Democrats label Sen. Miller (D-Ga) a "turncoat"

[her209]

Originally posted by: Crimson
So then, are you saying the democrats used to be the party of warmongering, racism, and lynching? God you guys are desperate.. 'They don't agree with my views, so they must be racist warmonger lynchers!'.. Come on...

Weren't the conservatives the one's telling the liberals that if they didn't support the President, they support bin Laden and Hussein?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Crimson

So then, are you saying the democrats used to be the party of warmongering, racism, and lynching? God you guys are desperate.. 'They don't agree with my views, so they must be racist warmonger lynchers!'.. Come on...

The southern Democrats certainly were at one time. After the Reconstruction, the southerners who had fought so hard against the Republican Lincoln and his troops (fighting, among other things, for the right to keep slaves) hated the Republican party, and were loyal Democrats, although they considered blacks animals, and regarded miscegenation as tantamount to bestiality. The original Klansmen were Dixiecrats.

Strom Thurmond was kind of a one-man demonstration of the transformation of many white Southerners from being racist Dixiecrats to Republicans (who vary all the way from being completely tolerant and fair to being Klansmen), a change that was largely triggered by their resentment toward the civil rights movement.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: udonoogen
i hope he comes to the show tomorrow. zell was ready to kick chris matthew's ass. 🙂

I laughed so hard when he started talking about how he wished he could still challenge people to duels. Hehehe. 😀

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: DonVito
The southern Democrats certainly were at one time. After the Reconstruction, the southerners who had fought so hard against the Republican Lincoln and his troops (fighting, among other things, for the right to keep slaves) hated the Republican party, and were loyal Democrats, although they considered blacks animals, and regarded miscegenation as tantamount to bestiality. The original Klansmen were Dixiecrats.

Strom Thurmond was kind of a one-man demonstration of the transformation of many white Southerners from being racist Dixiecrats to Republicans (who vary all the way from being completely tolerant and fair to being Klansmen), a change that was largely triggered by their resentment toward the civil rights movement.

Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, ZM is definitely a piece of garbage. It plays well before the Republican hyenas.

Wow, i guess speaking your opinions means you're a piece of garbage. I wonder what that makes Michael Moore, a goddamn landfill cuz lord knows hed fill that up by himself.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: ToeJam13
In tonight's Republican convention (2004-09-01), Senator Zell Miller plans speaking on behalf of Republicans. He has officially thrown his support behind President Bush even though ironically he opposed the president?s father during his own campaign.

Sen. Miller cites the liberalization of the Democratic Party. In specific he cites, "The Democratic Party today has gone further and further to the left. It's left me, it's left moderates and it's left a lot of people who want to support a strong commander in chief?.

Could this be yet another victim of the wussifying of the left wing in this country? With strong leaders such as John F Kennedy and Harry Truman a thing of the past, southern Dixiecrats are being forced into an awkward position: support what they see as a party taken hostage by radical left wing agendas which counter their conservative southern beliefs, or side with fat cat Republicans who tend to oppose many of their social safety net views.

Large groups of Democrats who helped vote in Sen. Miller have been expressing their outrage on the steps of his Atlanta office. They are foaming at the mouth at the prospect of their electee helping promote the pro-war Bush campaign.

Silently, some conservative Democrats agree with Miller?s position. They support the notion of ?might makes right? and that it?s a good idea that the United States take care of hostile regimes and organizations on their turf.

Miller?s invitation to the convention is not by chance, however. Republicans have been eagerly portraying themselves this election with moderates and mavericks such as McCain and Schwarzenegger. This ?Softer Side of GOP? is an effort to counter the pandering of the president to ultra-religious zealots.

Regardless, it?s good old fashioned payback. Democrats giggled and snickered when they lured Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT) from the Republican Party three years ago. Payback is a you know what.

Let's leave the "softer side" stuff for Kerry and his approach on handling terrorists. After all, the softer side title was given to Kerry a few weeks back.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, ZM is definitely a piece of garbage. It plays well before the Republican hyenas.

Wow, i guess speaking your opinions means you're a piece of garbage. I wonder what that makes Michael Moore, a goddamn landfill cuz lord knows hed fill that up by himself.

It's only proper to bash and belittle someone?s opinion when it doesn't reflect yours or your self-righteous agenda.

It?s the first rule of politics ya know. 🙂

Being sensible about political orientated material should only have to apply to the other guy?s position.

*Insert why I am higher than thou card here*

(I'm sure the point of this will go right over most peoples heads in here)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, ZM is definitely a piece of garbage. It plays well before the Republican hyenas.

Wow, i guess speaking your opinions means you're a piece of garbage. I wonder what that makes Michael Moore, a goddamn landfill cuz lord knows hed fill that up by himself.

Big difference between Miller and Moore:

Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is based upon truth. It's biased, yes. It's one-sided, yes. But it's rather truthful.

Miller's speech was filled with hate, lies, and half-truths.

 

[conjur]

Question about Freedom of Press Sparks Angry Chris Matthews-Zell Miller Exchange
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp..._content_id=1000623158

NEW YORK Probably the most incendiary moment in all of the television coverage of the Republican National Convention so far occurred shortly after 11 p.m. Wednesday night, during a Chris Matthews interview with Senator Zell Miller on MSNBC, which started hot and then grew angry after a question about reporters and freedom the press.

"You're hopeless," Miller told Matthews, dead serious, speaking over a hook-up from Madison Square Garden, where he had earlier delivered the keynote address. "I wish I was with you there because I want to get in your face." Then Miller said he wished they were back in the age when you could challenge someone to a duel. "I don't know why I came on this program," he added, amidst four minutes of heated exchanges.

Matthews had gotten on Miller's case right from the start, asking him if he really believed what he had said in his speech about Senator John Kerry wanting to defend America with "spitballs." As Miller fudged his answer, and Matthews in his customary style cut him short or talked over him, they each started shouting. Miller told Matthews to "get out of my face," later saying he wanted to get in Matthews' face.

Then Matthews asked him why he had said in his speech that "it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press." Matthews said it was such an obvious thing to say, wasn't he just looking for an easy "anti-media" applause line? That's when Miller went ballistic and nearly stalked off, with Matthews, not exactly backing down, struggling to calm him, which he did, after another minute of shouting.

The interview closed with Matthews saying that now Miller probably hated him, but invited him back on the show Thursday night when he could talk with Joe Scarborough who, he said, would probably be kinder. Miller didn't answer yes or no.

 

[Painman]

:laugh:

I'm with Atrios on this one. Zell 2004 = Bukester 1992.

Maybe he's far more loyal to his party than we ever suspected. Thanks Zell. :thumbsup:

 

[Painman]

Gratuitous Bump:

zellout.com

Write Zell a letter and tell him why you think he should un-closet himself and GTFO of the Dem Party.

Here's my submission:

As I believe that your completely over-the-top RNC speech will (quite ironically) do much to swing this nation's undecided voters towards the Kerry/Edwards ticket this November, I also believe that it's time you admitted to yourself that it's not so much a matter of the Democratic Party having left you behind, but more a matter of the Party having moved on from your quaint, anachronistic, insular and reactionary views. Just as your regessive stances have (predictably) found succor within the GOP, you can rest assured that the Democrats at large no longer find any use for the likes of you whatsoever.

Farewell, Zell, You sorry old cracker. Your departure is 40 years overdue.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur

Wow, i guess speaking your opinions means you're a piece of garbage. I wonder what that makes Michael Moore, a goddamn landfill cuz lord knows hed fill that up by himself.

Big difference between Miller and Moore:

Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is based upon truth. It's biased, yes. It's one-sided, yes. But it's rather truthful.

Miller's speech was filled with hate, lies, and half-truths.[/quote]

An argument can be made that everything is a half truth.

Is anything truly definitive with politics?

Every topic is spun from one direction to another, in order to favor the outlook that the individual is trying to portray.

I didn?t hear anything in Zell Miller?s speech tonight that was any less shady, non-objective, and outright agenda driven than the content I viewed in F 911.

I hate this conclusive word truth?. And how people use it to illustrate that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Even in science, where things actually go under concentrated scrutiny, you don?t see people waving around the truth wand as much as you do with these purely argumentative topics. The only truths in life are that we are born and die, besides that everything is moot in my opinion.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur

Wow, i guess speaking your opinions means you're a piece of garbage. I wonder what that makes Michael Moore, a goddamn landfill cuz lord knows hed fill that up by himself.

Big difference between Miller and Moore:

Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is based upon truth. It's biased, yes. It's one-sided, yes. But it's rather truthful.

Miller's speech was filled with hate, lies, and half-truths.

An argument can be made that everything is a half truth.

Is anything truly definitive with politics?

Every topic is spun from one direction to another, in order to favor the outlook that the individual is trying to portray.

I didn?t hear anything in Zell Miller?s speech tonight that was any less shady, non-objective, and outright agenda driven than the content I viewed in F 911.

I hate this conclusive word truth?. And how people use it to illustrate that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Even in science, where things actually go under concentrated scrutiny, you don?t see people waving around the truth wand as much as you do with these purely argumentative topics. The only truths in life are that we are born and die, besides that everything is moot in my opinion.[/quote]

Is 9/11 sponsored or in any way endorsed by the DNC or John Kerry? Is Michael Moore in any way, shape, or form involved in the DNC (mind you he's attended both the DNC and RNC conventions)? Did Michael Moore deliver the KEYNOTE address at the DNC convention?

Zell Miller is an angry, misguided, nutjob of a politician and I'm glad he's getting out of Washington. ZigZag Zell is doing this to promote his book so he can put some money in his filthy pockets. He also challenged Chris Matthews to a dual in an interview shortly after his fireball speech. Let me repeat that: he challenged Chris Matthews to a DUEL. What a great spokesperson for the RNC isn't he?

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Is 9/11 sponsored or in any way endorsed by the DNC or John Kerry?

Absolutely not, in my personal opinion, yet, I?m sure that some jackal with a tin foil helmet could make a vague argument suggesting it. Just as I have seen a dozen or so times before with this administration and Halliburton plotting 9/11.

Is Michael Moore in any way, shape, or form involved in the DNC (mind you he's attended both the DNC and RNC conventions)?

He was a significant spokesperson for Wesley Clark?s election campaign if I remember correctly. So ties have been established to the Democratic Party (and then some). Does he financially support them? I?m not sure. I haven?t gendered at his financial records lately. Has he spoken on their behalf?.absolutely. Is he a card holder for the DNC? I?m personally not sure. Again, rather than spewing my opinion as the ultimate truth, I concede that this is purely my outlook (based purely on information that I have read or seen).

Did Michael Moore deliver the KEYNOTE address at the DNC convention?

Not that I remember, I do recall something about a few DNC officials not wanting him to speak at the convention, and many of his supporters wanting him to.

Besides that I?m not a big follower of all things Michael Moore.

Zell Miller is an angry, misguided, nutjob of a politician and I'm glad he's getting out of Washington.

Again, this is an opinion. Just as mine was. I could make the same argument that M&M is a nut job for not wanting to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan. I have seen him get angry many times about politics and his hatred for the right. From his prior commentary and films most rational people have been able to establish that his perspective is somewhat misguided.

This boils down into yet another subjective analysis on what is normal.

ZigZag Zell is doing this to promote his book so he can put some money in his filthy pockets.

Probably so?.Perhaps he should make a multi million dollar ?mockumentary? also.

He also challenged Chris Matthews to a dual in an interview shortly after his fireball speech.

Hhahha?.that?s classic. Good times, either way we would have a win win situation on our hands.

Let me repeat that: he challenged Chris Matthews to a DUEL. What a great spokesperson for the RNC isn't he?

Sucks that he is still a Democrat then. I guess people weren?t too upset when he did a similar speech in ?92 at the DNC convention against GB I. Like I?ve been saying, people only seem to have a problem with someone when their views don?t revolve around their personal perspective. Until that time comes, it seems like what?s good for the goose is surely good for the gander.

Thus, intellectual dishonesty has been established.

 

[Pennstate]

You all should check out Andrew Sullivan's blog entry on zell miller. It's pretty good analysis that cuts through all the rhetorics.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur
Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is based upon truth. It's biased, yes. It's one-sided, yes. But it's rather truthful.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! :laugh: Tell me you were being sarcastic. You almost had me.

 

[Grakatt]

Hmm, that sign the Miller guy is doing on the front picture of CNN's homepage, : http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLP...n/top.miller.point.jpg

doesn't it look rather like this traditional Christian sign?
http://www.saradouglass.com/namebars/nameless3.jpg

Though I have a feeling I'm missing something obvious?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Zell Miller is an angry, misguided, nutjob of a politician and I'm glad he's getting out of Washington.

I'm so naive I think that maybe hearing a Democrat support Bush, it may enable a few Democrats to see the light too. However, I should have expected the knee-jerk reaction would be to label him "misguided" and a "nutjob". :roll:

Have you ever stopped to listen to the other side of the argument, or do all liberals just shut off their ears and go into attack mode from the first conservative word? If Kerry himself endorses the President after losing in November, you guys would turn on him faster than you could say "legalized drugs".

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Here's Zell Miller's speech about John Kerry from a few years ago. Thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast to tonights.

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.

i guess the repub delagates shoulda been doing their pathetic flip flop dance during his speech😛

 

[Format C:]

I was watching MSNBC as the interview happened and I don't blame Miller for getting a bit miffed to begin with because Matthews was hitting him with one question after another and not giving him time to finish his answer to any of them. What caused him to get angry though was a complete misunderstanding. Matthews, as he'd been doing all along, was firing out another question in the middle of Miller's answer to the previous one and Miller didn't hear the first part of the question, just the part about "calling people baby killers" and some other derogatory stuff. Miller thought that Matthews was accusing HIM of saying that in his speech and got totally PO'd. Matthews was too busy, again, talking over Miller that he didn't catch Miller's comment about "I never said any of that stuff..." or something similar to that, so he never had a clue why Miller was so upset. Had he not been constantly talking over Miller's answers to his many rapid-fire questions he would have realized that Miller had misunderstood what he said and would have been able to straighten the whole mess out before it escalated to the point of Miller essentially telling him he'd like to give him a good ole southern ass-whoopin'.

I used to watch MSNBC news all the time but Chris Matthews is the very reason I stopped. He's always seemed to be a pretty unbiased interviewer, asking tough questions of everyone, but he has a very bad habit of doing just what I saw him doing tonight. If its your job to ask people questions then at least have the common courtesy to give them enough time to get more than a couple or three words out of their mouth, at least maybe a sentence or two, before you cut them off with the next one. He asks good questions, IMO, but he doesn't give those he asks them of time to respond and the viewer goes away learning nothing other than Chris can talk really loud and really fast. If all his interviews went the way the one with Miller did AFTER Miller got pissed I wouldn't mind watching him more often. After he was challenged to a duel 🙂, he slowed down, asked his question, then waited for a response before going to the next one.

I have a neighbor that is guilty of doing the same thing Chris did tonight and he annoys the livin' crap out of everyone. We've all just gotten to the point that we wait 2 or 3 seconds before attempting to answer. By that time he's already interrupted with something else and thats how it goes over and over until his throat gets so parched he has to go home to get a drink of water.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
He's a Democrat in name only.

Much like the entire Bush administration is Republican in name only.

Conjur, you must be able to relate to him well then seeing as you are a rino.

 

[sandorski]

The guy seems kookier than Dean's scream. Except he maintained the kookiness for the duration of his speech.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
Big difference between Miller and Moore:

Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is based upon truth. It's biased, yes. It's one-sided, yes. But it's rather truthful.

Miller's speech was filled with hate, lies, and half-truths.

An argument can be made that everything is a half truth.

Is anything truly definitive with politics?

Every topic is spun from one direction to another, in order to favor the outlook that the individual is trying to portray.

I didn?t hear anything in Zell Miller?s speech tonight that was any less shady, non-objective, and outright agenda driven than the content I viewed in F 911.

I hate this conclusive word truth?. And how people use it to illustrate that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Even in science, where things actually go under concentrated scrutiny, you don?t see people waving around the truth wand as much as you do with these purely argumentative topics. The only truths in life are that we are born and die, besides that everything is moot in my opinion.

First, learn how to quote.

Second, Fahrenheit 9/11 was a movie! An admittedly biased movie by Moore. Yet, it still holds solid as it is based in truth. The words of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney themselves were used against them. The Bush administration's policies were raked over the coals and doubts cast upon its integrity as not being beholden to corporate interests.

Miller's speech was pure, unadulterated BS and everyone knows it.

Why didn't Miller bring up the FACT that Kerry voted to cut certain programs in order to help bring about a balanced budget?

Why didn't Miller bring up the FACT that Cheney voted to cut the same weapons programs?

Why didn't Miller bring up the FACT that Kerry wanted that supplemental funding bill last year to be paid for via loans so the deficit spending would come to an end? Kerry also wanted an amendment on that bill to punish those who would leak the names of undercover CIA operatives.

Why didn't Miller bring up the FACT that Bush was going to VETO that supplemental funding bill if any part of it involved loans, and not grants?


It's painfully obvious why Miller has switched parties. He's following the Christian Right in lock-step with the Bush administration. Guess he's become a member of the Christian Reconstructionists along with Ashcroft and DeLay.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Have you ever stopped to listen to the other side of the argument, or do all liberals just shut off their ears and go into attack mode from the first conservative word?

Rob brandishes the favorite conservative weapon: generalization.

 

[conjur]

Chris Matthews on the interview:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

I just had this incredible moment with Senator Miller, the Democrat who just gave the Republican keynote.

It was only an hour after his speech, and I guess he came to the interview loaded for bear.

I questioned him about some of his remarks. Knowing what I know about how they vote on Capitol Hill, I tried to get him to talk about how senators all the time, for legislative reasons, vote "No" as a legislative tactic because too much money is being spent, when they couldn't have backed the bill otherwise. This goes for conservatives voting against social programs just as it does for liberals voting against weapons systems.

Senator Miller didn't buy what I was saying. I can't tell you why. And I was pretty surprised with his reaction. Maybe because it was a remote and there was a lot of noise in the convention hall, he just couldn't hear what I was asking.

I'd hate to leave things where they are without giving him the opportunity to discuss these important issues. I was glad he said he wanted to come over and meet with me in person, so I hope he accepts my invite to join me at the MSNBC set Thursday evening.

heh heh