Sen. Zell Miller (Democrat) Praises Bush at RNC

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Stelliform, Sep 1, 2004.

  1. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #1
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/01/zell.miller/index.html

    This should be a major concern for the Dems, have they gone too left?
     
  2. alexf macrumors 6502a

    alexf

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #2
    Too far left? Are you kidding?

    If they went one more inch to the right they would be Republicans...

    Democracy is essentially dead in America. How can it function in a one party system?
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    No the country has moved right. Clinton, who is considered a liberal devil by much of the right, was actually quite moderate. Bush, who claims to be a moderate, is actually quite conservative.

    Zell Miller might as well switch parties. While I'm sure he's only doing what he feels will keep his constituents happy (he's a Dem from a conservative state), he is doing a grave disservice to his party by endorsing the opposition candidate while still remaining in the party. Just jump ship already if that's how you feel. Stop calling yourself a Democrat if you aren't one.

    Were the Republicans happy with Jim Jeffords when he switched? Were they saying nice things about him then?
     
  4. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #4
    Socialism is a far left ideal. Socialism is slowly becoming the center of the Democrat party. They are moving left not right, they are moving so far left that centrist is moving into the Republican party. The Republican party also is moving left so that people truly on the right are now considered extremists. People who think they should keep their own hard earned money are considered extremists. People who think that the government should be limited to the constitutions are now considered extremists. People who want the right to bear arms are now considered extremists. These are all philosophies that use to be considered centrist only a few decades ago.
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    Zell Miller, one of the nation's more prominent political flip-floppers. Interesting choice to highlight at the RNC.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Sounds like Leo is arguing that the country has moved to the left since the 60's. :D

    Care to rethink that one buddy?
     
  7. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #7
    do you call the "we need a strong leader who does what's need to be done regardless of public opinion" speaches at the RNC "centric" as well ?
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #8
    As I write this, Zell Miller is having a major big-time meltdown while being interviewed by Chris Matthews on MS-NBC. Under pointed questioning, Miller told Matthews to "get out of my face!" and "I wish we lived in past times so I could challenge you to a duel!"

    Matthews, the panel and the crowd of protesters are loving it. They're cracking up watching Miller lose it.

    :D :D :D
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    wow. all mr. matthews was doing was asking for senator miller to clarify some parts of his specch.

    to paraphrase, i wish we lived in the days when two men could question each others' views without it becoming a shouting match.
     
  11. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #11
    Did anybody see his speech? Holy crap. He was like a rabid dog. They shoulda put a warning on before showing it, "may not be suitable for young viewers".

    I liked the question, "do you really think John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs?" I think a better way to put it might have been, "The Republicans are running on a theme of 'Kerry wants your children to die'. Since this is a patently ridiculous statement, how do you defend yourself?" This is the boiled down message of the entire Bush campaign. Bush will keep you safe, Kerry wants the terrorists to win. Is this not a stupid statement?

    On an unrelated note, I watched Bill Maher tonight, and he had the standard conservative guest on his show. (He really should put two of them on together, cause having just the one versus three liberals looks mean, even though they deserve it.) But the conservative guest tonight, a Republican House Representative, was sitting there denying reality! He said that the idea of the Iraq war inflaming passions against the US was a bunch of hooey. !!! How can you debate someone who says the sky isn't blue?
     
  12. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #12
    This was a terribly frightening speech. It furthered the Republicans continuing message that to disagree is to be un-patriotic and un-American. It reeks of McCarthyism on a whole new level.

    Now I realize that comparisons to Hitler are probably the most abused and overused in political discussions, but this guys speech seriously reminded me of the old videos of Adolf in his speeches.
     
  13. ocellnuri macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    #13
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #14
    And now some responses to some quotes from his speech:

    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.
    Here he seems to miss the point that the reason our young Americans are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan is because we didn't finish our job in Afghanistan before moving the bulk of our forces to Iraq, and we didn't have a plan in place to deal with Iraq once we had toppled Sadaam.
    In adition he reiterates the absurd notion that dissension makes our nation weaker. Not to mention his rather outlandish claim that Kerry has some sort of Manic-Obsessisve desire to bring down Bush? I admit Kerry is probably no big fan of GW, but I have seen no evidence of this kind of behavior from him. On the contrary it seems that Bush with the help of Rove has the obsesion with bringing people down, first McCain and now Kerry. Kerry's campaign has been focused on what Kerry thinks. Bush's campaign and the speeches of this convention have focused more on discrediting Kerry than actually making a strong argument for why Bush should stay President.
    Who is the one with the manic-obsession? Here's a hint, its not Kerry.

    Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
    Given that those countries had been occupied by a foreign power which we along with their own armies and governments helped remove yes we were liberators. We were liberators in Quwait. In Iraq, whatever good intentions we might have we invaded and have occupied their country.

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

    Why don't we ask them how much they appreciate our behavior towards North Korea now? Bush's declaring them part of an axis of evil and his other diplomatic mishandling is leading an increasing number of South Koreans to feel that reunification and peace efforts with their Northern half is being hindered by the US's meddling in what they feel is Korean affairs.

    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.

    I really really don't like this image because once again we are painting protestors in some sort of negative image, reinforcing this right wing idea that dissension is un-American.

    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.
    How dare John Kerry feel that our troops are being used improperly. I think that no one should dare being Commander in Chief if he is going to use our military in such a haphazard fashion as Bush has done.

    Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.
    There is a big difference between wanting to work with the UN and refusing to do anything without the UN. I'd like to see Zell present proof that Kerry has said he won't ever use military force unless its approved by the UN.

    As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
    This is one of the biggest things that has bothered me about the Republican smear campaign. This idea that Kerry's protest of the war was aimed at the soldiers and not the leaders. Like many protestors he wanted to bring our troops home because he felt their lives were being needlessly put at risk in a poorly planned, poorly supported war. Thats a far cry from blaming our whole military.

    From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
    What friends?!?! Bush has managed to make America look WORSE to the international community in the last four years, not better. You don't get friends by being a bully. If anyone is encouraging our enemies and confusing our friends its the current administration.

    He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter
    The same straight shooter who refused to testify under oath before the 9/11 commision?

    This election will change forever the course of history
    Finally something I can agree with Zell on. Unfortunately for him , if we re-elect King George I see us heading down a darker path than this country has ever seen.

    This was a frightening speech and exemplified in every way the reason why I am scared and appaled by the Republican party as it stands today.
    God Bless this country indeed, this November we are going to need all the blessings he can give us to avoid a terrible fate.
     
  15. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #15
    That you can even equate anything supported by either party with anything even remotely approaching socialism is perhaps the most absurd leap of pseudo-intellectual reasoning that I have read in a while. To bad there's not some big reference that is easily accessible from a computer via a simple search mechanism when you need it. Someone out to make something like that.

    I am no Democrat and so I'll stick to your Republican thoughts, and since you're so hung up on a literal interpretation of the Constitution let's use that document as a primary reference.

    The Second Amendment to the Constitution says nothing about assault weapons or waiting periods or background checks. Nothing. So how exactly are those policies advocated by gun control activists unconstitutional. Of course, this steps around the larger question of the simple fact that outside of a militia the Second Amendment holds in it no guarantee of a right to gun ownership, but now I suppose a literal reading is just pedantic, eh?

    I was alive and thinking several decades ago and the notion that everyone on every corner would have the "right" to buy all the heavy weapons of any kind without any controls whatsoever was never a "centrist" position.

    As to the give me back my money statement... Under President George the Second we have a nation that can be split by state based on the how much tax revenues they receive as a percentage of how much they pay. What is most interesting about this categorization is that states that are considered blue or Democrat-leaning or liberal receive LESS money than they pay in. For every dollar the liberal states pay in, they get back less than one dollar. Contrast that with states that are red or Republican-leaning or conservative. Those states receive MORE money back than they pay in. For every dollar the conservative states pay in, they get back more than one dollar. Source: IRS, Census Bureau.

    It gets even more interesting when you read the breakouts of tax dollars by district as well. On balance, Republican districts receive more than they pay in whereas Democratic districts receive less than they pay in. Source: IRS, Census Bureau.

    It has always intrigued me that the "give me back my money" crowd is so angry about paying anything in, but more than happy to collect their share (and half of their neighbor's share) when the handout wagon rolls into town. Fascinating.

    I agree that I should be able to keep what I earn. Let's start the process though by passing the hat through the conservative and Republican neighborhoods so that they get first opportunity to pay back the years of government welfare that their states and districts have been receiving. You want to keep your money? Fine, give me back mine first.

    m

    edit: spelling in a few places
     
  16. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #16
    Nah, he just got ahold of Republican talking points. Better would have been:

    Liberal. Liberal. Liberal. Socialist. Liberal. Socialist. Liberal. Socialist. Socialist. Socialist. Good 'ol Days. Good 'ol Days. Guns. Guns. Guns. Money. Money Money.

    I think that paraphrases it just about right.

    He could then start doing things like they do on the floor of the British House of Commons.

    Us: Number 4.
    Them: I refer my right honorable friend to the reply I gave so moments ago.



    m
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    Zell, who was president from 1948 to 1952?
     
  18. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #18
    What frightened me most was Zell's snippet that George W. Bush realizes that "God is not indifferent to America." This kind of hubris and outright linkage of religious sentiment to government shocks and scares me.
     
  19. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #20
    Frankly, I'm surprised that Miller's bizarro act isn't all over the media this morning. Howard Dean was labeled a nut case for going, "Yahhhh!", but nobody notices Miller losing his temper and talking about challenging a reporter to a duel.

    The only place it's getting any play at all is on MSNBC's own blog.

    But of course, going out-of-control on TV would essentially negate everything that Miller said just an hour or two earlier in front of the cameras at the Republican convention. And we can't have that.

    Liberal bias! Liberal bias! ;)
     
  20. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #21
    That wink at the end of your post is why Americans are starting to buy the concept that the media is in the pocket of the liberals. To shorten my argument: there are far too many on the right that truly believe the media is biased against them and there are far too few on the left that think the same way.

    If you were Leo Hubbard (or apparently BTTM), you would have made this observation, then you would have started a thread on the topic. Then you would have injected this "tidbit" into about fifteen other discussions. Then you would start compiling a list of all such incidents to start proving a total media bias.

    The fact that few on the left go so far is scary. The right is filling that gap and brainwashing America with their unproven and unfounded conspiracy theories. After a few more decades this could become one of those "accepted as fact" lies. Scary.

    Even though I don't believe in a right (or left) media bias, it almost makes me want to start my own propoganda site to counter the right. Any rational people out there willing to contribute to a bogus "right-wing bias" site?

    Taft
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  22. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #23
    This could be very entertaining.

    I have a lot of material to work with out here in the land of Hemp and Birkenstocks. :D
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Oh my. I really want this guy on my side.
     
  24. jayb2000 macrumors 6502a

    jayb2000

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    RI -> CA -> ME
    #25
    Santorum and Miller


    OK, this is probably NOT work appropriate....
    www.spreadingsantorum.com
     

Share This Page