September 02, 2004

Who invited Howard Dean?
Posted by Jon Henke

Opinion seems split on Zell Miller's performance last night.

  • Democrats: " Miller was abrasive, shrill and misleading!"

  • Republicans: "Yeah yeah yeah, but we're cool with that. He's our abrasive, shrill, misleading guy."

Valid criticisms of his speech can be found at Oxblog....

Adesnik correctly notes a couple points at which Miller crossed the line from tough criticism to misrepresentation.

And by Andrew Sullivan....

I would object to Andrew Sullivans race-baiting, though. Really, other than a convenient ad hominem, what the hell does "racial segregation" have to do with anything Miller addressed in his speech? (hint: nothing)

I think it's fair to conclude that Zell Miller was shamelessly demagoguing last night. Some of his criticisms rang true. Others rang false. But, throughout, they were designed to appeal to the emotions, rather than the intellect, of voters. I'm afraid Miller has lowered the tone of the GOP convention.

...which is not to say that it won't be a strategically successful manuever. It may be. It's hard to tell at this point.

However, having thrown in my lot with those who criticize Zell Miller, I need to add this: for the Democrats saying....

  • Atrios: "Wow, I never thought Zell would be able to improve on the original German version of Pat Buchanan's '92 speech, but he did."
  • Ezra Klein: "Voters aren't always informed, but they're almost always decent and they well know that no party's candidate is that singularly wrong, exclusively evil, and determined to bring America to its knees."
  • Brad DeLong: "Is Zell Miller more or less barking mad than Pat Buchanan?"
  • Jesse Taylor: "This is more virulently anti-Kerry than anything during the primaries was anti-Bush."
  • Matthew Yglesias: "I don't believe I've ever heard a more disgusting speech delivered in the English language."
  • Kevin Drum: "....Miller's just-short-of-clinically-insane interviews on MSNBC and CNN..."
  • Oliver Willis: "The sight of a rambling old man screaming hate while being cheered on by the party of Bush is doing our job for us."
  • New Donkey: "I'm not sure I've ever heard so many slurs, misleading inferences, and bold-face lies in the course of an hour of rhetoric."
....I am astounded. Almost--but not quite--speechless.

Have they really forgotten Al "digital brownshirts" Gore? Al "Democracy Itself is in Grave Danger" Gore? The guy screaming, pounding his fist, comparing an investigated, corrected incident--Abu Ghraib--to the Soviet Gulags, and accusing Bush of losing his soul?

Have they forgotten Paul "revolutionary power" Krugman? Howard "Ashcroft is not a patriot" Dean? George "America, under Bush, is a danger to the world" Soros? Or, alternately, George "[Bush] reminds me of the Germans" Soros?

I mean, I remember them defending Gore, and criticizing Republicans for calling out Al Gore and Paul Krugman's hysteria for what it was.

I remember that, but it's apparent that they don't.

Well, you've met the business end of your own shit-stick, guys. So, how does it taste?


UPDATE: Rather than respond to each person individually, I'm going to write this:

To Republicans: it's certainly interesting to see how you're reacting, now that the hyperbole and misrepresentation is on your side. It doesn't matter if it was a "stemwinder"....much of what he said was wrong. Or, at least, overboard. And many of you--though, fortunately, not all--are celebrating it?

So, when Gore, et al, were doing it, you didn't really mind it....you just minded that it was directed at you? Got it.

To Democrats (especially, Oliver and Hesiod): You'll note that I did point out that Miller was misrepresenting a number of things, both factually and with hyperbole. So, thanks for backing up one of my points, but I really wish you'd have addressed the criticisms aimed at your side.

If Miller is a "fascist, wild-eyed nutcase", you have a very low standard for your "fascist, wild-eyed nutcases". He's demagoguing, but I can't seem to recall where he questioned your patriotism. And I can't seem to recall you guys reacting quite the same when Dean or Clark directly challenged Bush administration officials patriotism....or when Al Gore called pretty much all of us "digital brownshirts"....or when Paul Krugman indicated that Bush--and his supporters--were essentially trying to overthrow the US government and US democracy.

And: "Gore's statements were based in fact", Oliver? Please. Did you actually read the criticisms of his speech? At all? He got it from many more places than just here, and it was quite extensive. Let's not pretend Al "digital brownshirts" Gore is somehow exempt from the same criticism.

I mean, except from you guys, apparently.


Mean Gene nailed it in the comment section:

What matters is if you, as a citizen and a voter, let it slide just because this particular liar is on your side of the fence.

Well, apparently both sides are perfectly happy with this state of affairs, so long as it benefits their candidate. You should be ashamed.

Or, failing that, you should at least admit you're a party flack, with no principles beyond electing somebody from your party. If that's what you are, fine. Just don't pretend you're anything else.

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a whole hell of a lot of that from the Democrats in the blogosphere. Maybe that's why Terry McAuliffe could say that Democrats are better political bloggers than Republicans. You guys have discipline. You stay on the Party talking points.

Which pretty well tells me where your allegiance lies.


UPDATE II: We've written more about Zell and the surrounding events today. Just click here for the main page to read more.

TrackBack

Comments

"This is more virulently anti-Kerry than anything during the primaries was anti-Bush."

Wow!

Well, the breathtaking leftist reaction - from the blowdried boomers on the old tv networks to the sad and Soros-y corners of the blogosphere - just speaks for itself.

Hallelujah for Zell Miller!

Posted by: Sergio at September 2, 2004 01:26 PM

The Adesnik line about how Democratic leaders "are willing to fight it with all their heart" made we think of the old 1964 Goldwater slogan ..

"In your heart, you know he is right"

damn right !

Posted by: J_Crater at September 2, 2004 01:35 PM

I sat last night transfixed, as Zell Miller exorcised 30 years plus of my own pent up frustration with the absolute free for all on truth that the left has foisted on us from Vietnam to Sept 2, 2004. Zell is a helluva guy who found the line in the sand and wouldn't cross it...and that line for him, was Sept 11. There is a whale of a lot of difference between righteous anger and the insane and stupid screeching that we have been hearing from the "statesmen" in the party that Zell took to task and took no prisoners. From Dean to Mondale to Gore...it is the sound of rage and hatred...there is a difference between anger and hatred. Zell does not hate his Democrat colleagues but he is mad as hell at them....unfortunately, the Dems cannot understand that difference.... and are blind to the damage they have done. I watched and was astounded and amazed that truth could still count for something...sure there may have been a few exaggerations...call it prosaic license... in the legalistic minds of the libs, one mistake invalidates the whole soup kettle. (Conveniently so) That is part of their problem.. they nuance to death.... and lose sight of the simple truth. Good is good and evil is evil.... not in their world, but in ours and thankfully, in Zell Millers too.

Posted by: Erich Sielaff at September 2, 2004 01:40 PM

Yeah, at first I was kind of bummed yesterday, because the first two days of the convention were net positive

(see my comments Here
)

but then I started reading the democratic responses, and I realized that it was all strategy. This is going to push the Kerry campaign to be more negative while Bush is going to be positive. Since negative campaigns don't win...

The Bush campaign thinks more then one move ahead...that's why Bush will win.

Posted by: Pierce Wetter at September 2, 2004 01:40 PM

"I mean, I remember them defending Gore, and criticizing Republicans for calling out Al Gore and Paul Krugman's hysteria for what it was."

But those a *DEMOCRATS*. I mean, hello? Duh! They are RIGHT! It doesn't matter what they SAY because they believe things that are inherently true. The ends justify the means, if your beliefs are rights, you know.

But REPUBLICANS can't do those things! That would be, like, evil, and stuff.

Posted by: Deoxy at September 2, 2004 01:42 PM

It doesn't really matter what the critics thought of Miller's speech. Their responses were predictable. What matters is how voters view it. I thought it was a little over the top myself, but others have pointed out that it had the kind of sound bite quality that commands attention.

Posted by: Penny Silver at September 2, 2004 01:44 PM

I also thought his speech was a bit over the top, but so far people have told me from every side except the extreme right wing that they either liked it or thought it was effective/powerful. I was reading the blog over at johnkerry.com and judging by the level of their freak-out, Zell did his job.

Let's be clear though, the only person who could get away with giving a speech like that was a Southern Democrat.

Posted by: Neocon at September 2, 2004 01:49 PM

Hey, it was a DEMOCRAT saying those things. Cheney was rational and restrained.

At the worst, Miller's speech will have no effect. At best, it will be very effective.

People recognize it for what it was. A barn-burner.

Posted by: shark at September 2, 2004 01:51 PM

By the way, what people will take from that speech: A list of weapons Kerry voted against. And they'll take his flip-floping from Cheney's.

Kerry- you've just been defined!

Posted by: shark at September 2, 2004 01:56 PM

Oh yeah. About those "weapons" Kerry "voted against."

BIG FAT HONKING LIE!

1. http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

John Kerry's Defense Defense: Setting his voting record straight -- Fred Kaplan.

2. http://slate.msn.com/id/2096874/

Bush Insults Kerry's Intelligence: The president's latest attack is even more dishonest than the last -- Fred Kaplan.

3.http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record -- Factcheck.org

4.http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=147

Did Kerry Oppose Tanks & Planes? Not Lately -- Factcheck.org

5.http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988." Status: False -- Snopes.

6.http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090204.shtml

"How completely did Miller deceive them? Laughably, he scolded Kerry for “trying to shut down” the Apache helicopter—which Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, tried to shut down in 1989! Here’s a bit of Senate testimony from August 13 of that year:

CHENEY (8/13/89): The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64…I forced the Army to make choices. I said, “You can’t have all three. We don’t have the money for all three.” So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out.

That’s our Zell! He ridiculed Kerry for opposing a system that Cheney himself tried to stamp out! But so what? Cheering delegates didn’t know that. They were being entertained by our biggest fake, and mere facts wouldn’t mar his performance."

Posted by: Hesiod at September 2, 2004 02:21 PM

As a genuine independent, I'm no so bothered by Zell's trademark ranting...as by the mindless, gushing endorsements from the GOP establishment.

Zell's a crafty Georgia pol who loves the spotlight so much that he often looks to be channeling Elmer Gantry on the stump. That schtick is like candy to the rabid core of his constituencies...but it ultimately has marginalized him for the fringe crank he truly is.

Last night in Madison Square Garden, he had them hopping up and down like the Teletubbies. He gave them what they longed to hear.

The GOP brain trust wanted the world to see a "straight shooting, straight talker" joining the cause.

However, it's apparent -- judging by the comments I hear -- that the rest of the world simply saw an angry, yammering, old coot who seems crazy as a bedbug.

That this malevolent looney now represents the cutting edge of the GOP campaign speaks volumes about the tenor of the current social climate and political discourse in the US.

What next? A seance with Joe McCarthy?


Posted by: HackPiper at September 2, 2004 02:23 PM

I hear Hitler was a very effective, sundbite speaker too.

Doesn't mean he's RIGHT!

You guys are pathetic. That was the most disgusting piece of fascist filth uttered in a major party political convention in 100 years.

If you want to know how ole Zell went over, check out what the (formerly allied with the GOP) libertarians are saying.

They are freaked out.

Posted by: Hesiod at September 2, 2004 02:24 PM

My favorite part of Zell's speech was when he said 'I knocked on the door to this man's soul and found somebody home.' Isn't it odd that most of his critics don't even address points like that? This is something the great 'unwashed masses' can understand, but they themselves really despise. Interesting times.

Posted by: Jamison Banks at September 2, 2004 02:24 PM

Re: list of weapons Kerry voted against: I've heard co-workers talking about this one today; something like "I didn't know he'd voted against the Apache!" That list will have an effect.

Posted by: Josh at September 2, 2004 02:27 PM

"Isn't it odd that most of his critics don't even address points like that?"

I guess we were too fixated on his massive lying and the fascist part of his speech accusing anyone who even dared to diagree with Der Furher to be a traitor.

Somehow, I think the "unwashed masses" were paying much more attention to the fascist, wild-eyed nutcase than the "man of faith" looking into George W. Bush's soul (like Dubyah looked into former KBG thug Vladimir Putin's soul?)

Posted by: Hesiod at September 2, 2004 02:29 PM

"That was the most disgusting piece of fascist filth uttered in a major party political convention in 100 years." - Hesiod

Man, this just gets funnier and funnier.

As for the libertarians, I happen to be one, and I'm not 'freaking out' - nor are any of the other libertarians I know. In fact, in my general experience, libertarians rarely if ever 'freak out' - we tend to rather enjoy the rough and tumble of politics.


Posted by: Sergio at September 2, 2004 02:33 PM

Quick Hesiod, write the word "fascist" ten more times, maybe Atrios will give you a nickel from his ad revenue.

Posted by: Sergio at September 2, 2004 02:34 PM

A list of weapons systems that Kerry voted against? Uh, the Pentagon doesn't go to the Senate and ask approval for every defense system. They don't drive in an Abrams tank and whine, "Can we have some of these?" and wait for senators to give the thumbs up or down.

No, Kerry voted against an appropriations bill that included more M-1s, F-16s, etc than he thought appropriate. And who was the driving force behind the fight to defeat the bill? Why, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, who thought the bill spent way too much on certain tanks and planes he thought we had enough of already. Miller disgraced himself with such a baldfaced lie, Cheney disgraced himself even more by allowing it to be spoken in the first place.

It just goes to show how the ludicrous quality of political discourse in this country has become a national security threat. Here we are trying to decide who will be the leader of the Free World, but why bother discussing such bothersome concepts as the "facts" or "reality". Maybe if we scream loud enough and lie outrageously enough no one will notice or care! We have no plan for ending the war in Iraq or defeating al-Qaeda, but...John Kerry is a flip-flopper!!! Come on, you can cheer louder than that!!

It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican spewing forth the garbage. What matters is if you, as a citizen and a voter, let it slide just because this particular liar is on your side of the fence. In a democracy we get the government we deserve--and from the looks of it, no matter how we vote in November, we'll get exactly that. Until we, the People, start standing up and saying we won't take this shit anymore, that's all we're going to get in the end.

Posted by: Mean Gene at September 2, 2004 02:36 PM

The best point about Miller's speech was made by Sullivan.

As he said, too see the differences between the Dems and the GOP one need only compare the speech of the keynote speaker at the DNC, Barack Obama, with Miller's speech at the RNC. Optimism and unfication vs. hate.

Is it any wonder that no GOP presidential candidate has won the popular vote since '88.

And something tells me that the furture belongs much more to the Obamas of the world than it does to the Millers.

In time, Republicans will go back to being the minority party they always were. The present, as history will show, is an abberation.

Posted by: mklutra at September 2, 2004 02:39 PM

"As for the libertarians, I happen to be one, and I'm not 'freaking out' - nor are any of the other libertarians I know. In fact, in my general experience, libertarians rarely if ever 'freak out' - we tend to rather enjoy the rough and tumble of politics"

You're not a libertarian. Just because you say you are, doesn't make you one.

Go check out Reason's weblog, for example.

REAL libertarians recognized Miller's fascist lunatic ranting for what it was.

Posted by: Hesiod at September 2, 2004 02:39 PM

Did I like Zell last night?? Hell, yes...we need more people to tell it like it is. Did he scream? Yell? Show emotion? You bet he did. You've got to love those democrats though. They were so upset with Zell...he sold out the party. He's out of touch. And the one I love...he's never was a REAL democrat! They seem to have forgotten someone named "Senator Jeffords" from Vermont. Remember the man who was hailed so loudly for being brave enough to "speak the truth, in a firm and clear voice?" The one they loved, until they lost control of Congress? The person who spoke from the heart, until they stabbed him in the back? PAYBACKS really are a bitch, aren't they???

Posted by: t. gardner at September 2, 2004 02:39 PM

Well, the first to use Hitler was a leftie so Zell won. Nice job.

Posted by: southparkneocon at September 2, 2004 02:42 PM

Who was it who gave us the phrase "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush" at the DNC?

Oh yes, I remember now. It was Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: MA at September 2, 2004 02:42 PM

Except Gore's statements were based in fact. Zell Miller's ravings were not even factesque. Martian facts, maybe. Furthermore, this guy equated dissent from this president and his gang as an unamerican activity. It was sick.

Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2004 02:43 PM

"This is more virulently anti-Kerry than anything during the primaries was anti-Bush."

Bull-fucking-shit... You don't even need to go to the primaries... just look at Sharpton and Kennedy alone at the convention.

Posted by: HH at September 2, 2004 02:45 PM

"Who was it who gave us the phrase "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush" at the DNC?"

OOOO! That's so hateful!

After Zell's lunatic fascist diatribe last night, Teddy was more right than even he knew!

Posted by: Hesiod at September 2, 2004 02:50 PM

Hey--maybe if you keep calling his speech "fascist," it will become true!

Posted by: Big Dog at September 2, 2004 02:51 PM

"Hey--maybe if you keep calling his speech "fascist," it will become true!"

It's true whether I call it fascist or not.

Will Saleton and Andrew Sullivan seem to agree with me. (Along with millions other people, and Chris Matthews).

Posted by: Hesiod at September 2, 2004 02:53 PM

Face it.

The GOP convention was probably helping Bush quite a bit after McCain and Arnold's speeches, but that all went down the toilet after ole Zell went nuts and Cheney sneered his ass off.

Posted by: Hesiod at September 2, 2004 02:55 PM

for more on kerry's voting record....

and all the votes are linked to the actual senate records....

http://www.kerryquotes.com/votingrecord.htm

Posted by: russk at September 2, 2004 02:56 PM

Sorry libs but your spin on this won't work. There was only one speaker at the RNC that truly looked angry... and he was a DEMOCRAT! He can not be dismissed as a crazy partisan, the way one can dismiss Gore's ranting. People will want to know why he's so angry at his OWN PARTY, and he gave them some pretty damn good reasons why.

The people who hate this speech are not the "independents." It's the left-wing. Independents admire nothing more than people crossing party lines for what they believe in. Why do you think they love McCain?

Miller will go over BIG TIME with swing voters.

Posted by: TJ at September 2, 2004 02:57 PM

"Except Gore's statements were based in fact."

Okay one example - "What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by 'a few bad apples,' it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances."

He said this months ago, before much of anything was "clear."

Now more is clear - http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aPVTzpfnAUgM&refer=top_world_news


``Most, though not all, of the violent or sexual abuses occurred separately from scheduled interrogations and did not focus on persons held for intelligence purposes,'' the Army's report said. ``No policy, directive or doctrine directly or indirectly caused violent or sexual abuse.''


"And who was the driving force behind the fight to defeat the bill? Why, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney"

This is no different from the "Rumsfeld-met-Saddam" canard. It's a laugh to suggest that Cheney is against defense spending as a rule... with Kerry it's at least believable in context with his career, in and out of the Senate. All Kerry would have to do to get much of this behind him is an apology for his smears of the military after Vietnam. He won't do it, so the charges stick, period.

Posted by: HH at September 2, 2004 02:59 PM

It's inevitable... someone always cries "fascism" in political discussion nowadays.

Like the guy in that movie: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Was it Orwell that said (and I heavily paraphrase): "'Fascism' has become a term to describe anything we don't like"?

The moment that word comes out, I tend to tune out. Though I admit I caught the "REAL libertarian!!!!" post before tuning out completely. That was equally laughable.

Oh... the constructive part of the comment: Instapundit and others have started linking to "re-examinations" of the initial "dismissal" by Spinsanity, Factchecker, etc. of the assertion that Kerry had a distinctly "anti-military" Senate record. I know that was a convoluted sentence.

So before assuming Miller lied on stage, consider that Kerry might indeed have campaigned on the issue (back in the day) of discontinuing these military programs (and more)... I mean... maybe he even wrote a memo about it... One that ended up on the internet being linked to.

Posted by: JMD at September 2, 2004 03:03 PM

Professional troll Hes endorses Kennedy's blinded-to-the-real-enemies Bush-hating rhetoric... but of course. And claims Matthews and Sully agree with him... somehow I doubt they'd touch his claims with a ten foot pole.

Posted by: HH at September 2, 2004 03:04 PM

Actually, no.
VodkaPundit points up that a look at Kerry's record by Snopes quoted here isn't accurate.

Snopes didn't do enough research. Kerry didn't just vote against giant defense bills that his party opposed mostly because they were proposed by Ronald Reagan; Kerry actively campaigned against a vast array of those weapons while running for office. As reproduced by Lt. Smash, Kerry unleashed a campaign memo in 1984 saying, among other things:

Congress, rather than having the moral courage to challenge the Reagan Administration, has given Ronald Reagan almost every military requiest he has made, no matter how wasteful, no matter how useless, no matter how dangerous. The biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so. And our national priorities become more and more distorted as the share of our country’s resources devoted to human needs diminishes.

As VP points out... Those aren't the words of somebody who was serious about fighting the Cold War. Those are the words of a committed dove.

Remember, this isn't from 1992, when the Gulf War victory and Soviet collapse were recent events. This is in the first half of 1984, just a few months after the Soviet Union shot down KAL flight 007. The Soviets and their puppets were still in complete control of "New Europe." Lech Walesa was under house arrest, Vaclav Havel was about to be imprisoned again, Cuban troops were wreaking havoc in Africa, Nicaraguan Communist forces were doing their level best to take over the rest of Central America for the Soviets, and the Soviets' own military buildup was continuing apace.

Despite the Soviets still being in business, Kerry still explicitly called for the outright cancellation of:

NUCLEAR FORCES
* MX Missile --- Cancel --- $5.0 billion

* B-1 Bomber --- Cancel --- $8.0 billion

* Anti-satellite system --- Cancel --- $ 99 million

* Star Wars [sic] --- Cancel --- $1.3 billion

* Tomahawk Missile --- Reduce by 50 per cent --- $294 million

LAND FORCES

* AH-64 Helicopters --- Cancel --- $1.4 billion

* Division Air Defense Gun (DIVAD) --- Cancel --- $638 million

* Patriot Air Defense Missile --- Cancel --- $1.3 billion

NAVAL FORCES

* Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser --- Cancel --- $800 million

* Battleship Reactivation --- Cancel --- $453 million

AIRCRAFT

* AV-8B Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft --- Cancel --- $1.0 billion

* F-15 Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $2.3 billion

* F-14A Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $1.0 billion

* F-14D Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $286 million

* Phoenix Air-to-Air Missile --- Cancel --- $432 million

* Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile

James Joyner chimes in and suggests that Kerry apparently wouldn't have voted for Spitballs, either.

Perhaps this is what was meant by a misleading speech by Miller?

Posted by: Bithead at September 2, 2004 03:08 PM

And if there's an arbiter of truth anywhere, it's Chris Matthews.

Posted by: Big Dog at September 2, 2004 03:09 PM

I am a little disappointed in Adesnik. Kerry actually did say he wanted to disperse our troops under the UN. He mentioned it in a Harvard Crimson interview in the 1970s. He needs to come out and correct that if he does not believe that today. Since he hasn't corrected it , we can assume he still does. Kerry never really comes out and corrects anything definitively, so lots of stuff sticks.

Posted by: Karen at September 2, 2004 03:13 PM

Zel Miller 21
Screaming Liberal Lunatics 0

Winner: America

Posted by: DJ Drummond at September 2, 2004 03:14 PM

looks like some demlibs are projecting their fascism onto this board--the demlib doublestandard and vicious intolerance, are now exposed for all to see. Fact that foxnews got a larger audience than the lib so-called mainstream stations and that bloggers have outflanked the mainstream media shills for kerry is making the little demlibs even crazier than they are ordinarily. Time for them to turn up the kiddish protests! Wa Wa Wa Wa

Posted by: swampfox at September 2, 2004 03:20 PM

"Except Gore's statements were based in fact"

Must... hold... straight... face... bwahhhhh hahh hahhh!~!! (Oh well, I tried)

How difficult is it to understand?

Miller is angry, and the Dems seriously underestimate how much anger is building around the country at them. We are at war... and have been since 1979, but didn't catch on until 2001. And to much of the country it appears the Dems don't care. How difficult is that to understand?

I'm not saying it's true that they don't care. I'm not saying it's false that they don't care. What I am saying is that for many Americans, they have seen a party that appears to be more intent on winning power than winning a war. The Dems could position themselves to do both, but that is not the tack they have chosen.

Posted by: Ken at September 2, 2004 03:21 PM

Democrats can sling the shit, but they can't take it, the pussies!
Pathetic whiners--funnier than a barrelfull of monkeys.

Posted by: Ann at September 2, 2004 03:22 PM

I've added my response to the post above.

One thing that slipped in afterward: "Kerry actually did say he wanted to disperse our troops under the UN. He mentioned it in a Harvard Crimson interview in the 1970s. He needs to come out and correct that if he does not believe that today. Since he hasn't corrected it , we can assume he still does."

- - -Nonsense, Karen. For one thing, that was 30+ years ago. For another, he specifically said he would not give the UN a veto during his acceptance speech at the Dem Convention.

While I think his actual voting record indicates that he would be far too conciliatory towards the UN, with regards to sending our troops elsewhere, he has specifically denied giving them a veto.

Posted by: Jon Henke at September 2, 2004 03:25 PM

Hah! It's a beer-flying-out-of-the-nose moment.

Now the thought police come up with this gem:
-----
"The people who hate this speech are not the "independents." It's the left-wing. Independents admire nothing more than people crossing party lines for what they believe in. Why do you think they love McCain?"
-----

So...now one cannot even possibly claim to be independent without getting lockstep into the GOP's ever-narrowing definition of things?

I am independent. Not happy with Kerry. Appalled by the Bush administration.

I happen to think John McCain is the real straight shooter...and that ole' Zell is an axe-grinding, motor-mouthed demagogue with few genuine scruples about telling some stretchers to get attention. He told some whoppers last night...and we are starting to see reality crashing in this evening, now that the brimstone has cleared from the air. Then there's that well-practiced, very theatrical "angry" grimace. It's a schtick...and it played all too well to "the faithful" on the floor last night.

Not playing too well out here. That sick chicken is about to come home to roost. Sorry if this doesn't match a certain definition of "independent" politics.

My political position really doesn't matter. Zell Miller's mean-streaked malarkey does.

Posted by: HackPiper at September 2, 2004 03:30 PM

Kerry needs to make himself more clear.
But if he did that, people would know where he stands.
And that could be a huge disaster.
No, better to stay vague, straddle all fences, and wear flip-flops on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Ann at September 2, 2004 03:31 PM

The Angry Democrats™ got upstaged by another angry Democrat. Serves 'm right.

Posted by: Lynxx Pherrett at September 2, 2004 03:31 PM

"Will Saleton and Andrew Sullivan seem to agree with me."

Two points about Sullivan:

[for the first time, I've deleted an offensive comment--ed.]

Posted by: A at September 2, 2004 03:32 PM

The feminists in the democratic party have been quietly and surreptitiously castrating all the men in the party. Listen to their screeching soprano pitched protests above. There are no more men in the democratic party, except for Zell and a few other holdouts.

Posted by: Ann at September 2, 2004 03:38 PM

Nominated for "Troll of the Day"...
-------------
"The feminists in the democratic party have been quietly and surreptitiously castrating all the men in the party. Listen to their screeching soprano pitched protests above. There are no more men in the democratic party, except for Zell and a few other holdouts."
-------------
Well, now that explains everything. Thanks for the insight...

Posted by: HackPiper at September 2, 2004 03:43 PM

mklutra,

Is it any wonder that no GOP presidential candidate has won the popular vote since '88[?]

Well, no candidate of either party has managed a majority of the popular vote since '88. You really think Perot didn't help Clinton at all?

Posted by: Michelle Dulak at September 2, 2004 03:45 PM

...And this one gets my vote for "Best post of the day."
-------
"The Angry Democrats™ got upstaged by another angry Democrat. Serves 'm right."
-------

Good one! Thanks for the chuckle.

Posted by: HackPiper at September 2, 2004 03:50 PM

Somewhere in all this mess, someone has said that saying Kerry would wait on UN permission before deploying troops is a lie...but

Assuming John Kerry means it when he says he would have taken us into Iraq, even knowing what we know now...can anyone say whether or not he would wait on permission from the UN?

We know Bush wouldn't wait for the UN...but who really knows what Kerry would do? I have no idea where he really stands on much of anything. No matter how much someone wants to explain all the caveats and nuances of what he said or did, it simply looks like Kerry's direction is whatever way the wind is blowing at the time.

Really, there is a lot about Bush I don't like, but I feel pretty certain that I know what he will do.

And for what its worth, calling someone a fascist, or a nazi...or any other assorted names...I have no use for that at all.

Posted by: Mr. K at September 2, 2004 03:55 PM

Hard to put up with all this back and forth crap (and not just about Zell). The 527's sling it worse by far and most of them are run by the Dems. Why don't the Dems tell me what they'll DO about anything?


Posted by: freddy at September 2, 2004 03:57 PM

Mr. K,

You've summed up why things are at the point they are...

...Nearly everyone understands what Bush will do.

...Hardly anyone understands what Kerry would do.

Sure sounds like the electorate takes to the old adage about "choosing the devil you know over the devil you don't."

Posted by: HackPiper at September 2, 2004 03:59 PM

Mr. K,

You've summed up why things are at the point they are...

...Nearly everyone understands what Bush will do.

...Hardly anyone understands what Kerry would do.

Sure sounds like the electorate takes to the old adage about "choosing the devil you know over the devil you don't."

Posted by: HackPiper at September 2, 2004 04:01 PM

Another capon bites the dust. How's it taste?

Posted by: Ann at September 2, 2004 04:03 PM

Hesiod,

One of the prerequisites for communication is that we all agree on the meanings of words. The word “dog” must mean “dog” to everyone, but if you use “dog” to mean “umbrella” then we cannot communicate.

So for everyone else’s sake, can you please define what the word “fascist” means to you so we can understand what the heck you’re talking about?

Posted by: octavian at September 2, 2004 04:04 PM

I've spent the day fact checking Zell Miller's speech line by line. Results: every factual statement was totally true. No lies and no exaggerations.

Such speeches include claimed facts and opinions. It is reasonable, though not necessarily valid, that some of his opinions include hyperbole. For example, one can opine that many Democrats would rather defeat Bush than defend our country. Over the top? Not if one considers statements made during recent months by McAuliffe, Daschle, Teddy Kennedy, Gore, Soros, Dean, and some others. Not if you consider the votes of Kerry and Edwards on the $87 billion. Not if you consider the 4 month Senate gridlock on the Homeland Security Department formation.

Many Democrats are still angry that the SCOTUS did not allow them and the Florida Supreme Court steal the 2000 election for Gore. Their angry at being denied their "god-given" right to steal and election has poisoned their minds.

Zell Miller is angry about most of the leadership of his party putting winning an election ahead of national defense. He's angry that John Kerry tried for 20 years to destroy the ability of our country to defend itself. He's angry at the stream of lies from his party trying to destroy our president at time of war. He's angry that those who control his party have forgotten 9/11. Ed Koch is angry about the same things, but is unwilling to state his position as strongly as Miller.

Zell Miller's speech last night, like his book, was a difficult act of patriotism. I was a Democrat for the first 35 years of my life. Zell is a better man that I because he toughed it out and spoke as a Democrat while I chickened-out and joined a party that disagrees with me on almost every social issue.

The Democrats pissed off one of their good guys and he decided to tell the whole truth about what much of his party has become. He rose above partisanship. Live with it.


Posted by: Wayne Moore at September 2, 2004 04:18 PM

"I've spent the day fact checking Zell Miller's speech line by line. Results: every factual statement was totally true. No lies and no exaggerations. "

Well, Bud...

Better head back to those "fact books" and do a more thorough check. Old Zell's a master manipulator of "facts" by way of the time-proven "out-of-context" technique. Done it many, many times before...and he's doing it yet again.

No one's arguing with his right to get angry. The democrats surely deserve a good poke.

Sanctimonious holier-than-thou know-it-alls...

No wait, I think that's the GOP...Then again...

Hell, I can't tell the difference. Apparently, Zell can't either.

Posted by: HackPiper at September 2, 2004 04:32 PM

From my vantage point he looked like all the other angry democrats we've had to suffer these last few years. It was only when you went over and turned up the sound that you realized this democrat was saying different angry things than the majority of them.

Posted by: McQ at September 2, 2004 04:37 PM

I'm tempted to type the word fascist 20 or 30 more times. trying....hard....to.....restrain....

It's a speech at a rah-rah hurrah for our-side convention. Ya know, there USED to be a time where the convention wasn't for approving the candidate that was already picked. This isn't a convention, it's a tax payer funded party. Not much different than the Dem's party in Boston. Sure, I happen to lean more towards this side, but I recognize it to be what it is, THEATER.

Sorta like heading for the blogs that only agree with what I wanna hear.

Someone here made the most telling point, the Republicans managed to get numerous DEMOCRATS to come out in support of their candidate. Not little fish Democrats, big fish Democrats.

That all by itself says something to people who are sitting on the fence. I don't think there are too many here who are sitting on the fence trying to actually decide who to vote for.

FASCIST (* 10) - there, I feel so much better now. Can I get an "Adolf Hitler" and a couple of "racists hatemongers!" from the chilluns in the choir now.

Posted by: Looker at September 2, 2004 04:47 PM

To Republicans: it's certainly interesting to see how you're reacting, now that the hyperbole and misrepresentation is on your side. It doesn't matter if it was a "stemwinder"....much of what he said was wrong. Or, at least, overboard. And many of you--though, fortunately, not all--are celebrating it?

DAMN RIGHT.

Just for once, it's damn good to see someone haul off and let fly at their side. I'm damn angry from a whole year+ of shit from the left.

It's called letting off steam. Nothing wrong with it.

The difference between us and the left- we cheer this one time, and move on. The left keeps doing this over and over and over.

Posted by: shark at September 2, 2004 04:51 PM

WRT - the fact checking fling - don't believe for a minute that a significant portion of last night's audience went anywhere to verify anything that Zell Miller said.
Certainly not trying to belittle the facts, but
that would take time and effort.

As David Frye said (roughly remembered from 30 something years ago)
"The people of this country are like the people of Massachusetts. They'll weigh the issues carefully, consider the positions, and then go out and vote for the best looking candidate".

Posted by: looker at September 2, 2004 05:01 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082762/posts

What's that link? Oh...just a photocopy of John Kerry's "platform" in 1984...at a crucial moment in the Cold War

When did Cheney want to cut back on the number of tanks/planes? Here's a hint: Cheney wasn't Defense Secretary until after Reagan left office when there actually was less need for heavy armor on the ground in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=357339

What's that link? Oh just an article about John Kerry with some of his direct quotes:

I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Kerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.”

And the telling part at the end?

The Kerry campaign, celebrating primary victories in Virginia and Tennessee last night, declined to comment on the senator’s remarks.

He has never disowned those remarks. He has never even deigned to admit that he made them, so it's fair to hold him accountable for them.

If he no longer holds those beliefs, then he should say so. But as with his military records, his wife's tax records, his medical records, his history with the VVAW, and so much else about John Kerry: he won't talk about it.

So voters - and his opposition - to draw their own conclusions based on what does exist in the record. He has no one to blame for any of this but himself.

Posted by: Jim B at September 2, 2004 05:04 PM

For those of you defending Kerry's voting record on defense, take a look at this article.

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/006566.php

For those of you who think that you can defend Kerry by insisting that such and such a Republican voted against such and such a system as well, you miss the entire point. It's not about a particular defense system, it's that Kerry voted against most defense systems. Those of you who object to Miller's hyperbole are like the leftists who rant about the Swift Boat Vets while turning a blind eye to eight times as much of the same kind of material coming from left wing 527's.

http://thereactionary.home.mindspring.com

Posted by: Tilo Reber at September 2, 2004 05:18 PM

To: Jim B
Kerry will to talk about anything...sorry, no he won't...actually, yes he will...nah, he can't...whoops, wrong again, he will too. Or maybe he won't...or he might have...or might not. But he really will...kinda...well, yes...or no. I give up...but he's going to let me know! Or not...

Posted by: t/ gardner at September 2, 2004 05:20 PM

Engage sarcasm mode -

Well. Here's some logical, thoughtful, fact filled response from the other side of the aisle provided by Allahpundit. http://www.allahpundit.com/
And a link for "more" as Allah puts it. http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200409\NAT20040902b.html
I particularly like Allah's link, as it displays reasoned intellectual discourse on the issues raised by the 2000 election and the coming election in November. Why, yes, there's no arguing with THESE facts. Let Miller say what he will!


What exactly is it that these people are drinking, smoking, or ingesting?

Posted by: looker at September 2, 2004 05:49 PM

The first citing on Oxblog from Miller is indeed exaggerated. Perhaps. It is hard to tell just how much Kerry would consult with "Old Europe" because he continues to maintain that he will do so, and that he will get them to cooperate without really specifying how. Magically with his "magic hat" I presume. I can remember Kerry saying that other countries will not have a veto, but I can also remember Kerry saying that we should not act without our "allies." I'm tempted to say he's flip-flopping on this, which is no surprize to me.

In the second, Miller probably should have said "the left" instead of Democrats want to bring down Bush, but the truth of the matter is that most of the Democrats appear to be on the left. Many Democratic fund raisers are going door to door asking people to "help defeat George W. Bush" instead of asking them to "help elect John F. Kerry." That would tend to confirm that it is not just the shrill lefties that are preoccupied with tearing down Bush, but it is also part and parcel Democratic fund raising standard operating procedure.

Sullivan is one whom I no longer go to read. His main issues are 1) Gay Marriage, 2) Gay Marriage, 3) Gay Marriage, and 4) Gay Marriage. Everything is viewed through that lens. If he wants to bash Miller for substance, that's fine. Playing the race card when Miller did not cover anything racist puts him in the same category that he wants to put Miller: shrill demogogue. Pot, meet Kettle.

The listing of programs Kerry did not like that was produced above actually comes from past Kerry Senate Campaign literature. If he has changed his mind, he sure hasn't bothered to tell us.

Therefore Jon, I might appreciate your citations of what else was false. Citing the whole thing is a non-starter.

Posted by: David R. Block at September 2, 2004 06:06 PM

Yeah, I agree -- Zell was AWESOME. Loved that part when he said that trying to defeat the "Commander In Chief" in an election is treason. I was disappointed that they toned the speech down. They cut out the line about how everyone who doesn't have a framed photo of the Commander In Chief on the mantle is a traitor.

Posted by: pj at September 2, 2004 07:04 PM

Oh God! my photo is on the hutch, I'm screwed.

Posted by: looker at September 2, 2004 07:15 PM

David: a great many blogs have been over and over the "voted against defense programs" line, and I'm a bit too tired to look it up right now. Snopes, FactCheck, the Daily Howler and others have debunked it. Credibly.

Fact is, those were largely appropriations bills. I'm perfectly willing to concede--even contend--that Kerry is too passive on defense. He's just not proactive. He's a bit too willing to find an excuse not to act, in my opinion.

But that's not what Miller said. Miller alleged that Kerry was trying to gut the military of those programs. Well, there's a heck of a difference between trying to destroy those programs--some of which, yes, he did want to be rid--and voting against what he considered a bloated appropriations bill.

The Republicans are trying to obscure that point. But it's an important one.

I found the line (not verbatim) about Democrats blaming our problems on ourselves objectionable. It's nice red meat...good demagoguery...but it's not the case. (there are exceptions, but there always are) They think our actions have consequences, but that's not the same as believing we're at fault.

I thought his remark that "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations" was flatly false. Kerry did, after all, make exactly the opposite clear at the Democratic Convention.

I thought his statement that it made him mad to hear US troops called "occupiers rather than liberators" was absurd. They're both. We are, after all, engaged in an "occupation". It's official and everything.

I thought a great deal of his speech was absurd reductionism, which unfairly portrayed the Democrats as opposed to fighting "for freedom over tyranny". Well, hell...I believe in that, too, but you'd find me arguing against an invasion of North Korea. That doesn't mean I'm "objectively on the side of Kim Jong-Il".

That's not to say that he didn't make some good points. He did. But the hyperbole just drowned that out.

If Al Gore had made a similar speech against Bush, we'd be screaming about it. Which, come to think of it, he did. And we did.

Posted by: Jon Henke at September 2, 2004 07:43 PM

For all those trolling the curent Democrat lie, which is that Kerry didn't really vote against all those systems, I offer this:

http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/006566.php

Kerry 1984 Campaign memo:

Congress, rather than having the moral courage to challenge the Reagan Administration, has given Ronald Reagan almost every military requiest he has made, no matter how wasteful, no matter how useless, no matter how dangerous.

The biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so. And our national priorities become more and more distorted as the share of our country’s resources devoted to human needs diminishes.

NUCLEAR FORCES

* MX Missile --- Cancel --- $5.0 billion

* B-1 Bomber --- Cancel --- $8.0 billion

* Anti-satellite system --- Cancel --- $ 99 million

* Star Wars [sic] --- Cancel --- $1.3 billion

* Tomahawk Missile --- Reduce by 50 per cent --- $294 million

LAND FORCES

* AH-64 Helicopters --- Cancel --- $1.4 billion

* Division Air Defense Gun (DIVAD) --- Cancel --- $638 million

* Patriot Air Defense Missile --- Cancel --- $1.3 billion

NAVAL FORCES

* Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser --- Cancel --- $800 million

* Battleship Reactivation --- Cancel --- $453 million

AIRCRAFT

* AV-8B Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft --- Cancel --- $1.0 billion

* F-15 Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $2.3 billion

* F-14A Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $1.0 billion

* F-14D Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $286 million

* Phoenix Air-to-Air Missile --- Cancel --- $432 million

Posted by: Greg D at September 2, 2004 08:35 PM

Kerry is going to drop this campaign into extremely negative territory.

In the words of Adm. Ackbar...."it's a trap!"

And Kerry is stepping right into it.

Bring it on Kerry! Karl Rove prods you into a mistake again

Posted by: shark at September 2, 2004 09:01 PM

This is unfortunately going to be over the head of the majority of readers, especially leftist, to whom BMP isn't an IFV, but an acronym resembling an American sandwich. Nevertheless, some people might understand it.

There was nothing exaggerated about Miller's denunciation of Kerry's record on defense spending. Kerry did vote against those programs, his own campaign memos take pride in it.

He was on the wrong side of history, and if he had gotten his way, our armed forces would have faced horridly against any Soviet attack. F-15, F-14, Patriot missiles - how the heck would the US armed forces, absent these weapons systems, hold any sort of theatre air superiority against the Warsaw Pact?

Russian Backfire bombers would have torn up US Carrier groups with long range Air to Surface Missile fire, absent the F-14 and its pheonix missiles, or the Aegis system. American F-4s (1960s technology) and F-16s (still the basic lightweigh fighter design) would have been outmatched by Soviet Flankers and Fulcrums (1980s technology) without the high cover of F-15s. Soviet ground attack aircraft and Scuds would have had a field day if the US was limited to HAWK SAM (once again 1960s technology) and not the Patriot system.

Reductions in the M1 Abrams and Bradley programs: So with what was the US army going to hold back Soviet T-80s and upgraded BMPs? M-60 Pattons and M113 APCs (1960s and 1950s)? The Abrams and Bradley is the backbone of the US Army even today, these are the programs that gutted the Iraqi Army twice.

If John F. Kerry had gotten his way, US forces would have been a generation behind their enemy, instead of the generation ahead that the Reagan buildup guarenteed. We would have had neither quantity nor quality.

Posted by: Cutler at September 3, 2004 02:28 PM

=

"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."

Harry S Truman, in Look, Apr. 3, 1956

Posted by: M. Simon at September 3, 2004 07:59 PM

"Is it any wonder that no GOP presidential candidate has won the popular vote since '88."

No more than it is that no Democratic presidential candidate has managed to garner a majority of that vote since 1976.

Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at September 5, 2004 11:41 AM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?