Zell Miller to speak at Republican National Convention

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

The party shouldn't have left him then

CkG

Oh no, he left the party. He spoke at the DNC once before. Remember: "You have a choice between an aristocrat, an autocrat, and a Democrat?" The party was more liberal then than now!

Since he is my Senator, I think he should switch. This man is in no way a Democrat, and should leave the party immediately. If it was fine for him to pimp for Democrats then, when he wasn't widely known, but now, that he has the name recognition, he wants to speak at the RNC, that is beyond making sense. I think he's at best a hypocrite and opprotunist, and at worst, slowly losing his mind.

So disagree with the party and you're out of the party? That's what I love about Democrats...they are all about tolerance.

Your comments are just asinine. What's the point of being in a party if you don't agree with it's policies and principles? The situation with the Log Cabin Republicans and a recent Repub convention in the South comes to mind....

Zephyr

Not everyone in a party will agree 100% of the time on everything. There are things I don't agree with the Republican Party on....does that mean I should leave? No, it means that I can think for myself and don't have to abide by the party line in everything I believe. I just love it when Dems get worked up about something like this....points out their true hypocrisy when it comes to their beliefs on inclusion and tolerance.

You're mischaracterizing Zell Miller. Do you know much about him? Here's a list of FACTS:

1) He co-sponsored Bush's tax cuts
2) He supported Bush's Iraq War, and still does
3) He does not attend congressional Democratic caucus meetings anymore
4) He wrote a book railing against the Democratic Party
5) He has endorsed Bush for President, and has done some fundraising
6) He has bashed Kerry at pro-Bush rallies
7) He bashed Dick Clarke and the 9/11 Commission in March saying the hearings would "energize our enemies and demoralize our troops"

He only agrees with the party about 5% of time. He's pro-choice and pro-education (in the real sense of the word).

The guy was a good Governor of Georgia. He did alot of improve the state's education system and advance race relations. He really didn't want to become Senator, and only did so when Gov. Barnes convinced him to do so.

So what? The man has a choice to belong to any party he chooses. Who has the right to tell him that if he only agrees with the party X% of the time then he has to leave. That's moronic! I guess you only want people to be Democrats if the follow the party line without question. Great idea....

Ah yes, "tolerance"

CkG

What a joke. So a bunch of Greens join the Republican Party and you're going to tolerate them? Get a handle on yourself and face the reality that political parties are groups of like minded individuals. "Tolerance" or inclusiveness is not an issue.

Zephyr

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes, "tolerance"

CkG

What a joke. So a bunch of Greens join the Republican Party and you're going to tolerate them? Get a handle on yourself and face the reality that political parties are groups of like minded individuals. "Tolerance" or inclusiveness is not an issue.

Zephyr

Ummm...They are free to join. They may not get their ideas on the platform but they are more than free to join. Infact in some arena's I'd be labeled a "green" environmentalist nutjob(infact I have been) due to my support of renewable energy sources like bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind power, and etc. I love nature and believe we need to protect what we have but I also think that some regulations and restrictions go way too far.
BTW - I don't hug trees, but I do plant them

Anywho, this isn't about me - this is about the "tolerant" party trying to say someone shouldn't be a member.

CkG

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes, "tolerance"

CkG

What a joke. So a bunch of Greens join the Republican Party and you're going to tolerate them? Get a handle on yourself and face the reality that political parties are groups of like minded individuals. "Tolerance" or inclusiveness is not an issue.

Zephyr

Ummm...They are free to join. They may not get their ideas on the platform but they are more than free to join. Infact in some arena's I'd be labeled a "green" environmentalist nutjob(infact I have been) due to my support of renewable energy sources like bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind power, and etc. I love nature and believe we need to protect what we have but I also think that some regulations and restrictions go way too far.
BTW - I don't hug trees, but I do plant them

Anywho, this isn't about me - this is about the "tolerant" party trying to say someone shouldn't be a member.

CkG

I seem to recall certain members of the "bigotted" party trying to say Arnie Schwarzennegger isn't really a member of said party, because of his political views. Also I recall in a state in the south, at a convention of the "bigotted" party, certain Log Cabin members were denied a display booth because of their "sexual choices." Do you think "sexual minorities" should be free to join and participate in any party they choose to, even the "bigotted" party?

Zephyr

 

[oreagan]

Ummm...They are free to join. They may not get their ideas on the platform but they are more than free to join. Infact in some arena's I'd be labeled a "green" environmentalist nutjob(infact I have been) due to my support of renewable energy sources like bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind power, and etc. I love nature and believe we need to protect what we have but I also think that some regulations and restrictions go way too far.
BTW - I don't hug trees, but I do plant them

Anywho, this isn't about me - this is about the "tolerant" party trying to say someone shouldn't be a member.

CkG

So what if it were this scenario instead:

A man grows up in Iran. He moves to America of his own free will and becomes a citizen. Then, he starts whining and moaning about how the U.S. is the Great Satan and Iran is great and it is absolutely unbearable to live in America. He refuses to leave despite being offered a free ticket home.

He has every right to do that. That doesn't make it any less stupid to do so, and I've heard a good number of conservatives telling people with much less reason to get out of the country. If you don't believe in a completely voluntary party, don't join it. I don't plan to join the NRA and then lobby zealously for gun registration. I could, but it would be stupid.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes, "tolerance"

CkG

What a joke. So a bunch of Greens join the Republican Party and you're going to tolerate them? Get a handle on yourself and face the reality that political parties are groups of like minded individuals. "Tolerance" or inclusiveness is not an issue.

Zephyr

Ummm...They are free to join. They may not get their ideas on the platform but they are more than free to join. Infact in some arena's I'd be labeled a "green" environmentalist nutjob(infact I have been) due to my support of renewable energy sources like bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind power, and etc. I love nature and believe we need to protect what we have but I also think that some regulations and restrictions go way too far.
BTW - I don't hug trees, but I do plant them

Anywho, this isn't about me - this is about the "tolerant" party trying to say someone shouldn't be a member.

CkG

I seem to recall certain members of the "bigotted" party trying to say Arnie Schwarzennegger isn't really a member of said party, because of his political views. Also I recall in a state in the south, at a convention of the "bigotted" party, certain Log Cabin members were denied a display booth because of their "sexual choices." Do you think "sexual minorities" should be free to join and participate in any party they choose to, even the "bigotted" party?

Zephyr

We're talking about the "tolerance" party here If the "bigot" party doesn't want to include people - doesn't that fit in with their "bigoted" views?

CkG

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes, "tolerance"

CkG

What a joke. So a bunch of Greens join the Republican Party and you're going to tolerate them? Get a handle on yourself and face the reality that political parties are groups of like minded individuals. "Tolerance" or inclusiveness is not an issue.

Zephyr

Ummm...They are free to join. They may not get their ideas on the platform but they are more than free to join. Infact in some arena's I'd be labeled a "green" environmentalist nutjob(infact I have been) due to my support of renewable energy sources like bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind power, and etc. I love nature and believe we need to protect what we have but I also think that some regulations and restrictions go way too far.
BTW - I don't hug trees, but I do plant them

Anywho, this isn't about me - this is about the "tolerant" party trying to say someone shouldn't be a member.

CkG

I seem to recall certain members of the "bigotted" party trying to say Arnie Schwarzennegger isn't really a member of said party, because of his political views. Also I recall in a state in the south, at a convention of the "bigotted" party, certain Log Cabin members were denied a display booth because of their "sexual choices." Do you think "sexual minorities" should be free to join and participate in any party they choose to, even the "bigotted" party?

Zephyr

We're talking about the "tolerance" party here If the "bigot" party doesn't want to include people - doesn't that fit in with their "bigoted" views?

CkG

Well then I guess Moonbeam should feel sort of vindicated now that you refer to a certain party as bigoted.... but I find it hard to believe you are serious that the Demoncrats should be "tolerant" and not want a member to leave, when that member disagrees with them on most issues.

Zephyr

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes, "tolerance"

CkG

What a joke. So a bunch of Greens join the Republican Party and you're going to tolerate them? Get a handle on yourself and face the reality that political parties are groups of like minded individuals. "Tolerance" or inclusiveness is not an issue.

Zephyr

Ummm...They are free to join. They may not get their ideas on the platform but they are more than free to join. Infact in some arena's I'd be labeled a "green" environmentalist nutjob(infact I have been) due to my support of renewable energy sources like bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind power, and etc. I love nature and believe we need to protect what we have but I also think that some regulations and restrictions go way too far.
BTW - I don't hug trees, but I do plant them

Anywho, this isn't about me - this is about the "tolerant" party trying to say someone shouldn't be a member.

CkG

I seem to recall certain members of the "bigotted" party trying to say Arnie Schwarzennegger isn't really a member of said party, because of his political views. Also I recall in a state in the south, at a convention of the "bigotted" party, certain Log Cabin members were denied a display booth because of their "sexual choices." Do you think "sexual minorities" should be free to join and participate in any party they choose to, even the "bigotted" party?

Zephyr

We're talking about the "tolerance" party here If the "bigot" party doesn't want to include people - doesn't that fit in with their "bigoted" views?

CkG

Well then I guess Moonbeam should feel sort of vindicated now that you refer to a certain party as bigoted.... but I find it hard to believe you are serious that the Demoncrats should be "tolerant" and not want a member to leave, when that member disagrees with them on most issues.

Zephyr

No. The problem with your association is that it isn't true. The Democrats try to cling to this "tolerance" thing and try to claim it as their own. However, the Republicans don't cling to the "bigot" label and it is YOU, moonbeam, and others on the left who are trying to pin that label on them. There is no "bigot" party that I know of, but again the left/Democrats/etc try to claim they are the party of "tolerance" and then pull this BS. I don't condone any party not accepting those who wish to be associated with them in name/ideals/etc.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe a party which claims they are "tolerant" and tries to claim that label for themselves would want a member to leave because he doesn't always agree with them or doesn't agree with them enough.

CkG

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes, "tolerance"

CkG

What a joke. So a bunch of Greens join the Republican Party and you're going to tolerate them? Get a handle on yourself and face the reality that political parties are groups of like minded individuals. "Tolerance" or inclusiveness is not an issue.

Zephyr

Ummm...They are free to join. They may not get their ideas on the platform but they are more than free to join. Infact in some arena's I'd be labeled a "green" environmentalist nutjob(infact I have been) due to my support of renewable energy sources like bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind power, and etc. I love nature and believe we need to protect what we have but I also think that some regulations and restrictions go way too far.
BTW - I don't hug trees, but I do plant them

Anywho, this isn't about me - this is about the "tolerant" party trying to say someone shouldn't be a member.

CkG

I seem to recall certain members of the "bigotted" party trying to say Arnie Schwarzennegger isn't really a member of said party, because of his political views. Also I recall in a state in the south, at a convention of the "bigotted" party, certain Log Cabin members were denied a display booth because of their "sexual choices." Do you think "sexual minorities" should be free to join and participate in any party they choose to, even the "bigotted" party?

Zephyr

We're talking about the "tolerance" party here If the "bigot" party doesn't want to include people - doesn't that fit in with their "bigoted" views?

CkG

Well then I guess Moonbeam should feel sort of vindicated now that you refer to a certain party as bigoted.... but I find it hard to believe you are serious that the Demoncrats should be "tolerant" and not want a member to leave, when that member disagrees with them on most issues.

Zephyr

No. The problem with your association is that it isn't true. The Democrats try to cling to this "tolerance" thing and try to claim it as their own. However, the Republicans don't cling to the "bigot" label and it is YOU, moonbeam, and others on the left who are trying to pin that label on them. There is no "bigot" party that I know of, but again the left/Democrats/etc try to claim they are the party of "tolerance" and then pull this BS. I don't condone any party not accepting those who wish to be associated with them in name/ideals/etc.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe a party which claims they are "tolerant" and tries to claim that label for themselves would want a member to leave because he doesn't always agree with them or doesn't agree with them enough.

CkG

Firstly I don't apply the Bigot Lable to the Republican party, although there are certainly bigots in it. But thanks for painting with a wide straw man brush. Secondly, tolerance has nothing to do with agreement on issues. The purpose of a party is to have platforms and agreement on issues. Tolerance would entail accepting all points of view, which negates the purpose of the party. Disagreement in the party is to be expected, but when a member is disagreeing the vast majority of the time, and campaigning for the opposing party, it is only logical and expected that members of the party think the disagreeing member should leave.

Zephyr

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: oreagan

So what? The man has a choice to belong to any party he chooses. Who has the right to tell him that if he only agrees with the party X% of the time then he has to leave. That's moronic! I guess you only want people to be Democrats if the follow the party line without question. Great idea....

This is not a matter of rights. No one here is saying that Senator Miller doesn't have the right to be a Democrat. I have the right to cheat on my girlfriend and also rail against infidelity, but that doesn't make me any less of a hypocrit or any less of a jerk.

Ok enough already. Gather round children uncle NesuD had something to tell you. Once upon a time in the past the Democratic party actually had a reasonably large conservative faction that was tough on national security and international affairs. In recent decades though The party mainstream has been drifting further and further away from this and the conservative faction has grown very small. There is little or no opportunity for anyone these days with conservative views in The Democratic party. Zell Miller is an old school conservative Democrat who for many years put aside his own opinions on some subjects to support his party even when he did not agree. He does not do that any longer. I think He has realized that the party will never come back around to any of his positions so he has given up on the Democrats and now goes his own way. The fact is the party moved away from Zell Miller. He did not move away from the party. The intolerance of his fellow Democrats just serves to drive him further from the party. To call him a hypocrite is wrong.

 

[shiner]

Well said NesuD.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Well said NesuD.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes, "tolerance"

CkG

What a joke. So a bunch of Greens join the Republican Party and you're going to tolerate them? Get a handle on yourself and face the reality that political parties are groups of like minded individuals. "Tolerance" or inclusiveness is not an issue.

Zephyr

Ummm...They are free to join. They may not get their ideas on the platform but they are more than free to join. Infact in some arena's I'd be labeled a "green" environmentalist nutjob(infact I have been) due to my support of renewable energy sources like bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind power, and etc. I love nature and believe we need to protect what we have but I also think that some regulations and restrictions go way too far.
BTW - I don't hug trees, but I do plant them

Anywho, this isn't about me - this is about the "tolerant" party trying to say someone shouldn't be a member.

CkG

I seem to recall certain members of the "bigotted" party trying to say Arnie Schwarzennegger isn't really a member of said party, because of his political views. Also I recall in a state in the south, at a convention of the "bigotted" party, certain Log Cabin members were denied a display booth because of their "sexual choices." Do you think "sexual minorities" should be free to join and participate in any party they choose to, even the "bigotted" party?

Zephyr

We're talking about the "tolerance" party here If the "bigot" party doesn't want to include people - doesn't that fit in with their "bigoted" views?

CkG

Why are neo-cons talking about tolerance when someone starts criticizing their views that certain someone is said to be "hating America", etc. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cobalt
Why are neo-cons talking about tolerance when someone starts criticizing their views that certain someone is said to be "hating America", etc. Talk about hypocrisy.

Why are leftist socialists trying to change the subject? Do you want to address the "tolerance" issue at hand? Or are you going to claim the "neo-cons" are at fault for this?
Miller is a democrat and the democrats try to claim they and they alone are the party of "tolerance", yet here we sit with people trying to tell him to get out of the democrat party. Yeah....talk about hypocrisy.

Oh, and if you don't want people to say you hate America - don't say hateful things about America. It's pretty simple.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Clearly, Zell doesn't have to leave the democratic party. By all means, stay if he wants to stay. But there's something kind of pathetic and sad about a man who is so stubborn in the face of reality.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Miller is a democrat and the democrats try to claim they and they alone are the party of "tolerance", yet here we sit with people trying to tell him to get out of the democrat party. Yeah....talk about hypocrisy.

Who here actually told Zell personally to get out of the party? Oh thats right, NO ONE. This isn't an issue of tolerance. Thats a cute way to spin it, but it never was and never will be. There's no hypocrisy when those of us who actually are represented by him express our opinions on him.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: cobalt
Why are neo-cons talking about tolerance when someone starts criticizing their views that certain someone is said to be "hating America", etc. Talk about hypocrisy.

Why are leftist socialists trying to change the subject? Do you want to address the "tolerance" issue at hand? Or are you going to claim the "neo-cons" are at fault for this?
Miller is a democrat and the democrats try to claim they and they alone are the party of "tolerance", yet here we sit with people trying to tell him to get out of the democrat party. Yeah....talk about hypocrisy.

Oh, and if you don't want people to say you hate America - don't say hateful things about America. It's pretty simple.

CkG

To me, it's not a matter of tolerance - I don't belive the Democrats have shown any less tolerance than Jeffords was shown by the Republican Party when he changed to Independent. I compare it to being a member of a team. One of the major tenants of teaming and being a good team member is that even though you may disagree and try to persuade the other team members with your differing view, you may not be successful in doing so. If that's the case, then you have two options. You can suck it up and agree to work with the team, or you can leave it and pursue your own agenda. Now, I'm not saying that each politician has to vote the party line 100% of the time, but there should be some fair amount of 'shared goals and vision' between the individual and the team they choose to affiliate themselves with. If Miller applied the same behavior to a real life example such as a sales team job or a professional sports team job, no-one would be surprised if he were dismissed or let go or even changed teams. So, why should the Democratic party put up with his behavior when no other real-life entity would?

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, and if you don't want people to say you hate America - don't say hateful things about America. It's pretty simple.

Much the same can be said about Zell Miller and the Democratic party...

I'm sure his maintaining Democratic party affiliation has more to do with some effort to establish the idea of "Dems for Bush" than anything else, as oxymoronic as that might seem... To claim he's a Democrat and yet work so hard to tear down the Party speaks strongly of some internal conflict, either moral or emotional... and to the idea that he's more of a political opportunist than a man possessed of any actual values...

He'll move on, after the election, given that his current stance makes about as much sense as a straight suit and tie type guy getting soused in a gay leather bar night after night...

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Miller is a democrat and the democrats try to claim they and they alone are the party of "tolerance", yet here we sit with people trying to tell him to get out of the democrat party. Yeah....talk about hypocrisy.

Who here actually told Zell personally to get out of the party? Oh thats right, NO ONE. This isn't an issue of tolerance. Thats a cute way to spin it, but it never was and never will be. There's no hypocrisy when those of us who actually are represented by him express our opinions on him.

Nice choice of words....nobody here has told him PERSONALLY to get out of the party...it was a cute way to spin it though.....but read the posts here....several want him out.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Originally posted by: oreagan

So what? The man has a choice to belong to any party he chooses. Who has the right to tell him that if he only agrees with the party X% of the time then he has to leave. That's moronic! I guess you only want people to be Democrats if the follow the party line without question. Great idea....

This is not a matter of rights. No one here is saying that Senator Miller doesn't have the right to be a Democrat. I have the right to cheat on my girlfriend and also rail against infidelity, but that doesn't make me any less of a hypocrit or any less of a jerk.

Ok enough already. Gather round children uncle NesuD had something to tell you. Once upon a time in the past the Democratic party actually had a reasonably large conservative faction that was tough on national security and international affairs. In recent decades though The party mainstream has been drifting further and further away from this and the conservative faction has grown very small. There is little or no opportunity for anyone these days with conservative views in The Democratic party. Zell Miller is an old school conservative Democrat who for many years put aside his own opinions on some subjects to support his party even when he did not agree. He does not do that any longer. I think He has realized that the party will never come back around to any of his positions so he has given up on the Democrats and now goes his own way. The fact is the party moved away from Zell Miller. He did not move away from the party. The intolerance of his fellow Democrats just serves to drive him further from the party. To call him a hypocrite is wrong.

NesuD, this is only true of Southern Democrats before and during the Civil Rights era. They didn't address national security and international affairs the way we do now (back then it was more in terms of 'protecting' the country from communist infiltration).

However, as I stated before, Zell spoke at the DNC, when Democrats were more liberal than they are now, and he supported a candidate who was considered to be a liberal. If he was conservative then, then that would have been a opprotune time for him to step up and make it know then. At that time, he was seen to have a bright future in the Democratic Party, especially being a popular governor from a southern state and he did NOTHING at that time to change that view.

So, why now? If he could put up with it and bask in the glory of a liberal Democratic party back then, then what reason does he have to critize and rail against a party that has been moving more to the center? That's why I consider him a hypocrite, and it's just to place that tag on him.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: NesuD

Originally posted by: oreagan

So what? The man has a choice to belong to any party he chooses. Who has the right to tell him that if he only agrees with the party X% of the time then he has to leave. That's moronic! I guess you only want people to be Democrats if the follow the party line without question. Great idea....

This is not a matter of rights. No one here is saying that Senator Miller doesn't have the right to be a Democrat. I have the right to cheat on my girlfriend and also rail against infidelity, but that doesn't make me any less of a hypocrit or any less of a jerk.

Ok enough already. Gather round children uncle NesuD had something to tell you. Once upon a time in the past the Democratic party actually had a reasonably large conservative faction that was tough on national security and international affairs. In recent decades though The party mainstream has been drifting further and further away from this and the conservative faction has grown very small. There is little or no opportunity for anyone these days with conservative views in The Democratic party. Zell Miller is an old school conservative Democrat who for many years put aside his own opinions on some subjects to support his party even when he did not agree. He does not do that any longer. I think He has realized that the party will never come back around to any of his positions so he has given up on the Democrats and now goes his own way. The fact is the party moved away from Zell Miller. He did not move away from the party. The intolerance of his fellow Democrats just serves to drive him further from the party. To call him a hypocrite is wrong.

NesuD, this is only true of Southern Democrats before and during the Civil Rights era. They didn't address national security and international affairs the way we do now (back then it was more in terms of 'protecting' the country from communist infiltration).

However, as I stated before, Zell spoke at the DNC, when Democrats were more liberal than they are now, and he supported a candidate who was considered to be a liberal. If he was conservative then, then that would have been a opprotune time for him to step up and make it know then. At that time, he was seen to have a bright future in the Democratic Party, especially being a popular governor from a southern state and he did NOTHING at that time to change that view.

So, why now? If he could put up with it and bask in the glory of a liberal Democratic party back then, then what reason does he have to critize and rail against a party that has been moving more to the center? That's why I consider him a hypocrite, and it's just to place that tag on him.

You honestly think the Democratic party is moving TOWARDS the center? Come on man......

As for why he is saying different things now....as it was said earlier....the party moved away from him, not the other way around.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You honestly think the Democratic party is moving TOWARDS the center? Come on man......

As for why he is saying different things now....as it was said earlier....the party moved away from him, not the other way around.

No, you come on! Clinton was by far more moderate and to the center than Dukakis, Carter or Mondale. In terms of fiscal responsibility, Clinton and Gore have been much more successful than say, Reagan or Dubya and this wasn't even an issue with Carter and Dukakis. Clinton championed and passed welfare reform and reduced the size of the federal government. And, really if you look at Kerry's and GWBush's current political platform, there is little difference on economic and national security policy. The Democratic party was much more centrist in this past decade than it was in the last three decades. This is also why Nader is a factor, because he draws from the far left who are disallusioned with the rightward movement of the Democratic Party. You must be failing to see that because it has not moved far enough rightwards for you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on who moved from who, then.

 

[zantac]

Zell Miller was head of Walter Mondale's Georgia Campaign in 1984. The democratic party didn't leave him. Miller left the party and its platform. By remaining a democrat, Miller hopes to cause a media stir and turn the tide against the democrats. This is much like the tactic that the Nixon campaign used with the "Democrats for Nixon" ads that ran in 1972.

 

[JihadJim]

I'm sure Arlen Spector (R-PA) would be willing to speak at the DNC convention.

 

[NightTrain]

Speaking at the opposition party's national convention is a bit different than bucking your party line.

He should decline.

 

[GoPackGo]

Zell Miller is a stand up guy who tells it like it is.