those things that were mentioned about where he voted.

He voted against the B-1 Bomber...

BLITZER: A lot of--

MILLER:-- on October the 15th, '90, and on and on.

WOODRUFF: But do you simply reject the idea that Vice President Cheney, as Wolf said and as we know from the record, also voted against some of these systems?

MILLER: I don't think Cheney voted against these.

BLITZER: No, but he opposed some of them when he was the defense secretary, and sometimes he was overruled by the Congress because he was concerned, he was worried that the defense of the United States could be better served by some other weapons systems, not specifically those. I'm specifically referring to the B-2 and the F-14 Tomcat.

MILLER: I'm talking about John Kerry's record. I'll let Dick Cheney, the vice president, answer those charges. He knows what happened in the Department of Defense years ago. I don't know that.

But I do know, because I've looked it up and it's there for everyone to see, that he voted against those positions as far as those weapons were concerned. He voted against all the weapons that really won the war against Communism, the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.

BLITZER: I know you have to move on because you have other things to do, but when you were speaking tonight -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you seemed very angry.

MILLER: Me angry?

BLITZER: Yes, sir.

MILLER: No, no. I'm sorry if I gave that appearance.

[Buccaneer]

(Cut spendings and cut taxes) is the ideal way to go. But Congress - who controls the budgets and taxes, not the Executive Branch - always had an aversion to reduce spendings. Just mention any hint of reducing spendings to Congress and you will see Sen. Byrd scream and holler, as well as the media talk about people dying. This is the mindset that needs to be changed. So in the meantime, why don't we keep more of our money since Wash DC does such a shitty in spending it on our behalf?

[Buccaneer]

BLITZER: No, but he opposed some of them when he was the defense secretary, and sometimes he was overruled by the Congress because he was concerned, he was worried that the defense of the United States could be better served by some other weapons systems, not specifically those. I'm specifically referring to the B-2 and the F-14 Tomcat.

Those were two of the wasteful weapons I thought about, as well as the Osprey Chopper, that no one - except certain Congresspersons - wanted. The same can be said for other programs, not just the DoD appropriations.

[clintl]

Zell doesn't seem to know much about the people he's supporting, does he?

[ISiddiqui]

Those were two of the wasteful weapons I thought about, as well as the Osprey Chopper, that no one - except certain Congresspersons - wanted. The same can be said for other programs, not just the DoD appropriations.

Yeah, which is why I thought it wierd to say Kerry is basically unsupporting of the military for wishing to cut funding for them, which is what Cheney wanted to do.

Zell doesn't seem to know much about the people he's supporting, does he?

Nope :D.

[Flasch186]

That interview was classic. Unfortunately too many people wont see or hear about that...they'll just hear his speech and think what he says is gospel.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Uh, don't worry, the Dems will be pushing that message themselves over the next weeks and months. I think in the end, putting an angry Zell up on the stage will not be a good thing for the Bush team. In doing so, they implicitly supported what he said, and it will turn out he was mostly blowing hot air (i.e. lying, manipulating the truth, etc.)

When he talked the occupier/liberator thing in his speech, I started laughing because I knew Bush said it was an occupation in an interview and I think also in his big press conference a few months back (shortly before the hand over to the new Iraq government). Then to hear Zell say he didn't think Bush ever used those words, leads me to think he really hasn't been paying attention to what the heck is going on, or the feeling of many people in Iraq. As much as one wants to define occupation/liberation by the viewpoint of the invading army, it is the viewpoint of the invaded that counts. I am not saying all, but MANY Iraqis believe the U.S. are occupiers. That's a simple fact. Zell is coming across more and more like a completely uninformed bitter old man. I think Bush will rue the day he let him step on the stage. The tirade will not work on the undecided/independents.

I mean, come on, does anyone really think Kerry will not try to defend America? I mean really (the spit-ball analogy was out of line)? There are some differences for sure in how to do it, but to call Kerry out like that (saying he was not questioning his patriotism, which is what he was really doing), and stirring up the safety of his family issue was simply a bald-faced distortion of the issues and WAY over the top.

Any Republicans think this was a good thing, really?

I will say this. I used to thing Bush was the weak link in the administration, that needed all the help he could get. I was wrong. I think he is the glue holding it together, amidst all the poor advice he has gotten. After Bush is gone (in 5 months or 4 years), the Republican party will self-destruct. There is so much in-fighting and different blocs with different agendas (moderates, heavy conservatives, religious right), it can't keep going like this.

[Swaggs]

Some good points, Mr. Vinatieri.

After seeing Miller in a few interviews the past few days, he (or whoever wrote his speech) seems like he was not very thorough in reasearching the material he used, because the points he made, although sharp, were really hit or miss. While I was listening to it, I kept thinking that some points would sound favorable for a Bush ad and some for a Kerry ad. I think his appearance will be a wash--I don't see him driving anyone away from or swaying anyone towards Bush in the EV column. Probably just more polarization.

The Bush policy is so strange to me. To me, it sounded like he planned on adding a lot of new programs and initiatives and cutting taxes again next term. Combining that with his spending record up to this point and I'm very curious to see if he is going to be able to retain the socially liberal/fiscally conservative Republicans.

He is going to have to retain a huge lead over Kerry on the War on Terror in order to keep people from focusing on his domestic policies, in my opinion

[JonInMiddleGA]

He is going to have to retain a huge lead over Kerry on the War on Terror in order to keep people from focusing on his domestic policies, in my opinion

And if he doesn't, all the domestic policies in the world aren't going to matter.

More & more, I believe we might indeed be buried by enemies "without firing a shot" ... it just may not be the same enemies as the original prediction.

[Flasch186]

And if he doesn't, all the domestic policies in the world aren't going to matter.

More & more, I believe we might indeed be buried by enemies "without firing a shot" ... it just may not be the same enemies as the original prediction.

First ime in a long time ive used this ----> :rolleyes: C"MON! theyre all trying to win "the war" its just how you go about winning it thats different.

[JonInMiddleGA]

First ime in a long time ive used this ----> :rolleyes: C"MON! theyre all trying to win "the war" its just how you go about winning it thats different.

We disagree -- utterly, totally, and completely.

As I've said before -- the far-left in this country are ultimately a far greater threat to its prosperity and survival than terrorists alone ever will be.
The difference in me & a lot of folks is that I'm not reluctant to say it openly.

[Flasch186]

We disagree -- utterly, totally, and completely.

As I've said before -- the far-left in this country are ultimately a far greater threat to its prosperity and survival than terrorists alone ever will be.
The difference in me & a lot of folks is that I'm not reluctant to say it openly.

im glad youll say it...falls into my honsty campaign....youre right though...we disagree completely.

[Swaggs]

We disagree -- utterly, totally, and completely.

As I've said before -- the far-left in this country are ultimately a far greater threat to its prosperity and survival than terrorists alone ever will be.
The difference in me & a lot of folks is that I'm not reluctant to say it openly.

Great statement.

Surely the far left are much more threatening than the people who brought down the twin towers.

It is okay for you to dislike or hate liberal policies and/or beliefs, but to me, when you say things like this, you really make yourself look narrow minded and foolish.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Great statement.

Surely the far left are much more threatening than the people who brought down the twin towers.

It is okay for you to dislike or hate liberal policies and/or beliefs, but to me, when you say things like this, you really make yourself look narrow minded and foolish.

You're thinking too narrowly, or too literally, or something Swaggs -- "bringing down the twin towers", horrible & tragic as it was, will not destroy this nation, will not reduce it to unbearable to live in, will not end the most powerful nation on earth.

Left-wing policies, and the ability to inflict them on the nation on the other hand ...

[Buccaneer]

Instead of saying "left-wing policies" (which would get the rabble all defensive), I think it would be better use "socialistic policies" instead. Not all left-wing policies are bad (I support a few of them) but not politically socialistic ones.

[ISiddiqui]

More & more, I believe we might indeed be buried by enemies "without firing a shot" ... it just may not be the same enemies as the original prediction.

:rolleyes:

[Flasch186]

I truly am baffeled. Im talking to my dad about politics and he bought the Zell Miller speech. Someone please explain to me, after theyre read the intro. Miller gave for Kerry in 2001 (below) that they can believe anything he says. If anything that is a monumental "flip flop". How is it not the pot calling the kettle? Im boggled, someone please explain to me ust ont his point, not the whole political landscape, just this one thing. His speech now vs. the one before....doesnt that crush his legitimacy?



"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."

[Ben E Lou]

Someone please explain to me, after theyre read the intro. Miller gave for Kerry in 2001 (below) that they can believe anything he says. If anything that is a monumental "flip flop".Already answered...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.

[Glengoyne]

I'd say there was nothing to "buy". He was stating his feelings the other night at the convention. At the other dinner he was introducing a fellow Senator who had travelled to Georgia to address the attendees. That was a common courtesy.

I'm not saying that Miller's attacks on Kerry were damning or even sound, but I don't hold anything against him for speaking the other night. I wish he had given a different speech, and gotten his opposition to Kerry and the democratic party across without taking some of the "cheap shots" he did. A lot of what he said, I agree with, and a lot of what he said, I found petty.

[Schmidty]

If this were wrestling, the majority of people in this thread (and any other political thread) would be called "marks".

[larrymcg421]

I don't understand why people assume Miller was speaking honestly now. To me, he's still being the politician. It seems like he wants to go out on a blaze of glory. He can't do this by silently supporting Kerry. So yeah, he probably was talking out of his ass in that 2001 speech, but I think he was doing the same at the convention.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed... I have no idea if Zell was lying then or is lying now.

[stevew]

If this were wrestling, the majority of people in this thread (and any other political thread) would be called "marks".

Who is "pulling the job" in November?

[Ben E Lou]

Indeed... I have no idea if Zell was lying then or is lying now.I would say "then", because he has less motivation to lie now. I fully admit that he could have a massive ego and want to "go out in a blaze of glory," but it seems more logical that the Zell with nothing to lose (for the first time in decades) is telling the truth. As has been noted, he advocated segregation, then "changed." That is just another earmark of a politician who spent at least part of his career sniffing the political winds to some degree.

[ISiddiqui]

he has less motivation to lie now.

I doubt it. He's in the news more now than he ever has been. I'd say he's lying now because he has the motivation now to get all this attention and national media. That'll help him after he leaves politics. His speaking fee in front of conservative groups just went up a TON!

That is just another earmark of a politician who spent at least part of his career sniffing the political winds to some degree.

And this 'switch' to the Republicans smacks of sniffing the 'political winds' of Georgia.

[Ben E Lou]

His speaking fee in front of conservative groups just went up a TON!Do you think it did? He's been very vocal in his support of Dubya prior to this, although it may be that he wasn't well-known outside of Georgia before this.


And this 'switch' to the Republicans smacks of sniffing the 'political winds' of Georgia.So, do you think he has aspirations for another political office?

[larrymcg421]

I would say "then", because he has less motivation to lie now. I fully admit that he could have a massive ego and want to "go out in a blaze of glory," but it seems more logical that the Zell with nothing to lose (for the first time in decades) is telling the truth. As has been noted, he advocated segregation, then "changed." That is just another earmark of a politician who spent at least part of his career sniffing the political winds to some degree.
The reason I think he is also lying now is that it seems like he's searching for reasons to hate Kerry. Some of the complaints in his speech are things Bush or Cheney have also done, but he wouldn't ever criticize them for that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So, do you think he has aspirations for another political office?

From your mouth to God's ear.

Although I don't believe he's really looking for one at this point, I think he'd make a magnificent Secretary of State or, if he'd prefer lighter duty,UN Ambassador.

[JPhillips]

Zell Miller, our chief diplomat? That's funny.

[ISiddiqui]

although it may be that he wasn't well-known outside of Georgia before this.

As somehow who has lived in New Jersey until 2 years ago, I can attest I NEVER heard of Senator Zell Miller before I moved here to Georgia.

Zell Miller, our chief diplomat? That's funny.

And I thought that things couldn't get worse with America's reputation in the world ;).

[Crapshoot]

I dunno - I never lived in Georgia or anywhere near the south, never will- but I was fairly familiar with Miller- he writes the occasional editorial for the journal, which may be why I've heard a fair deal about him.

[Gallifrey]

I missed it.

Living in Seattle now it is hard to keep up with Georgia politics.