But since he's not a bleeding heart liberal, you won't.

If the DNC went back to a platform similar to what Sen. Miller described, instead of a platform of "political correctness", I might actually vote democrat.

 

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums...5&#entry122040

 

I just hope when and if I make it to 72 years old....I can still get up and thrash around like ZM did. At this rate...the odds are not in my favor!

 

Well whadya know- the GOP is "flip flopping" on the speech- and now distancing themselves from Zig Zag

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897622/

Zell in 2001

"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." -- U.S. Sen. Zell Miller in his remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner in 2001

By the way, did anybody see John McCain on "The Daily Show"? When asked about Zell Miller's speech, he replied, "I think maybe John Kerry must have shot his dog." Very funny.

BTW- Bush called us "occupiers" as well

Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people: it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who's a torturer, a killer, a maimer. There's mass graves. I mean he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into kind of a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either.

--President Bush in his April 14 press conference

Also from Zell:
It was in the same hall 12 years ago that Miller, then the respected conservative Democratic governor of Georgia, enthusiastically supported Bill Clinton and belittled President Bush’s father as “a timid man who hears only the voices of caution and the status quo” and a “commander-in-chief [who] talks like Dirty Harry but acts like Barney Fife.”


The same Zell Miller who was chief of staff for the unrepentant racist Lester Maddox will be the keynote speaker at the GOP convention.

Yes, Zell Miller was right-hand man to Lester Maddox who, in 1964, smashed in the roof of a black minister's car. Maddox also publically pushed defiance of federal civil rights legislation calling for desegregation of restaurants and other public places--he pushed his racist agenda so strongly that he passed out axe handles to white customers at his eatery to prevent its integration. Later in the year, Zell Miller's boss Maddox closed his business establishment rather than be forced to serve African Americans.

Yes, my friends. Lester's ex-chief of staff Zell Miller says that today's democrats are too liberal--and maybe he thinks they should be like his old role model Lester Maddox, who picked up a pistol and chased black protesters from the Pickrick fried chicken restaurant the day after the Civil Rights Act was signed into law.

Was that the kind of Democrat for whom Zell waxes nostalgic and for whom he has the true respect?

 

You guys sure pick your heroes:

The reporter questioning miller said that Miller had slammed Johnson for supporting civil rights, accusing him of "selling his Southern heritage for a mess of dark pottage."

As racist comments go, that was hardly the worst we'd ever heard. And it was allegedly made a quarter-century ago. Still, watching the debate, we were stunned. Miller had been one of the leading lights of racial progress in Georgia for decades; he was one of the few white Georgia politicians to endorse civil rights hero John Lewis when he ran for Congress. This hurt.

So we were thrilled when Miller wheeled on his accuser and said that back in 1964 when the Atlanta Constitution had printed that so-called quote he'd marched down to the paper's offices and demanded and received a correction. He'd never say a thing like that. A great moment.

The next day that great moment became one of our greatest nightmares. Al May, the veteran political reporter for the Atlanta Constitution, interviewed Miller as Paul drove them and Shirley Miller to an event in rural Georgia. May made small talk for a little while. Then he sprang the trap. "Zell," he said, "I've talked to all the editors who were around back then, checked the morgue and the archives, and you never asked for a retraction and the paper never printed one."

"I know," Miller said, biting the words off the words like they were bitter herbs.

"So why'd you say all that in the debate last night?"

Miller leaned in close to May and said, "Because, Al, I was trying to mislead the people of Georgia."

For one terrible moment Paul thought about wrecking the car. The only thing that stopped him was that Shirley Miller, one of the world's great ladies, was with them. Otherwise he would have gladly rolled the car into the ditch alongside that country road.

Miller opened his heart to May. Told him he'd always been for racial equality but when Lyndon Johnson supported his opponent, he wanted to lash out. He'd regretted that one moment of anger, dressed up as racial division, ever since.

It was as moving, honest and forthcoming a moment as we'd ever seen from a politician. But May had a job to do, and there was no amount of spin, cajoling or threatening that could keep that story out of the paper.

That night we sent a young staffer to the loading dock where the early, bulldog edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution rolled out around midnight. Sure enough, there was the headline on the front page of the Metro/State section: "Miller: I Lied."

 

Hang in there Don you will make it! Just remember to tell it like it really is You have to admire Zell for standing up and having the courage to go against the liberal brain wash they attempt to spread around.

I guess he can still remember when his party actually stood for something

 

I don't know why they'd distance themselves, he's right, the Democratic party long ago gave up any pretense of being serious about national defense. That's not to say that individual Dems may not be serious about it, but the party officially sure doesn't seem to be.

I doubt he's waxing nostalgic for the likes of Robert Byrd, Democratic senator and former KKK member. The double-standard of where you're getting your quotes is astonishing.

 

It's not called flip flooping unless it's Kerry that's doing it, when it's the GOP it's called "seeing the light"

 

the thing i question when i hear about the dems not careing about natl defense is
where did the armaments come from that bush took us to war with? clinton was in the house for 8 years , seems he would have had time to have got rid of it all in 8 years. in fact, some of the new "smart weaponry was built after bush 1 left office?

 

Still in 1964, I see. One questionable statement 40 years ago, especially one that the posted story makes it sound like he really didn't even mean, hardly invalidates the rest of his career, and certainly makes him no less right on this issue.

 

I can understand your confusion, as a staunch Democrat you want to believe your party is doing everything it can to keep you and yours safe. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Democrats are leading the way in disarming us.

The Clinton administration did in fact downsize the military and reduce the capabilities of this great nation to protect herself. I don't know why you are not aware of this fact, unless you just didn't pay attention as it was happening.

Kerry leads the party in voting against any move that is made to strengthen our troops and military capabilities, is that what you really want for your country?

Perhaps you just do not realize what you are really supporting when you back your candidate as you do.

 

6 years into his presidency Bill Clintons administration had made the following cuts in the military:

24 fighter wings reduced to 13 ( 84% cut )
Naval vessels from 546 to 333 ( 40% cut )
18 Army divisions cut to 10

Ths directly affected many people in military contracting. Not just the military or the ability of us to fight a war.


I am also aware that some cuts may have been needed and that the cold war forces we had may have been too many for the world toady. At the same time the Desert Storm offensive was won fast with those divisons and fire power in place. At the time the Iraqi army was the 4th largest in the world. Most of the military came back home with the lower casualites than we ever had or even expected.

This large force also helped us to have the ability to go to other areas in the world, if needed at the same time.

If things were to get hot in Korea or Iran while we are in Iraq...would we have what we need to deal with it? Without the use of nukes....we would be stretched very very thin. Possibly too thin.

Don~

 

The qoute about "selling his southern heritage for dark pottage" sounded familiar and it was because I heard the exact same qoute except it was suppose to have been from Strom Thurman. I think people pick qoutes they like and use them against whom ever they don't like at the time.

Another BS alert went off when I read "Miller opened his heart to May"
I have a very hard time believing a professional politician "opening his heart" to ANY reporter much less tell him "I was trying to mislead the people of Georgia"
It would have taken a brainfart for any politician to do that.

I'm not suprised by the post or its author.

 

Some lies are so bad they are on snopes even- do you buy everything you read from the republican talking points and internet in box blurbs?

www.snopes.com
<snip>...charge circulated so widely on the Internet that the folks at Snopes.com have felt the need to debunk it as an "urban legend," Republicans say that Kerry has voted against the B-1 and B-2 bombers, the F-14, F-15 and F-16 fighters, the Apache helicopter, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the Abrams tank and a host of other critical weapons. In fact, Kerry did not vote against these weapons specifically. Rather, as the Annenberg fact check explains, Kerry simply voted against the overall defense appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Having voted in support of such bills at least 16 other years, Kerry is, on balance, a supporter of the weapons systems the Republicans accuse him of opposing. Moreover, Annenberg says, the first President Bush and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, also advocated eliminating some of the same weapons Kerry opposed


www.factcheck.org
For months, the Republicans have attacked Kerry for voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq and then voting against an additional $87 billion for funding the war. They've mocked him for saying that he "voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." In reality, there's little to mock there. Although Kerry explained himself badly, he voted for the Iraq funding when it was going to be paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cut for the very richest Americans. He voted against it when that funding proposal died and the entire amount was to be added onto the already exploding federal budget deficit.

And you even lie about the tax issue:

Summary

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=247

The Bush-Cheney campaign released a television ad August 23 accusing Kerry of casting "98 votes for tax increases." The number is an improvement on Bush's earlier claim that Kerry cast 350 votes for "higher taxes," which we described as inflated. But even the new, reduced total is padded.

Of the 98 votes for "tax increases," 43 were cast on budget measures that only set targets and don't actually legislate tax increases. Often, several votes are counted regarding a single tax bill.

The ad also strives to blame Kerry for raising taxes on the "middle class" and says "There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does." But a close look shows the votes cited in this ad are in fact fairly consistent with Kerry's promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year.

But the bill in question was not solely about supporting troops and Kerry's campaign said he ultimately voted against it because, among other reasons, it included no-bid contracts for companies.

Companies like Haliburton for instance?

SLATE's Fred Kaplan observed the day after Zell Miller's attacks on Kerry:

The main falsehood, we have gone over before, but it keeps getting repeated, so here we go again: It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.

Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.

This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

My biggest complaints about Bush/Cheney has been the Administration's blatantly poor management and their deceptions.

In the deceptions category, we have:

- the intentionally underfunded No Child Left Behind, which Bush takes credit for without actually having to commit all the promised money to it, leaving it as a money pit for the states to fund.

- environmental initiatives with names that turn out to be the exact opposite of their intended results. Anyone really think that letting aging polluting electricity plants get bigger without getting cleaner is a way to create "Clear Skies"?

- and who exactly DID Cheney meet with to formulate energy policy? Why all the secrecy about it?

And from Sen. Bob Graham's forthcoming book:

- the whole Iraq war was initiated 17 months before we actually went in, involved large-scale moving of troops and equipment from Afghanistan to the Gulf, but the drumbeat of war wasn't started until August 2002 in the run-up to mid-term elections.

- intelligence that is selectively declassified to suit the Administration's purposes. Graham charges -- and he was head of the Senate's Intelligence Committee leading into the Iraq war -- that Tenet was publicly revealing lots of intelligence reports that supported the Iraq war, but the intelligence that cast shadows on the de-classified intel was kept classified so that the public couldn't see or read about it.

Mismanagement:

- what else can you call it when the lead actuary who determined that the Medicare Drug bill's actual costs would far exceed the Administration's announced costs was told by his appointee boss to shut up about it or be fired? Why wasn't someone publicly and loudly fired over this intentional deception?

- what else can you call it when your very knowledgeable Sec. Treasury tells you that a second tax cut won't help the economy and will create a monstrous deficit and you tell him to take a hike when your greedy VP tells you that "it's our turn"?

- what else can you call it when your head of anti-terrorism's warnings are ignored for months leading up to 9/11 and no one is fired for it?

- what else can you call it when your Sec. Defense and all his underlings are kept on the job after first predicting that the Iraq war would be paid for with their oil, that we would be seen as liberators -- even Bush has admitted we're seen as occupiers -- that didn't plan for any kind of post-war activities (because then people would understand the true scope of the war), that sent the troops over there without sufficient body armor...? How do these people remain at their jobs??

He used his MBA in the 2000 election cycle to tell us he'd run the government more like a business and yet violates all the rules of good business practices.

I own stock in this US Government business and I will vote that the CEO and much of the board of directors needs to be replaced.

 

again i ask:
where did the armaments come from that bush took us to war with? clinton was in the house for 8 years , seems he would have had time to have got rid of it all in 8 years. in fact, some of the new "smart weaponry was built after bush 1 left office?