Viva la ZELL!

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by WillyJ


I think 'ol Zell better find a less psychotic way to deal with these questions then he did tonight or duck out of site for awhile. . threatening to shoot Chris Matthews isn't going to upset a lot of people, but Katie Couric is pretty popular and acting the same way with her might cause some problems. .

Zell said he wished he it were the days when he could challenge Chris to a duel; he didn't threaten to shoot him. He just wouldn't allow himself to be sandbagged, ala Michelle Malkin. Good for Zell. I flip over to MSNBC after the convention to watch Chris go apoplectic! FOX News has twice as many viewers for the convention as CNN and MSNBC combined!

 

[jjskribs]

Well the attack dogs were certainly howling last night. I'm sure it sold well to the party faithful but George Bush already has those votes. I'm not sure how well those performances actually sold to the undecided voters. I guess time will tell.

I understand Zell Miller is called Zig Zag Zell in Georgia.....

And as far as Fox news having twice as many viewers as CNN and CNBC ... why would that surprise you? Who do you think is watching Fox news? It is after all, the Republican Convention.

Personally I was watching the Red Sox win again......

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by jjskribs
Well the attack dogs were certainly howling last night. I'm sure it sold well to the party faithful but George Bush already has those votes. I'm not sure how well those performances actually sold to the undecided voters. I guess time will tell.

I understand Zell Miller is called Zig Zag Zell in Georgia.....

And as far as Fox news having twice as many viewers as CNN and CNBC ... why would that surprise you? Who do you think is watching Fox news? It is after all, the Republican Convention.

Personally I was watching the Red Sox win again......

Apparently the speech went down quite well with 17 undecided voters focused on MSNBC. 11 of those are now voting GWB because a "democrat" made the point for them. Actually Zell is called Zig Zag Zell by Terry McAwful. Zell hasn't changed his positions on national security. He hasn't changed his party. He feels that the democratic party deserted Democrats and has swung too far to the left.

 

[beattyfamily]

It was an amazing speech!

Spitballs!

 

[WillyJ]

Matthews go apoplectic??


That's not what I saw. . . Matthews was pretty stunned by what he obviously took as a quasi-threat; first Miller saying he wished he were there where Matthews was so he could "get right in your face" and then pointing his finger at the camera and saying something like, "I wish I come over there with a gun. . wish it was like the old days where we could have a duel."

Obviously no one thinks Miller was seriously talking about assaulting Matthews, but for a US Senator to say that to a reporter for just asking him about his record is disturbing to say the least.

If Ted Kennedy said something like that to Brit Hume Republicans would be howling to have him put in prison. . .

 

[disney4us2002]

Palmtree girl and any others who missed Zell, here is the printed speech. Not quite as good as hearing him, but you can at least get the spitballs comment, lol. All of the speeches are online at www.gopconvention.com btw.

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also.

Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is

George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley.

Our country was not yet at war but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

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.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

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.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

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.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man.

I am moved by the respect he shows the First Lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

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.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted, self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

 

[Nancy]

well I WAS undecided (actually, I was leaning towards NOT voting at all) but after tonight I most likely will have made my choice!

 

[orvilleair]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Matthews go apoplectic??


That's not what I saw. . .

Yeah, I didn't see it that way either. Matthews was just being Matthews. Chris tends to talk to fast, and I think Miller couldn't understand the questions. Or maybe Miller's set was too loud. Chris was successful in the beginning of the interview and got Miller to go on the defensive. Miller couldn't formulate any good responses until Miller said he disagreed with the Democrat party on the Homeland Security issue (collective barginning). JC Watts was with Matthews, and he felt that Matthews wasn't out of line either. Matthews knew how to push Millers buttons just like he did with Thurlow.

 

[jjskribs]

Well maybe those 11 undecided votes will really help George Bush. As I said, time will tell. Glad you've finally made up your mind Nancy but for those of us who have been following your posts for the past few weeks, I think you already had your mind made up.

 

[jrydberg]

The reaction of the independent focus group speaks for itself. They reacted quite strongly in a positive manner to many of the issues raised by Zell Miller and Dick Cheney.

Labelling them as 'psychotic' or 'having mental problems' may make Democrats feel better, but it doesn't change the reality. The reality is they gave good, powerful speeches that have the potential to sway independents to the Republican ticket.

Personally, I thought Miller's speech was a bit on the harsh side, but subtlety is not something for political conventions these days.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Well his speech motivated my mother who has been an American for 42 years, to finally register to vote, and to vote for George Bush. The speech motivated her to tears, and she was undecided. In all cases I've seen so far it's done pretty well.

And it sure as hell riled up us already decideds.

 

[ead79]

I thought it was an excellent speech! It seems to really be resonating with the independent voters.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Here are some of the things Matthews tried to ask Miller about while the good Senator flipped out . .

As a congressional candidate in 1964, Miller not only pledged to vote against the Civil Rights Act, he attacked those who were pushing it. He said President Lyndon Johnson "is a southerner who has sold his birthright for a mess of dark porridge." As Georgia history professor James Cobb said, "Had he lived and run again, Kennedy would not have benefited in Georgia from the opposition to the Civil Rights Act voiced by a certain congressional candidate in 1964, Zell Miller. "

I'm about as vocal anti-Bush as you're going to find on these boards, but I think bringing up someone's beliefs of 40 years ago regarding Civil Rights is as bad as the current Swift Boat Vets ad about Kerry and his anti-war activities of 33 years ago. That America was a different time and a different place. Now, I don't know what's driving Zell Miller now, but his views on civil rights in 1964 were no different than many in America. He was a product of his time. People change and grow over time. Intelligent people do that and morons call it "flip-flopping". If the shoe fits, wear it.

You also cannot judge an individual's belief in past time without understanding what the time was all about. That is "Repugnican" behavior as evidenced by the new SBV ad in which they show Kerry at anti-war rallies and saying he threw his medals because they were a "symbol" of America.

You cannot look back in the past with today's eyes. The Viet Nam war was started on a lie, and continued on when the leadership of this country knew, from the mid-sixties, that the war was unwinnable. But they just kept on going and 53,000 Americans are dead. That was the America John Kerry protested against, not today's post 9/11 America.

I don't want we on this side of the aisle to behave like "Repugnicans" who continually refer to Senator Robert Byrd as "sheets" because of a short time in the KKK. That was then and this is now.

Both Robert Byrd and Zell Miller have admitted they were wrong in the past and have spent a lifetime trying to correct those errors.

John Kerry has admitted some of his 1971 words were "over the top", but he will not admit his protests of the war were wrong because it was not wrong. It was the right thing to do.

I've referred to the Viet Nam over and over again as a lousy, stinking war and it was just that. The leadership of this country were dishonorable people who searched around looking for a solution to "save face" while Americans were dying in the jungles of Viet Nam. If it were not for people like John Kerry, God only knows what the final death toll would've been. The act of throwing one's ribbons/medals made Americans stop and take notice.

Sidebar: I was one of those who participated in the Moratorium of October 15, 1969 and I was just one of 20,000,000 other Americans. Then, we were referred to as unpatriotic and "commie sympathizers". Funny how history repeats itself.

If we going to judge someone's actions in the past, let's examine the complete past including the historical context.

However, if John Kerry is going to be judged completely out of historical context by what he did 33 years ago, then it's fair game for anyone. I'm not sure many people want to go down that road.

Sorry for my rambling.

 

[wvrevy]

So you guys didn't have a problem with him accusing Cheney of attempting to gut our national defense ?

I mean, I'm SURE you knew that Cheney proposed cutting most of those weapons systems when he was secretary of defense, right ?



Milller acted like a toddler that couldn't get his way so he's going to make up stories about the people that "treated him so wrongly". Two words for both Miller, and those that thought his speech was so great: grow up.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by ead79
I thought it was an excellent speech! It seems to really be resonating with the independent voters.

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble here, but the history of this administration has been an initial burst of support, and after the hoopla dies down, the loss of that support. Example, the capture of Saddam Hussein.

My best guess is this election is not a replay of 2000, but a replay of 1980. Percentage numbers are going to bounce up and down and break at some point right before the election.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble here, but the history of this administration has been an initial burst of support, and after the hoopla dies down, the loss of that support. Example, the capture of Saddam Hussein.

My best guess is this election is not a replay of 2000, but a replay of 1980. Percentage numbers are going to bounce up and down and break at some point right before the election.

That's probably about right....I mean, they tell lies and their numbers go up...They're proven to BE lies, and the numbers go back down.

It's just sad that so many people keep buying into the same BS over and over.....Kinda makes me think PT Barnum was a pretty smart feller

 

[Geoff_M]

A simple clarification, the 11 people in Ohio only said they were more likely to vote for Bush, not that they had decided to vote for Bush. But that still very good news to party leaders.

As for Miller's past with regard to civil rights issues, unless you're going to minimize what Robert Byrd says based on the white sheets in his closet, that rings kinda hollow.

As for the old Miller quotes, all of those were before September, 2001. A lot of people changed the lenses they view politics through (Koch, Miller, Ron Silver, etc.) after the events of that month.

As for the "shameful" retort, if intelligence spending were the be-all and end-all of national security then there might be a point in there somewhere.

Were some of Zell's comments "over the top", I'd say yes. He no doubt stretched Kerry's feelings with the foreign policy "outsourcing" comments... though Kerry has strongly raked Bush over the coals for acting militarily without authorization from the UN.

Miller appearances on Hardball and CNN could have gone better. However, Miller never said the word "gun" or directly threatened Matthews with violence. He said (per the transcript): "I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel!" and went on to talk about the way Matthews' treats guests.
I could have also done a lot more to turn back the idea that Kerry's "flip-flops" were merely due to committee votes vs. final passage votes, procedureal votes, or "token" protest votes that Kerry knew wouldn't affect the passage of the bill. There's plenty of evidence that goes beyond that (his feelings about the vote to authorize force against Saddam, claiming he voted for bills on the campaign trail that he didn't, etc.) He also could have turned away CNN's minimization of Miller's highlighting of weapons systems that Kerry's voted against when they pointed out that Cheney also tried to kill the Apache program by simply saying "OK, let's compare the list of systems each man's opposed." And finally he could have rebutted Matthews' "do you believe that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy really only believe in defending America with spitballs?" questioning by simply saying that Kerry, based on his voting record, seems not to back the idea of a strong "high tech" military and, with it, the tools that would help minimize the loss of the lives of our forces.

As far as Miller being "mentally ill", that's the stuff of DemocraticUnderground.... which was in full meltdown mode last night!

 

[Pete's Mom]

Originally posted by jjskribs
I understand Zell Miller is called Zig Zag Zell in Georgia.....

Well, let me enlighten you! Speaking as a resident, I think you would be hard pressed to find any fellow Georgians on this board who would agree to that statement. Political parties aside, Zell Miller has gained a tremendous amount of love and support from it's people during his long dedicated service to Georgia, including those who did not vote for him initially (like me).

I can tell you that a lot of Georgia children including my son have benefited and will continue to benefit for years to come thanks to Senator Zell Miller and what he has done for education in our state and I would say that even if he were supporting Kerry.

 

[tandrjohn]

The speech was good, just like every other speech during the Democratic and Republican conventions. At this level in the political game, all of the speeches are good - I expect nothing less. Republicans seem to be raving about Zell's speech a little more because it was a "Democrat" and not a Republican bashing Kerry this time around. I put quotes around Democrat because Zell has been a Democrat in name only for some time now. Regarding the independent vote...I don't think that one speech by a "Democrat" bashing Kerry is going to make much of a difference - the independents on the MSNBC forum will most likely change their minds a few more times before the election

 

[Disney Doll]

Whether you liked or hated the speech or agreed or disagreed with it, it certainly made an impression.