Zell
September 1, 2004 10:34 PM   Subscribe

Zell Zell Zell
posted by Addiction (138 comments total)
 
I do appreciate the way he set me up to go to college for free, but I agree with little he's done since. What's the point of this post?
posted by toothless joe at 10:40 PM on September 1, 2004


I hear there's a convention in town. How's that going?
posted by 2sheets at 10:41 PM on September 1, 2004


The GOP called him the conscience of the Democratic party. I suppose this saves the republicans from having to look for one of their own.
posted by MrLint at 10:42 PM on September 1, 2004


I knew when I posted this here I would be going against the grain hence I posted no commentary on my personal opinion and wanted to let the situation stand for what it is.

Apparently this has a lot of heads turned, and a lot of people talking about it.

Very pivotal.
posted by Addiction at 10:43 PM on September 1, 2004


*looks out window; stares at bunnies*
posted by dhoyt at 10:44 PM on September 1, 2004


The post-speech interviews didn't go nearly so well for the dottering old fool.
posted by clevershark at 10:49 PM on September 1, 2004


As Michael Crowley observed at Slate (but it's worth reading the whole thing):
So why doesn't Miller just switch parties? He says that he was born a Democrat and considers his party label "like a birthmark." More likely he realizes that once he becomes a Republican he stops being interesting. As a Democrat, Miller is an entertaining man-bites-dog story, and a minor celebrity in GOP circles. As a Republican he's just another partisan hack.
posted by pmurray63 at 10:50 PM on September 1, 2004


Addiction, what evidence do you have of "a lot of heads turned?" Who are these "lot of people talking about it?" GOP delegates? News sources?
posted by argybarg at 10:51 PM on September 1, 2004


Don't get me wrong; I don't even like Kerry and probably will vote independent in the general election. I just don't see how this is pivotal. I mean, Zell Miller endorsed Bush before the primaries even started. He is a democrat by name only; I will be shocked if he doesn't switch parties in the next year. Seriously.
posted by toothless joe at 10:52 PM on September 1, 2004


"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator." -Zell

Having studied the Crusades recently, this is exactly what Pope Urban said about why the lords of Europe should attack Jerusalem. Not as occupiers, but as liberators, to protect the Christian faith and everything Christianity stood for. We went, killed every Muslim, Jew and Christian in the city and looted and stole their property. 200 years later the Muslims had taken it back and it became a the first in a long history of many European barbarian invasions of western Asia.
posted by stbalbach at 10:52 PM on September 1, 2004


zell
posted by soyjoy at 10:54 PM on September 1, 2004


oh, and...
posted by soyjoy at 10:55 PM on September 1, 2004


argybarg, as of right now I have not finished my sociological research as toward the effect the Speech has had on American society. That, coupled with the fact it is an hour old, is barring me from having "evidence" Of exactly who what when and where people are speaking about it.


I do know it is definitely the buzz in the other sites I frequent, and I thought you guys would enjoy discussing it hear also. I personally sat open mouthed while watching it, at the sheer energy this man conveyed while speaking.

Amazing.
posted by Addiction at 10:56 PM on September 1, 2004


It was briefly interesting to see how much he deplored playing partisan politics with national security... and then skipped right to using national security for partisan politics, with his association to the Democrats being merely nominal. You can tell this isn't a guy who'll be running again.

Hope he enjoys his new role as Benedict Arnold of the Democratic party.
posted by clevershark at 10:56 PM on September 1, 2004


</zell>
posted by quonsar at 10:58 PM on September 1, 2004


And now, for something completely different.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:01 PM on September 1, 2004


Zell Miller, 2001:
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."
I'm looking for some nice easy-on, easy-off beach footwear. Anyone have any suggestions? Link's here, by the way.
posted by condour75 at 11:04 PM on September 1, 2004


I believe I saw fangs the venom was kinda thick. Zell the former Chief of Staff for unrepentant racist Lester Maddox really showed his stripes tonight. The only thing he did'nt do is directly accuse the Democrats of treason. They call Kerry a flip flopper but ole Zell is known
as ZIG ZAG ZELL.
posted by thedailygrowl at 11:06 PM on September 1, 2004


As bill zeller, I feel I should say something incredibly insightful.
posted by zelphi at 11:07 PM on September 1, 2004


Ah, well, if "sheer energy" does it for you, then I suppose Zell's your man. Those who look for something more than energetic name-calling and straw-man arguments might be a bit disappointed.

And, yes, I figured that the "lot of people" was just you and your favorite websites.
posted by argybarg at 11:15 PM on September 1, 2004


when the old coot whipped out the Wendell Wilkie card i knew he'd been sucking too much from the xx jug.

the way zell made it sound tonight, wendell was some sort of openminded visionary willing to risk his popularity in order to agree with FDR about the draft.
In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-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.
he forgot to mention that Wilkie was a former Democrat who lost 449 - 82 to fdr, and later failed to win the '44 republican nomination.

the republicans, if you remember in '44, nominated dewey, who of course beat truman in '48. zell will be glad to show you the newspaper to prove that too.
posted by tsarfan at 11:21 PM on September 1, 2004


What a douchebag.
posted by keswick at 11:29 PM on September 1, 2004


I do know it is definitely the buzz in the other sites I frequent, and I thought you guys would enjoy discussing it hear also. I personally sat open mouthed while watching it, at the sheer energy this man conveyed while speaking.

Amazing.


someone from georgia called in to CSPAN and talked about how Zell Miller talked like the southerners did at the height of the KKK movement - zealous and racist and absolute fear fear fear-mongering. i have to agree. this is a man, distorted by the idea of enemy, who'll obviously turn on his own once he feels threatened. he came off to me like a crotchety old man who'll beat you with his cane.

and the whole flip-flop metaphor came up several times through out this glorious third night of the RNC and it just made me laugh. the culpability of people who really get into the whole "kerry is a flip-flopper"concept. of ANY of the phrases that get regurgitated and recirculated around - flip flop, like bush's "asymmetric" Swift Boat Veterans attack on kerry's vietnam record while his own shows him to be AWOL, only underlines their Orwellian tendencies to just state outright the opposite of reality and never look back - and hold the very thing they feel nervous about up to dissect the other guy.

no one is going to take mr. miller very seriously - except for those who need to justify they own fear of "others".
posted by nyoki at 11:46 PM on September 1, 2004


What did he say that was racist?
posted by techgnollogic at 11:58 PM on September 1, 2004


no one is going to take mr. miller very seriously - except for those who need to justify they own fear of "others".

That's exactly what those who support Bush do or those who would support Kerry, but the right-wing media blitz? Zell is perfect for The Republicans he's an old, dishonest white-guy who simply wants to be on the side he thinks will win (i.e. those claiming the US will be a one-party state) rather fight the good fight.
posted by Bag Man at 12:01 AM on September 2, 2004


THE MILLER MOMENT: "Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude."

Miller then came almost completely unhinged during an interview with Chris Matthews after his speech, threatening Matthews with physical violence several times. The whole interview is on video at msnbc - link from this page (scroll halfway down.)
posted by pitchblende at 12:13 AM on September 2, 2004


a man unhinged unhinged.

cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo(mac friendly snippet).

I was wondering why Kerry and the Dems weren't more angry and vocal about Zell giving this speech. I think they were quietly chuckling 'you want him, you got him!'

and to top it off it gets posted here as a PRO republican post. the laughs just keep on coming!

seriously, this is a man you want to listen to?
posted by darkpony at 12:16 AM on September 2, 2004


oopsala.
posted by darkpony at 12:17 AM on September 2, 2004


Thanks for the mac-friendly snippet, darkpony. Zell has, as we say around the house, a bee in his bonnet.
posted by josephtate at 12:49 AM on September 2, 2004


You are totally a dildo. congrats.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:53 AM on September 2, 2004


Who me?

You know, as they say down South, Miller's an old dog that don't hunt no more. He'll make a good choice for Lord Protector of the Homeland, after what's his name steps down.

Also, as they say down South, here's a photo of Zell with the Godfather of Soul. (who's availble for your next municipal concert, BTW.)

Now if Matthews had taken up the duel challenge, then, then, we'd have something to talk about. Or as they say down South, something to flap our gums about.
posted by eatitlive at 1:02 AM on September 2, 2004


Fuck, keswick beat me to it. But he's an interesting douchebag, and this is an interesting FPP. (And of course a lot of people are talking about it. They're just mostly conservative.)
posted by Tlogmer at 3:06 AM on September 2, 2004


I never thought that when I heard a Democrat thunder about the "manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief", he'd be speaking at the Republican convention, on the subject of George Bush.
posted by Vidiot at 4:41 AM on September 2, 2004


He so crazy.
posted by ColdChef at 5:04 AM on September 2, 2004


What's that? Did someone say something about a "manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief?"

Doesn't Zell remember 1992? (flash, sound)
posted by grabbingsand at 5:18 AM on September 2, 2004


Oh, it's about politics. Bah. I thought this post was about the real Zell.
posted by iconomy at 5:18 AM on September 2, 2004


Zig Zag Zell.

The best I can figure is that he's had an aneurism.
posted by jpburns at 5:25 AM on September 2, 2004


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.
--Zell Miller, March 1, 2001.

And they're accusing Kerry of flip-flopping?
posted by Vidiot at 5:27 AM on September 2, 2004


Petition to rename this the official hatin' on Zell Miller thread.
posted by darukaru at 5:32 AM on September 2, 2004


the sheer energy this man conveyed while speaking.

Yeah, well, when I pass people on the street with Zell's kind of energy, I try to avoid making eye contact.

And that Matthews clip should make 'America's funniest videos.' I swear I could see flecks of foam on Zell's lips. Who does he think Chris Matthews is--N.G. Gonzales?
posted by octobersurprise at 6:04 AM on September 2, 2004


Appenzell!
posted by tippiedog at 6:11 AM on September 2, 2004




the real Zell

I thought this was the real Zell...or maybe it's Cheney.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:35 AM on September 2, 2004


I'm surprised they were able to cut away from the camera everytime he spit his chew into that republican slop bucket attached to his neck like a noose.
posted by Peter H at 6:38 AM on September 2, 2004




How much is he getting paid for this?
posted by tr33hggr at 6:45 AM on September 2, 2004


Re-electing George W. Bush is it's own reward.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:11 AM on September 2, 2004


From the NY Times:

Mr. Kerry's aides accused the Republicans of distorting his record - and were particularly dismissive of Mr. Miller.

"This angry old man is scaring the children,'' said Jay Carson, a Democratic Party spokesman.

I didn't know the Dems were hiring comedy writers.
posted by fungible at 7:18 AM on September 2, 2004



posted by quonsar at 7:31 AM on September 2, 2004


Torrent link for video of Miller going nuts on Chris Matthews. Hilarious or sad, take your pick.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:43 AM on September 2, 2004


Q- That pictures great, but I think those hands are superimposed! How could he have two hands free when he was stroking off the whole GOP during that thing? Nice grab of the video wall, though! ;)

It should be noted that Zell is one of the eight democrats responsible for voting Ashcroft in as Atty General, too.

(An easy crib sheet to memorize and keep track of, here is your list of Senators dubbed the 'crazy eight' democunts that allowed the neccessary votes in addition to 100% redumblican voting for John Ashcroft's appointment: John Breaux, Robert Byrd, Christopher Dodd, Kurt Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Russ Feingold, Zell Miller and Ben Nelson)
posted by Peter H at 8:01 AM on September 2, 2004


Not for nothing is Matthews' show named Hardball -- I can't blame Zell too much for losing his temper and climbing all over Chris for interrupting him while he was trying to fumble his way through answering Chris' questions. I wouldn't appreciate being interrupted and badgered like that.

(Not that I particularly like Zell, though.)
posted by alumshubby at 8:23 AM on September 2, 2004


Point taken, Peter, but Zell Miller doesn't count when tallying votes of Democrats that voted "against the party" on an issue. Zell Miller's Senate voting record is almost invariably lined up precisely with Republican party Senate votes.... so it's not as though he "broke" from Democrats like Dodd, Feingold, etc.

Thanks for the Torrent link, Armitage. Honestly, it's nice to see Miller shoot back at Matthews, even though I disagree with him. Miller certainly evaded the question of whether he thought Kerry truthfully wanted to defend the country, which I think got on Matthews' nerves, but I loved his dumbfounded look at Matthews when asked the question about "spitballs," and responded with "You know what a metaphor is?" He didn't go off the rails until he suggested cancelling the interview and then challenged Matthews to a duel.

Finally, having grown up in the 80s and early 90s, I never thought I'd see the sad, sad day when the B-1 Bomber would be publicly defended. Truly we've gone through the looking glass.
posted by deanc at 8:25 AM on September 2, 2004


Well it is interesting, overnight, Zell Miller has been linked to the KKK, to Hitler, to insanity, and to many other ridiculous things.

Are any of these true? Of course not.

Do YOU, the internet culture, believe they are true? Probably. I mean if it is circulated enough, and more people say it, unfounded accusation takes on suspicion and eventually suspicion becomes fact.

What is sad is that it is so one sided in this culture. By this culture I mean the "internet culture." You are not eCool unless you are so fanatically left wing that you are willing to throw all semblance of logic, reasoning, and adherence to facts right out the window. Being a part of this culture for the last 10 years, and not being in the majority (that is those described above), has allowed me to further see exactly how contagious this mentality is also.

Every little noob that logs in, surfs the web, plays a online game, blogs, or anything that touches this culture, gets infected over time. Maybe it is peer pressure, the powerful social pressure to conform to one's peers, I don't know. I just wonder where it will stop. Technology is growing in it's impact on society, I hope this disregard for reality does not carry with it.
posted by Addiction at 8:25 AM on September 2, 2004


My irony detector just exploded.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:32 AM on September 2, 2004


Okay, Addiction, I guess I'm "fanatically left-wing" for linking to pro-Kerry statements on Zell's official website?

How exactly is that throwing "all semblance of logic, reasoning, and adherence to facts right out the window"? Enlighten me, please.
posted by Vidiot at 8:36 AM on September 2, 2004


Zellephant runs wild.

War is awesome.

Vote GOP.
posted by the fire you left me at 8:40 AM on September 2, 2004



posted by mr.marx at 8:45 AM on September 2, 2004


Thanks for the wisdom Addiction, man, I never wanna come down.

(p.s. Space Cowboy just really cracked me up)
posted by Peter H at 8:53 AM on September 2, 2004


Of course the swastika was ridiculous, Addiction, but you'll find few people who'd argue that Zell is not a bit frothy and slightly unhinged.

I mean if it is circulated enough, and more people say it, unfounded accusation takes on suspicion and eventually suspicion becomes fact.

Exactly - liberals are traitors, if you don't agree with Bush you're "soft on terror", the man who saw combat is less fit to be Commander-in-chief than a draft-dodger, on and on and on, etc. etc. etc.
posted by jalexei at 8:59 AM on September 2, 2004


Okay, Addiction, I guess I'm "fanatically left-wing" for linking to pro-Kerry statements on Zell's official website?

The facts, you see, have a fanatically left-wing agenda.

Zell gave a pretty wild speech. So did the Bush twins. They put themselves out in public and acted foolishly. There's no reason not to subject them to over-the-top mockery. I mean, isn't that what the internet is for?
posted by deanc at 9:12 AM on September 2, 2004


You are not eCool unless you are so fanatically left wing that you are willing to throw all semblance of logic, reasoning, and adherence to facts right out the window.

Wingnuts are frothy today!
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:16 AM on September 2, 2004


I mean if it is circulated enough, and more people say it, unfounded accusation takes on suspicion and eventually suspicion becomes fact.

Yes, yes, and clearly this must be countered by circulating three news stories- two from fawning "news" sources (Right Wing News, FoxNews), one a straightforward "here's what he said" piece (CNN)- as an FPP here. You've got this whole thing figured out, haven't you?

My irony detector just exploded.

Amen, brother.

As long as I'm here, I might as well pitch in my $0.02: where the hell are all the Dems saying "Good riddance, you weasel. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out"?
posted by mkultra at 9:24 AM on September 2, 2004


I'm still not seeing the bunnies. A little help, dhoyt?
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 9:29 AM on September 2, 2004


Ol' Zell was on the Imus show this mornin'. Asked about his fight with that Matthews feller, the Senator allowed as how he's just "a-lookin' forward to getting on back down there to Young Harris" (apparently, you have to ford a river to get there), and "set on his porch with his two yaller labs." (This guy's on message!)

I'm proud to hereby announce my support for this idea. Young Harris looks like a nice place, Senator. Do you need me to drive you there? Cab fare?
posted by mmahaffie at 9:52 AM on September 2, 2004


I can't blame Zell too much for losing his temper and climbing all over Chris for interrupting him while he was trying to fumble his way through answering Chris' questions.

Please, the show is called Hardball, and Matthews wasn't any more confrontational than is the norm for the political shows that substitute yelling at each other for debate. Bill O'Reilly steamrollers people, Matthews steps on the interviewee's lines like most of the others do.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:53 AM on September 2, 2004


Well it is interesting, overnight, Zell Miller John Kerry has been linked to the KKK faking his Purple Hearts, to Hitler committing war crimes and accusing all other Vietnam vets of committing war crimes, to insanity wanting to completely dismantle the U.S. military, and to many other ridiculous things.

Are any of these true? Of course not.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:55 AM on September 2, 2004


He's a mediocre speaker, but his words were valid, stiring and solidified by support for the President.

I guess my aunt put her big John Kerry sign next to her Mondale-Ferraro buttons on her shelves: the Loser Section.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:08 AM on September 2, 2004


It's a lot of ado over some ranting and raving speech by a provincial blowhard to a political convention audience.
posted by clevershark at 10:22 AM on September 2, 2004


oh, Paris, you don't know how hard I'm trying to restrain myself from responding to that...
posted by Vidiot at 10:24 AM on September 2, 2004


I thought the internet was overrun by libertarians . . .
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:31 AM on September 2, 2004


no, it's librarians.
posted by Peter H at 10:33 AM on September 2, 2004


That was a national audience and had 50times the impact anything from the Democratic convention had.

It was big, as much as you want to deny it.
posted by Addiction at 10:34 AM on September 2, 2004


oh, Paris, you don't know how hard I'm trying to restrain myself from responding to that...

sounds like you just failed.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:40 AM on September 2, 2004


hey wait, i shouldn't say that. you're the guy who endorsed my presidency in the other thread! withdrawn.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:43 AM on September 2, 2004


It was big, as much as you want to deny it.

Yeah, but was it eCool? Because I hear that it's like totally important to be eCool.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:44 AM on September 2, 2004


Well I think the key concept that he put into the speech is where he spoke about the election being about who will protect his family better. THAT is the hot button, as I see it.

People are terrified - because of 9/11 initially (and justifiably), but since then because of the subsequent barrage of naked fear-mongering from Washington DC, with Tom Ridge's nonsensical and vague terror alerts, for example, which have served to terrorize the population.

A lot of people in this country are now acting like frightened creatures and seeking a Daddy Protector. It's been said in other places on the Blue that many conservatives feel that PROTECTING AMERICA AND OUR WAY OF LIFE IS THE ONLY ISSUE.

That statement is the voice of terror, the sound of helpless children cowering from the boogeyman.

The keywords used all over the place in the news and at the RNC about Bush are "strong," "decisive," "defend," "protect," "family. In contrast, look at the words Cheney uses to describe Kerry: "weak," "wobbly," and "wrong."

It's completely transparent pandering to that childish - no, animal - terror. And it is unfortunately working, because too many people have lost their sense of strength and independence and safety, and now they want Daddy to protect them.

Much like an abused child, this nation barely cares if Daddy lies to them, beats them, burns them, degrades them mentally or emotionally - as long as he's the Big Strong Daddy Defending Us from Everyone Else.

Note that most abused children, even the most horribly abused, will defend their abusive Daddy (or Mommy)viciously and praise his every move in public - the family above everything else. This nation is collectively and precisely following the emotional pattern of a household that is run by an abusive dominator parent. We are, in fact, asking for it - aiding and abetting in our own abuse, in a fog of denial. Some of us even cheer for it, as we see often here on the Blue.

We will get exactly what we ask for.

Makes me sad.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:46 AM on September 2, 2004


Addiction, little tip: As the poster of the FPP, coming back again and again to argue how "big" the topic is... that's not eCool.
posted by soyjoy at 10:50 AM on September 2, 2004


What did I say? That Kerry is a loser-in-waiting?

Face it, liberal boys and girls: YOU'VE FAILED. You made your standard-bearer a weak, wishy-washy, flippy-floppy man who has represented a state that reelects and reelects Ted Kennedy, and has lots of naive college students to use as raw material. He's no commander-in-chief.

It's post-9/11/01, and Zell made it clear that the adults need to remain in power.

But you’ll survive. You’ll grow up a bit, perhaps become parents, and realize that Bush wasn't quite the devil you assumed. And you'll get another chance in four years--with Rudy G. to deal with...
posted by ParisParamus at 11:00 AM on September 2, 2004


Case in point.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:06 AM on September 2, 2004


Point in case.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:21 AM on September 2, 2004


I saw a robin devour an alligator today.
posted by trondant at 11:31 AM on September 2, 2004


Zoogleplex: I invite you to explain how you can know your theories of psychology apply any more readily to President Bush than they do to anyone you support as a candiate.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:41 AM on September 2, 2004


Don't feed. Please.
posted by mr.marx at 11:44 AM on September 2, 2004


So, if there aren't any more terroist attacks on American soil, it's because the Bush Administration has done an excellent job protecting us, and, if there is another terroist attack on American soil, we need to stick with the Bush Administration 'cause they're the only ones who can protect us?

Well, hell...why even vote?
posted by RakDaddy at 11:48 AM on September 2, 2004


Paris, that was flambait. And dumb flamebait at that. And you weren't even talented enough to create photoshop flamebait. And if that wasn't bad enough, you wrote the "It's post-9/11/01" cliche.

Flamebait. No photoshopping skills, and use of cliche in language. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to give you a "D," giving you credit for effort, though.
posted by deanc at 11:48 AM on September 2, 2004


Well, I'm not applying them to Mr. Bush - although his personal psychology is interesting, from what I can read of it. However, your strident post above, in my opinion, reinforces my thought that many Americans are terrified and need Daddy to protect them.

Kerry is not putting forth the Daddy Protector image, and may not be capable of doing so. The Republicans are very good at being Dominating Daddies, so they are more attractive to fearful people who want to be protected. Pretty simple, actually.

You and I probably just don't agree on who the real adults are. I don't really consider violent disciplinarian dominators to be "adult," and neither would most psychologists.

By the way, do you have children?

To all others: sorry if you feel I've fed him. He asked me a straight question.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:56 AM on September 2, 2004


Why vote? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Priniciple? Asking a salient question makes me a troll/flamebaiter? Huh?
posted by ParisParamus at 11:56 AM on September 2, 2004


Note that on March 1, 2001, Zell praised Kerry. The speech is still on Zell's website.

"John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment."
posted by four panels at 12:00 PM on September 2, 2004


I overlooked vidiot's post.

posted by Vidiot at 7:27 AM CST on September 2
posted by four panels at 12:02 PM on September 2, 2004


Face it, liberal boys and girls: YOU'VE FAILED.
John Kerry and George W. Bush remain tied in the race for president both among Americans registered to vote and among likely voters according to a nationwide survey from the American Research Group, Inc. (1)
Paris, I understand your excitement, but the election is November 2. This months economic indicators have not been favorable and have followed a short, but definite trend away from the strong growth earlier in the year.
posted by sequential at 12:04 PM on September 2, 2004


I don't need a daddy to protect me. I need a robust military, and a President who agrees with me that offensively, preemptively taking out terrorists is a good and necessary idea; an idea the importance of which takes precedence over making France happy, or gay rights, or abortion rights (whatever that means...), or the nuances of a tax policy which might, or might not be good for the economy, or might or might lift up the poor.

Defending the nation=daddy? Well, it does more than it does mommy, but your comment is just a truism.

You know, it's arguably that even if Kerry didn't go after Bush on defense he would have lost. But now, having taken the road that he has, he will likely lose in November, and not even be a serious candidate in 2008.

Sorry.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:05 PM on September 2, 2004


Sorry.

Don't be sorry for winning, which you haven't, and likely won't, but be sorry to have reduced the political discourse in this country to naked fear-mongering and false insinuations of treason, or to support those who have.
posted by goethean at 12:27 PM on September 2, 2004


[above should read: "for supporting those who have"]
posted by goethean at 12:28 PM on September 2, 2004


FreedomParamus, that was perhaps the most condescending crap I have heard from you. I am glad you are standing up for a party who's whole convention has been a series of misleading, false statements, and ad hominem attacks about Senator Kerry.

It is funny how many Republicans talk about how September 11th “changed everything” when they don’t even take their own rhetoric as advice. Life and wars were supposed to be different: the Afghanistan war started to show this difference in terms of using Special Forces and asymmetrical nature of the conflict. Then the President made a grave mistake: he invaded Iraq. President Bush invaded Iraq under false (and ever changing) pretenses, and then once we were there, so screwed up the liberation, that we had to become occupiers. Let me say this again, the lack of planning on the part of the DoD and the President has turned what could have been a liberation of a country from a tyrant into an occupation with no end in sight. This is your fault alone - the last time I checked, Senator Kerry was not in charge of war planning and reconstruction.

Look at what President Bush has advocated in terms of military use of power: Afghanistan, Iraq, the so-called “Axis of Evil”, the continued support for anti-ballistic missile system, the list goes on. All are vestiges of the reliance of nation-states as the primary adversaries to the US, and the world. Nation-state sponsored terrorism was (and still to some degree) exists around the world, but it has morphed, evolved. September 11th shows this evolution. What the Bush camp doesn’t (or can’t) realize is that terrorism, much like corporations, has gone transnational. Terrorist groups no longer need the primary backing of a state apparatus to operate. Al Queda was started, and is currently funded, by Osama bin Laden without direct aid from any nation-state. This is why they could move from the Sudan to Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan and Afghanistan without diminishing its strength or ability to fight. All they needed was a network of banks, private backers, and back country roads to move in and out of territories both sympathetic and hostile to their cause. No one state has had to help Al Queda to survive. What about Afghanistan, and the war to take out the Taliban? Well, Al Queda controlled the Taliban, and the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Al Queda supported the nation-state (Afghanistan) which allowed Al Queda to operate freely - Afghanistan was a terrorism sponsored state. The President invading Afghanistan, while I had doubts, was the right move because Al Queda was Taliban was Afghanistan.

Iraq, on the other hand, was not the same as Afghanistan. Saddam was a bad man, who at some point in the last 10 years had chemical and biological weapons, but had no advanced nuclear capabilities. Iraq had no long range missiles to deliver the non existent nuclear payload to America. Vice President Cheney loves to talk about Iraq’s nuclear arsenal, but his speech he talked about Syria (which is another issue). Iraq was not a direct threat to American’s lives, had no substantial ties to terror groups, and was effectively contained. But President Bush (and his advisers) viewed (and continues to view) the world as nation-states, a series of Machiavellian groups to undercut and enhance. Instead, the world is much less perfect: autonomous groups of cells (in this case terror cells) and nation-states coexist as in a dialectic of power, independent of the other; not the simplistic view promuglated by the Bush Administration of nation-states - the world is not like your board game of Risk.

Your “adults” are but narrow minded ideologues who cannot even admit that they are wrong. Last time I checked, being an adult meant owning up to both your successes and your mistakes. To admit that invading Iraq, screwing the pooch on North Korea and Iran, and continued support for a ballistic missile shield that will protect all of those incoming missiles Al Queda has (in other words it wouldn’t be useful), will invalidate the whole “Everything has changed since September 11th” mantra of the Republican party. You can’t have it one way or the other. The world is full of nuance - yet the President’s policies are one-size-fits all solutions to problems which no two are alike and are constantly changing. Frankly, I want my country back - is that to nuanced for you?
posted by plemeljr at 12:28 PM on September 2, 2004


Listen up, liberal media. When the devil comes down to Georgia, you bet your sweet ass he's too "hot" for television! Fire on the mountain, run boys run!!

And what's all this crying and moaning about how the Republicans don't have an agenda? What, you people weren't listening? Exactly how loud do we have to shout it out tonight? You want an agenda, we'll give you an agenda. Take out your little girlie-man pencil cases and start writing it down in your little newspapers:

On health care: we will knock Democrats' teeth down their throats!
On jobs: we will kick Democrats until they die of internal bleeding!
On education: we will show America that John Kerry is even more liberal than Ted Kennedy!
On the deficit: John Kerry looks French!
On the environment: John Kerry's wife is a rich foreigner! who is insane!
On corporate crime: John Kerry shot himself to get out of Vietnam! and he was never there! and he didn't even know how to fire a gun!
On intelligence and security: John Edwards is a pretty boy!
On nuclear proliferation: John Edwards is a trial lawyer!
On Iraq: Democrats are traitors!

So. You people want to debate the issues, we'll give you "issues." Tonight, our leader brings it all home. Stay tuned.

posted by y2karl at 12:34 PM on September 2, 2004


and a President who agrees with me that offensively, preemptively taking out terrorists is a good and necessary idea

Paris, if this is the case, how will the American people ever know if an invasion is for protection, or if it is for profit?
posted by four panels at 12:35 PM on September 2, 2004


I didn't write this, but I like it:
Its this simple: anybody who watched Miller's speech last night and thought it was good is a fascist in waiting. They might not know it yet, but they are. The contempt for democracy, the glorification of the military as the sole repository of our nations values, the contempt for people with different opinions - those are core fascist values.
From here.
posted by goethean at 12:35 PM on September 2, 2004


and a President who agrees with me that offensively, preemptively taking out terrorists is a good and necessary idea

Holy shit! PP and I agree on something. When Bush actually starts doing this, let me know. That he's taken 3 years to figure out our intelligence services need revamping makes me confident we'll have wiped out those buggers by 2032!
posted by jalexei at 12:45 PM on September 2, 2004


Fascist, eh? Imperialist invasions. Yep. Bush is a Fascist. And Imperialist. That's what the Soviets were yelling about. Guess they were right. And Guiliani is a fascist too!

All is lost : (
posted by ParisParamus at 12:48 PM on September 2, 2004


You know, it's arguably that even if Kerry didn't go after Bush on defense he would have lost.
I repeat, the election is not over. Despite what you may believe, no one has been declared a winner yet.
But now, having taken the road that he has, he will likely lose in November
Can you give me any evidence that points to this? While BC04 have some momentum, there is no evidence that it will continue. The convention is not over, the President hasn't spoken and all signs point toward a dead heat at the moment.
and not even be a serious candidate in 2008.
So, running neck and neck with an incumbent is not serious?
posted by sequential at 12:49 PM on September 2, 2004


PP, this statement:

"I need a robust military, and a President who agrees with me that offensively, preemptively taking out terrorists is a good and necessary idea; an idea the importance of which takes precedence over [a number of other things]" (emphasis mine)

is a more detailed restatement of what I put in my first post above:

"...many conservatives feel that PROTECTING AMERICA AND OUR WAY OF LIFE IS THE ONLY ISSUE."

My opinion on that I also stated in the same post:

"That statement is the voice of terror, the sound of helpless children cowering from the boogeyman."

While that opinion is phrased in a somewhat colorful way, I stand by it and my interpretation of people's actions in response to that fear.

As you say, you agree with the President and Administration on this issue, and that's fine. I don't even disagree that a strong response to terrorists is needed, it certainly is. However it's all the other issues that I'm simultaneously paying attention to where the Administration is dropping the ball for me, and I'm just not afraid enough of the terrorists to forget about everything else that's going on here and abroad. That's all.
posted by zoogleplex at 12:58 PM on September 2, 2004


offensively, preemptively taking out terrorists is a good and necessary idea

And Osama is where?

Oh, I remember. He'll be caught in October.

On preview: Everything is too nuanced for PP.
posted by Vidiot at 12:58 PM on September 2, 2004


Evidence of a future loss? Obviously, I can't see the future. But it's a gut feeling based upon the lack of a salient issue (or set of issues) with which Kerry has and/or can make Bush look bad. The simple truth, which many of you, at least here in Metafilter, are unable to see, or admit, is that in the eyes of most Americans, Iraq is a positive for Bush. The world's supposed dislike of us is a plus. The tax cut is a plus. The lack of another major Al Qaeda strike (given the number during the Clinton Administration) is a plus.

Probably no Democrat would have been able to beat Kerry--that's probably why only the most liberal ran. But certainly not Kerry was going to defeat Bush.

Hey. Bookmark this thread, and see what happens in November.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:06 PM on September 2, 2004


Hey. Bookmark this thread, and see what happens in November.

Why would anyone do that? If Bush loses, you will say Democrats cheated. Or you'll disappear. You are viscerally incapable of self-reflection, let along self-criticism, and you have no intention of telling the truth.
posted by goethean at 1:13 PM on September 2, 2004


Sorry for my Kerry / Bush confusion--I think you all get what I meant....
posted by ParisParamus at 1:15 PM on September 2, 2004


Kerry vs. Bush, mano y mano, Lego by Lego.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:19 PM on September 2, 2004


I think you all get what I meant....

That you don't think clearly and have poor argument skills?

Check.
posted by Vidiot at 1:19 PM on September 2, 2004


Well, Goethean, if you go "back to the Metafilter video tape," you'll discover that I supported Gore, and thought Bush was horrible--until I observed how he governed. You'll also discover that I think President Bush's energy and environmental policies scare me; that the tax cut was, when first proposed, a questionable idea; and that I am a registered Democrat.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:21 PM on September 2, 2004


Can you give me any evidence that points to this? While BC04 have some momentum, there is no evidence that it will continue.

I think this is an interesting point. I'll assume there will be a post-convention bounce for BC04, but for all of PP's bluster, were my man the incumbent, in wartime, against an opponent who's only recently begun defining his policy, whose own supporters wll readily admit lacks a certain charisma, and the best he can do is essentially a tie, I'd be quaking in my boots.

It'll be interesting to see how Kerry plays things, but the RNC has been so full of utter untruths (sorry, Salon subscription link) that his campaign has been given a whole pile of material to gleefully shred.

But it's a gut feeling based upon the lack of a salient issue (or set of issues) with which Kerry has and/or can make Bush look bad.

If the economy and yes, the war (see below) aren't "salient," I agree.

The simple truth, which many of you, at least here in Metafilter, are unable to see, or admit, is that in the eyes of most Americans, Iraq is a positive for Bush.

If, according to the most recent polls published in late August, 46% is "most."
posted by jalexei at 1:23 PM on September 2, 2004


Wait until November.

In any case, Whereas I think Kerry is Weak and flippy-floppy, it's the left that thinks Bush in the incarnation of the Devil and/or Hitler. So, think about that 46% (whatever the current Electoral College stats may be). Even at 46%, I think you need to be asking yourself some questions...
posted by ParisParamus at 1:33 PM on September 2, 2004


The lack of another major Al Qaeda strike (given the number during the Clinton Administration) is a plus.

There wasn't an Al Qaeda strike here in the US after September 11, but doth people forget about Madrid. Or perhaps do people forget about the Anthrax episode - I am pretty confident that the anthrax letters were a pretty high level of terrorism - the populace of NYC and DC were both afraid of opening their mail. If that isn't terrorism, then what is? And PP, name one member of the Democratic party who is running for office who thinks President Bush is Hitler. That's right, you can't - nice painting with a big brush. Try again.
posted by plemeljr at 1:39 PM on September 2, 2004


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.
--Zell Miller, criticizing Kerry's voting record at RNC2004

"John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington…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."
--Zell Miller, praising Kerry's voting record in a 2001 speech,
posted by psmealey at 1:40 PM on September 2, 2004


We're responsible for Madrid? I didn't know Spain was a US Protectorat
posted by ParisParamus at 1:57 PM on September 2, 2004


Wait until November.

Well, I'll suppose we have to. My gut feeling (and yes, that and $1.80 will get you a venti coffee) is that Kerry wins and the Democrats pick up a few seats here and there.

it's the left that thinks Bush in the incarnation of the Devil and/or Hitler.

Terribly unscientific I know, but quite a few conservative aquaintances of mine are (somewhat reluctantly) planning on voting for Kerry. Partially on the war but mainly on the deficit (when the Republican is the reckless spender, you know it's not politics as usual).

So, think about that 46% (whatever the current Electoral College stats may be). Even at 46%, I think you need to be asking yourself some questions...

That the number (which was the war approval numbers, not Bush's - apologies if I wasn't clear) has dropped from nearly 70% to under 50% answers any question I might have, and renders your assertion (most likely, given margin of error) incorrect.
posted by jalexei at 1:58 PM on September 2, 2004


No PP, we are not responsible for Spain, but Al Qaeda did attack, and so therefore either the Bush Doctrine or the implementation of the Bush Doctrine is a failure. Take your pick, it all goes back to wrong world view, inability to admit error, and incompetence.
posted by plemeljr at 2:16 PM on September 2, 2004


or, Al Qaeda is still a threat, and there's more work to be done? H E L L O? WHAT KIND OF PACIFIST KOOLAID HAVE YOU CONSUMED?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:31 PM on September 2, 2004


Where can you get a Venti coffee for $1.80? That doesn't even buy a Grande in these parts...
posted by ParisParamus at 2:37 PM on September 2, 2004


That's right, just because I think that President Bush's method of containing and ending Al Qaeda is wrong, then I am a pacifist. Let me note, that nowhere have I made fun of you, distorted what you had said, or launched an ad hominem attack against you. Yet, you do all three. I guess that is the level of debate that Republicans, and those who support them, have to turn to.
posted by plemeljr at 2:41 PM on September 2, 2004


I LOVED the speech. Especially the part about the spitballs.

Dang, you guys really are lefties!
posted by konolia at 2:43 PM on September 2, 2004


Well then, why did you not include the alternative as a possiblity? It's absurd that you would leave it out.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:43 PM on September 2, 2004


A competent US administration should be able to deal with Al Qaeda, persuade and work with the many nations who are our allies, protect our environment, deal effectively with international trade and treaties, handle domestic security, wield and support the military effectively, oversee industry and financial markets, encourage small business, fairly manage intellectual property rights, foster proper and effective health care, administer an even-handed revenue system, address the energy problem, support effective education, guarantee that the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution is enforced... and so on, and so on, innumerable tasks and challenges - ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Focusing on only one problem is, to say the least, narrow-minded in a very large and complex world.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:48 PM on September 2, 2004


OK. When Evil Bush is reelected in November, I'll be the first to list proposed secure places you can hide under so that the CIA/FBI/SS doesn't use the Patriot Act to spy on you and ruin your existence....

Scorecard:
deal with Al Qaeda: check
persuade and work with the many nations who are our allies: check, less certain outrageously corrupt ones.

Protect our environment: not check: FAILURE

Deal effectively with international trade and treaties: check

Handle domestic security: given the climate, check

Wield and support the military effectively: check

Oversee industry and financial markets: jury out/unclear/ask later

Encourage small business: capital gains cut good; not sure what else good/bad

Fairly manage intellectual property rights: what's your gripe? the FCC is sort of corporate-oriented, but no more so than under the last administration

Foster proper and effective health care: problem, but answer not obvious; medical savings accounts a minimal improvement. I'd still rather go to an American Hospital without insurance than an ordinary French or British or Canadian one with.

Administer an even-handed revenue system: the rich still pay lots of tax, the poor very little; deficit is an issue, but it's nowhere near historic highs. If there's a problem, it's incremental; not a big deal. Spending, like that Medicare Drug entitledment may have been reckless, but Bush did that.

Address the energy problem: Bush fails? It looks like it. Although market forces are really all way more powerful than anything the government can do. Tax SUVs! and Dummers! (Hummers).

Support effective education: not sure what the federal government should do that it hasn't. If education is mediocre, its mostly the fault of parents and teacher mediocrity--not $

Guarantee that the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution is enforced: Is this your allusion to theoretical dangers from the Patriot Act? I'm still waiting for real problems to result from it.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:05 PM on September 2, 2004


Actually I wasn't putting that out as a checklist, but it's okay that you've answered it as such. Without getting into specifics, because this thread is really about the Zell speech, I don't agree with your assessment of the performance on the above issues, especially about the new budget deficits. But that's why I won't be voting for Mr. Bush. And I don't feel like a I'm crazy for not voting for him. In my opinion, he's doing a lot of wrong things, and as an American, it's my right to vote my convictions.

And where did I call Bush "evil"? I didn't, nor did I imply it. Hmm, I suppose "Dominator Daddy Protector" smacks of that, but I'd call it as "misguided."
posted by zoogleplex at 3:30 PM on September 2, 2004


Is this your allusion to theoretical dangers from the Patriot Act? I'm still waiting for real problems to result from it.

Because imprisoning US citizens indefinitely on the whim of John Ashcroft without indictment, lawyer, trial, or protection from torture is no problem, right?

Just vote Republican and I'm sure you won't run into any problems.
posted by goethean at 3:34 PM on September 2, 2004


If Ashcroft imprisoned Americans, it wasn't due to the Patriot Act but rather the...

You know, I've wasted enough time here.
/off.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:48 PM on September 2, 2004


Scorecard:
deal with Al Qaeda: check
persuade and work with the many nations who are our allies: check, less certain outrageously corrupt ones.



Paris where do you get this junk? Al Queda has been responsable for more terror attacks around the world after George puffed out his incompetant chest. Do you actually believe that he has "dealt" with Al Queda????

Since Bush decided that going after the guy who tried to kill his daddy was a bright idea, the Taliban and their allied drug lords have taken over their Afgani playground, growing record opium poppy crops and funneling the money to where? Weapons. And Georgy dealt with the Taliban terrorists ... how?

Our allies: Pakistan, likely where Bin Laden is hiding, Pakistan is the source of nuclear technology to both NK and Iran. Great ally, that. Uzbekistan, whose leader likes to fall asleep to the soft screams of people being boiled alive. Great ally, that. The Phillipines, who's government is in danger of falling to radicals as we speak ... and we have done nothing to help. Great ally, us. Saudi Arabia, who's royal family is in large part the source of funding for the terrorist strike that shriveled your nuts so, PP. They keep claiming to have defeated the terrorists in their country, only to have another attack and a "whoops, guess we missed some". Great allies there, obviously.

Paris, just when you start to convince me that you're not stupid, you go off on a jag that leaves no doubt ... you are.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:53 PM on September 2, 2004


zell zell zell
burn in hell hell hell
you'll do well well well
with the fell fell fell
posted by bargle at 8:03 PM on September 2, 2004


(when the Republican is the reckless spender, you know it's not politics as usual).

Umm.. since when?
posted by Space Coyote at 8:37 PM on September 2, 2004


GOP BACKS AWAY FROM MILLER'S BLAST
Democrat 'speaking for himself,' Bush aide says

Late Thursday, Miller and his wife were removed from the list of dignitaries who would be sitting in the first family's box during the president’s acceptance speech later in the evening. Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said Miller was not in the box because the campaign had scheduled him to do too many television interviews.

There was no explanation, however, for why Miller would be giving multiple interviews during Bush's acceptance speech, or what channels would snub the president in favor of Miller.


Apparently this has a lot of heads turned, and a lot of people talking about it. Very pivotal.
posted by soyjoy at 8:37 PM on September 2, 2004


Memo to Konolia: Calling those of us who really are on the left, US-wise, 'leftists' is about as much of an insult as one of us calling you a 'christian'.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:38 PM on September 2, 2004


I need a robust military, and a President who agrees with me that offensively, preemptively taking out terrorists is a good and necessary idea; an idea the importance of which takes precedence over making France happy, or gay rights, or abortion rights (whatever that means...), or the nuances of a tax policy which might, or might not be good for the economy, or might or might lift up the poor.

Paris, even accepting the doctrine of preemption -- and I do, for what it's worth -- do you really think that it's inarguable that Iraq was the right choice? The top choice? The only evidence I've seen that they were involved in backing terrorism was either in cases (1) not related to US targets (but rather, Israel) or (2) actually US-backed terrorism. It is demonstrably true that Iraq does not like the US. It is, to the best of my knowledge, not demonstrably true that Iraq had plans in the works to launch a terrorist attack against the US, or the weapons to do it with. Connections with terrorist organizations that did and do have been tenuously shown at best. Can you point to a terrorist plot against the US hatched or trained for in Iraq? I can't think of any. Can you point to a terrorist plot against the US hatched or trained for in the US? I can think of two off the top of my head. If not, it would seem there's a worse record of incubating terrorism against the US within the US than within Iraq.

What you need to argue is not that pre-emption is not a good idea, but that Iraq was ever about pre-emption. It wasn't. It never was. It was sold to those of us who weren't looking carefully that way, but it was always about the fact that the Bush administration wanted to change the social, economic, and political landscape of the middle east by military force, long before non-state terrorism took the landscape (but finally gave them an ostensible, if misleading, public case).

And whether that is a good idea, and whether it can be done better by our current neoconservative friends than by liberal nation builders is far from a settled question. I suppose you seem to think it is, and I'd be interested to hear why.
posted by namespan at 9:09 PM on September 2, 2004


You got to wonder whether other voters look at Zell and say, he looks like the guy, the spouse in a divorce proceeding who says and oh, yeah, she's a child molester too.

James Harwood of The Wall Street Journal said that last night to Aaron Brown on CNN. He went on to say that the Republican's have written off trying the swing voters and instead are trying to fire up their base and suppress the swing vote with their attacks. The fact that Miller got axed from the President's box shows a great deal of sweat on a great deal of brows.
posted by y2karl at 9:21 PM on September 2, 2004


I have to say I just watched the Zell-Hardball video and I don't think that Miller comes of as completely unsympathetic. More than a little disingenuous, but it's subtle enough that I doubt most people are going to be put off by it, esp. people already agreeing with Zell on defense, who may see his challenge to a duel as a microcosm for a tough national defense.
posted by weston at 10:29 PM on September 2, 2004


What would a bush-supporting speech that didn't contain any lies even sound like?
posted by Space Coyote at 11:12 PM on September 2, 2004


For the record . . .

"I think John Kerry must've shot his dog." - John McCain on Zell Miller, Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 2 Sept 04
posted by gompa at 11:40 PM on September 2, 2004


plemeljr, that was well said. Pity it fell on deaf ears.
posted by ook at 11:54 PM on September 2, 2004


The fact that Miller got axed from the President's box shows a great deal of sweat on a great deal of brows.

Nah, it's just good ole family values: you never invite your whore to the family dinner table.
posted by psmealey at 7:14 AM on September 3, 2004


« Older Oh boy!   |   Four Decades in North Korea Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments