Zell Miller remarks; Refute here

island911 · 12:35 PM

The swifties, were the inside guys with Kerrys "hero" decisions.--> no confidence.

Zell Miller was the inside guy with Kerrys Senate decisions. --> no confidence.

We've beat the hell out of the swifties here, so enough of that (here).

Let's here all those strong arguments refuting Zell Millers words.

edit: Zell Millers words -full text

speeder · 09-02-2004, 12:53 PM

I just thought that it was a piss-poor partisan speech, I wouldn't even know where to start. Kerry wants to arm the military w/ "spitballs"?

If someone has to get kicked in the nuts by a protester, I hope that it's this charming bastard.

When he (dishonestly) lists all of the weapons systems/planes that kerry supposedly was "against", he conviently leaves out what else might have been in the version of the bill that Kerry voted against, just like the *$87B* bill BS. But of course he is not preaching to anyone who will investigate his claims.

When he attempted to tie people opposed to the Iraq war as not "supporting the troops", (his "occupier" deal), I wanted to reach through the TV screen and choke the ***** out of him, what a pathetic human being. He has the beady-eyed squint and accent of a TV evangelist who is stealing stupid people's $$ while banging Boy Scouts. If this is the new Republican hero, BRRRRING IT!

mikester · 12:59 PM

Just because someone strikes down a bill that for a particular item does not mean they are against it.

What if they are against the way it is being implemented in the bill? What if the conditions stated in the bill are out of line? Just because a bill exists does not make it a good bill.

So - ask Senator Kerry on each and every one of his votes to explain WHY he voted yes and WHY he voted no. In fact; expect this from EVERY elected official and out government accountability goes through the roof. Just saying someone voted yes or no on something takes it out of context. The why is the context and that is what I want to know. Recently my CA Senate rep voted NO on something I was against. Before I say she's great - I want to know why so I emailed her asking " I appreciate it but I want to know why you voted no." It is certainly possible that she voted no because of something in the bill that she didn't approve of rather than the bill as a whole.

Of course a wise man once said..."the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire...we don't need no water let the ...."

Overpaid Slacker · 09-02-2004, 01:11 PM

Some grist for the mill from OpinionJournal:

... But the speech was badly received among the media elite. Especially scathing was blogger Andrew Sullivan:

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.

Sullivan's blasting Miller as a "Dixiecrat" is simply bizarre. The term Dixiecrat refers specifically to supporters of Strom Thurmond's third-party presidential bid in 1948 (when, as Glenn Reynolds notes, Miller was not even old enough to vote), and more generally to the segregationist Democrats who succeeded in blocking most civil rights legislation until 1964. How in the world could Miller's speech last night have been "a classic Dixiecrat speech" when it not only did not defend segregation (a question that was settled long ago), but did not even remotely allude to race? {No Schit; talk about bald lies and subject changement when you can't refute what was said ... jeez. JP} The speech was entirely about national security.

This was not Miller's first political convention speech. In 1992, also at Madison Square Garden, then-Gov. Miller delivered the keynote speech at the Democratic convention that nominated Bill Clinton. Does anyone remember The New Republic, of which Andrew Sullivan was then editor, criticizing the Dems for having a "Dixiecrat" as their keynoter?

Josh Marshall cites Sullivan favorably and then pooh-poohs the speech:

Just on a pure political level it didn't seem to me like the sort of speech the planners would want in prime time. There's a lot of rage and anger in that man--and I can't imagine a viewer coming to that speech with an open and politically-uncommitted mind who wouldn't wonder where it was from. The tone struck me as a bit ranting and wild, barking and angry, with Miller channeling some mix of Heart of Darkness and Deliverance, which I can't quite decipher but did not want to be near.

Sullivan's and Marshall's comments reveal less about Miller than about the provincialism of our big-city media elites. All the evidence we've seen suggests that Miller's speech went over very well, and not just with Southerners. Writes National Review Online's Jim Geraghty:

The [MSNBC] focus group gathered by pollster Frank Luntz appeared to like Zell's speech better than Cheney's. They're describing it as, "stronger . . . focused on the family . . . dead on, convincing coming from a Democrat."

Then there's one woman: "His entire focus was on terrorism and why we should be afraid."

The "spitballs" line got a big laugh. The focus group seemed to like the line, and many thought it illustrated a serious point well.

The Cincinnati Enquirer notes that the focus group's participants were from Cincinnati, which, while in southern Ohio, is hardly the Deep South. Another bit of anecdotal support: When we got home and checked our e-mail, we'd received two messages from women of our acquaintance, both around 30 years old. Both live in big coastal cities and grew up in more conservative areas, but not in the South--one in rural Oregon, the other in California's Central Valley. Both gave Miller's speech rave reviews.

Then there was this hilarious postspeech exchange between Miller and Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball":

Matthews: Do you believe, Senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs? Do you believe that?

Miller: That was a metaphor, wasn't it? Do you know what a metaphor is?

Matthews: Well, what do you mean by a metaphor?

Those city folks sure are sophisticated, aren't they?

island911 · 09-02-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
I just thought that it was a piss-poor partisan speech, . ..

Well ain't that the kicker?

Zell Miller, the keynote speaker for Clinton 92, the guy on the inside when Kerry was selling-out his country (Senate, not 70's) came to the conclusion that his democratic party is on the wrong side of our countys biggest issue.

So "partisan"? . . .no, I don't think so. The guy put partisan politics aside for this one very important issue.

Zell Miller was there and heard WHY Senator Kerry voted yes and WHY he voted no. -->no confidence.

Mulholland · 09-02-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
When he (dishonestly) lists all of the weapons systems/planes that kerry supposedly was "against", he conviently leaves out what else might have been in the version of the bill that Kerry voted against, just like the *$87B* bill BS.

Are you just talking out of your ass?...if not, prove it...If you cannot prove it then it is you who is being dishonest.

John Kerry has a record of hostility to the military and CIA...it is not an isolated incident but a pattern of opposing military expenditures and being absent from Intel Committee votes.

09-02-2004, 01:14 PM

I now know a democrat I'd vote for.

speeder · 09-02-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
I now know a democrat I'd vote for.

That's scary, but not surprising.

I think that Sullivan hit it on the head.

speeder · 09-02-2004, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulholland
Are you just talking out of your ass?...if not, prove it...If you cannot prove it then it is you who is being dishonest.

John Kerry has a record of hostility to the military and CIA...it is not an isolated incident but a pattern of opposing military expenditures and being absent from Intel Committee votes.

No, I'm not being dishonest. I know why Kerry voted against that version of the Iraq $87B bill, and I support him 100% for it.

Rot 911 · 09-02-2004, 01:22 PM

I guess he just can't compare to having Al Sharpton as one of your speakers. I failed to see where the press mentioned what a racist ole Al is.

dd74 · 09-02-2004, 01:24 PM

Miller is a keynoter for Clinton in '92, and a keynoter for Bush in '04.

If at all, this shows Zell Miller is insane, confused, and out of touch with what the Republicans should be doing in bringing together voters - not polarizing them even farther from each other.

Oh, and I guess he has no loyalty, either. And leave it to the Republicans with their "you're either with us or against us" stance to pick an antiquated party turncoat such as Zell.

I chuckle from the irony.

dd74 · 09-02-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kurt V
I guess he just can't compare to having Al Sharpton as one of your speakers. I failed to see where the press mentioned what a racist ole Al is.

Al never played the ping-pong ball between the Dem and Rep paddles, either.

Mulholland · 09-02-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
That's scary, but not surprising.

I think that Sullivan hit it on the head.

Hey Denis...if you see two guys wearing white jackets coming your way, and one is holding a human-sized net....run like the wind Forrest!

Wow.

mikester · 09-02-2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
Well ain't that the kicker?

Zell Miller, the keynote speaker for Clinton 92, the guy on the inside when Kerry was selling-out his country (Senate, not 70's) came to the conclusion that his democratic party is on the wrong side of our countys biggest issue.

So "partisan"? . . .no, I don't think so. The guy put partisan politics aside for this one very important issue.

Zell Miller was there and heard WHY Senator Kerry voted yes and WHY he voted no. -->no confidence.

Because Zell miller was there for the way does not tell me anything.

*I* want to know why so that I can vote for the guy who votes my way. So if Zell Miller tells me the why as he knows it I'll be happy to listen but I really want to hear it from Kerry himself. Just like I want explanations from Bush himself regarding things he expects me to see as self evident.

island911 · 09-02-2004, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
Miller is a keynoter for Clinton in '92, and a keynoter for Bush in '04.

If at all, this shows Zell Miller is insane, confused, and out of touch . . ..

huh. Here I figured you would admire his being true to issues, not party. . .kinda independent .. .if you know what I mean.

red ufo · 09-02-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulholland
Are you just talking out of your ass?...if not, prove it...If you cannot prove it then it is you who is being dishonest.

John Kerry has a record of hostility to the military and CIA...it is not an isolated incident but a pattern of opposing military expenditures and being absent from Intel Committee votes.

The CIA has as history of failure 8 republicans talked of getting rid of them 2 weeks ago and Bush crapped his pants. The military has a record of lying to Congress in order to get their buddies at Northrop multi billion dollar contracts for weapons systems that they know don't work.

There are many, many failed military systems. If Congress used our money to fund every crackpot idea that comes out of the Pentagon or DARPA. We'd have TIA database on everything you did in your life. I'm sure you did plenty of illegal things you never got caught for before your were 'saved'.

Mulholland · 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
No, I'm not being dishonest. I know why Kerry voted against that version of the Iraq $87B bill, and I support him 100% for it.

By out of hand condemning Zel Miller and Edited for content. -Z-man. John "seared seared" Kerry, you are being dishonest.

NOTHING WAS OFFENSIVE OR INSULTING HERE -- DID NOT NEED TO BE EDITED

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

He contradicted himself. He not only has a history of contradicting himself on a pattern basis, but he has a history of opposing the military.

ABC

red ufo · 09-02-2004, 01:41 PM

If Miller came out and slammed the republicans with same hatred he used. The neocons would say he is off his meds and a crackpot, espically after falling apart on Hardball.

But since he slams Kerry now he is credible.

Same thing about Clinton.

He is a POS according to republicans, but if he says something that backs Bush on 911 or Iraq. Suddenly he is worthy of quoting and a ok guy by neocons. Republicans are even bigger liars than the democrats.

Sure democrats lie left and right. But atleast they don't hide behind religion to disguise their racial, homophobic hatred of anything but white rich people. Both parties are full of dumb people.

Nice thing about Miller is he is named after beer and has broken party lines which is nice to see.

speeder · 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mulholland
By out of hand condemning Zel Miller and Edited for content. -Z-man. John "seared seared" Kerry, you are being dishonest.

You sure like to accuse fellow board members of being "&&**%^&%^", Jason. Is there something you'd like to share w/ us?

And careful w/ your answer, remember you will see me in the real world.

Edited for content. -Z-man.

island911 · 09-02-2004, 01:47 PM

Yeah Mul, I agree with speeder; you should tone it down a notch or two. . .that was damn funny, unless your a lib right now. (they're not having a good day)