Democratic senator from Georgia comes out swinging for the president Zell Miller Endorses Bush 10/29/2003 3:25:00 PM SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA said today he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to. Miller said Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern the country. The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."
If the democratic candidates continue to self destruct as they pander to Bush-haters and chase Dean by trying to steal his hate tactics, I wouldn't be surprised if more democrats who have principles end up supporting president Bush.
Wait, so now switching parties is a good thing? - Wesley Clark Worked for me! - Jim Jeffords My life is a shallow, embarrassing pagaent of humiliation, and I long for the sweet, comforting embrace of oblivion. I mean, me too! - Maria Shriver
I wouldn't be surprised if Diane Feinstein also endorses Bush. I mean, she endorses all his policies and believes all his lying crap. I guess the same goes for Zell Miller. These are the worst kind of Democrats. They run as Dems and act as Reeps. Useless tools.
I'm not saying, necessarily, that this is a bunch of bulls***. I am saying that I haven't seen mention of this anywhere else. And the NRO employs Donald Luskin. This really isn't the kind of story that wouldn't pop up on the WaPo site's politics section. Count me unconvinced. I don't really know anything about ol' Zell, so maybe he's the type of person who would say this. But it doesn't ring true that a freakin' senator would go this far out on a limb right now. These statements are just so extreme.
he's pretty typical for crap and as i said... a democrat in name only, i figure because he thought it would give him a clearer path to congress
its sounds like Zell. He has a new book out that blasts national democrats. If he weren't retiring soon, i wish he would go ahead and switch parties. he's not a dem.
OK, that makes sense. I mean, you can't really run for office in the party after you say something like that. And the fact that he's gonna be a non-entity very soon is probably why it hasn't shown up anywhere else.
Hate tactics.....hmm Bush is a baby killer~ Socialist Worker, err uh, i mean anti war protestors Bush lied(maliciously) and our boys died.~Mikey Moore The war was a fraud perpetrated by the White House~Ted Kennedy If this isn't naked hatred towards the president i don't know what is.
Yea, he better switch parties becuase he doesn't have a far left agenda. You know who you sound like right now? "If you ain't with us, you against us." ~csc7
Manny, if that is what ASF means by "hate-tactics," then clearly we should not accuse Dean of "hate-tactics." I can't think of anything Dean has said that resembles that. Maybe one exception: In one of the debates, he said something like: "We're not the enemy, Bush is." I strongly disagree with his making that comment, but in those debate people sometimes get excited and say things they shouldn't. But, ASF, don't accuse Dean of hate-tactics, especially without explaining what you mean or giving examples of things Dean has said that you characterize as "hate-tactics." ASF, I think you are a good guy. But sometimes you are not clear enough when you use language. I know this is just Bigsoccer message-boards, but your most recent post does not advance the discussion.
Just a few... http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/30/elec04.prez.miller.bush/ http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/103003/new_20031030042.shtml http://www.wsbtv.com/news/2594388/detail.html Search Google News for more.
he votes with bush roughly 90% of the time. where does being a democrat fall in that record? as for having a far left agenda, get a fcuking clue. edit: i looked it up. according to cq.com, this is miller's recent voting record 2002-voted with Bush 92%, voted against party position 60% 2001- Bush 82%, against party 58% 2000- Bush 100%, against party 75%
Were they basing this on voting with the GOP leadership in the Senate or on Bush's campaign platform? Hard to be voting with Bush when he wasn't even POTUS until 1/01.
sorry, that one is my bad. that President would actually be Clinton. looking over the stats for several politicians, party loyalty is better judged by looking at the record of opposing party position. because of the number of noncontroversial votes (voting for approps bills, for example) the numbers in support of the president tend to skew upwards (almost everyone has a ranking atleast in the 60s-70s)
I agree. Then that skewing leads to commericials like "So-and-so voted with Whoever 70% of the time! He/she's too conservative/liberal for this district!"
In my opinion it goes well beyond that comment. What happened was that most democrats and republicans were in agreement about the Iraq war and the war on terror, while the democratic presidential hopefuls were hoping to nail Bush on the economy. But Dean descovered that he could tap on the hatred of many liberals against Bush by attacking him personally and in particular on the Iraq issue, and soddenly he became the front runner for the democratic nomination. I don't blame Dean for being against Iraq, because that was his view from the beggining, even when it was politically unpopular. But the way he exploits the issue to foment hate is what bothers me. I have a friend who likes Dean and signed me up for his literature, and from looking at it I believe he does exploit hatred. But what bothers me is not Dean, but the democratic leaders who supported the war and now betray their principles for political expediency. These are the democratic leaders who panicked and changed course in midstream in order to stop Dean, by copying his attacks on Bush. Suddenly all these guys who were in favor of the effort in Iraq are sounding like Dean. Even Howard Dean himself called them on it, and exposed their hypocricy. And he feels so strongly about it that he spent money on TV ads to expose the hypocrites. Of course, part of the reason why the democrats did a 180 degree turn on Iraq is that now it appears that the economy is recovering and is no longer the issue that they hoped would give them the White House. So for political reasons they made the calculation to repudiate their own position on Iraq. My point is that those in the democratic party with principle will not switch their position on such an important issue based on political considerations, and so we might see them support our president. Zell could be an example of this phenomenom. (Although, like Superdave, I was only commenting based on what I read here. I didn't follow the links yet.) Somebody mentioned Dianne Feinstein. I believe she is a good example of a democrat of principles. I doubt she would go out on a limb to support Bush, but I don't expect her to go 'Dean' on the Iraq issue, either. She dissapointed me by supporting Davis, who had attacked her shamelessly when they were both running for congress. But I think she was against the recall, not necesarily for Davis. Anyway, she is one democrat I will gladly vote for, when the time comes.
An optimist's view: Zell was appointed by Gov. Barnes to complete the term of Republican Senator Paul Coverdell. So, his hewing to a more conservative line may have been in statesman-like deference to the circumstances of his becoming Senator. A realist's view: Miller does not share the same policy views as much of the rest of the Democratic party. As a lifelong Democrat, he is loath to leave his party, but his efforts to change the party are tilting at windmills. A partisan's view: Miller endorsing Bush is ludicrous. The only explanation is he's got some sleazy deals going on with Fort Stewart, tobacco companies, and auto makers that create jobs in Ga. and he needs the Bush administration to help move the pork barrels.
Isn't this the Same Zell miller that had the crowd chanting "give 'em hell Zell" at the Democratic convention. Although he definitely is a conservative he was a Democrat. The fact that liberals here are glad to see him leave doesn't suprise me, but if the Democratic leadership feels the same way, the Democrats are in real trouble.
You misunderstand the appeal of Dean. Maybe my take is wrong, but the basis of his appeal is that he's not afraid of the Republicans. Many Dems are. A corollary of this is the suspicion that many, maybe even most, of the Dems who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war last fall didn't agree with the vote. They just did it to get the issue off of the table by the Nov. 2002 elections. And that just sucks. Just like I don't get that worked up that Bush has lied about, for example, the effects of his tax policies, but I feel personally betrayed as a citizen about his lies to get us to war...I understand a Dem who sells out/makes compromises on tax or trade policy. But if I knew which ones voted against their own judgment on the war for political reasons, I'd say screw 'em. I expect more on issues of war and peace. Anyway, to bring it back to Dean...asf, the media and the right wing spin machine are fooling you. Dean really isn't that liberal. He just was willing to stand up for what he thought was right a year ago. Liberals like him because they believe that it's important that Bush be defeated, and they believe that in order to do that, a candidate is gonna have to stand up to Bush on the issues. My view, anyway. One last thing...I've noticed that it's conservatives here that harp on how liberal Dean is. The actual liberals don't see him as the most leftist serious candidate around. Wouldn't that be Gephardt?
What do you mean by "exploits the issue to foment hate?" What specifically are you talking about? What do you mean "exploit hatred?" Please give an example. ASF, on a different note, a person's motives are not as important as what he or she does. Often times a person does a good thing for selfish reasons.