I’m not trying to have it both ways. I see Zig Zag for what he is and dismiss him altogether. You, on the other hand, seem to think that he has a credible opinion and should be listened to just because his opinion aligns with yours in this one instance.
No. Miller didn’t claim there was any wicked cackling or maliciousness on Kerry’s part. I defy you to quote any part of his speech that said that.
He did, however, make clear his belief that Kerry’s judgement as regards defense votes was seriously flawed, and that the result of those flaws in judgement would have been keeping our soldiers vulnerable.
That’s not only unassailable as the man’s opinion, but it’s one I agree with. Kerry’s voting record in the Senate on defense spending is not a good one.
No treason. I’m sure Kerry has exercised his good-faith belief on each and every vote, and, indeed, the “correct” way to vote to effectively defend the country is a matter upon which reasonable people may disagree. So there was no malice, no treason, no wicked cackling – AND NO MENTION OF ANY OF THOSE THINGS in Miller’s speech. Miller simply said - forcefully - that in his view, Kerry’s appraoch to national defense was woefully insufficient. Others may disagree.
I agree.
- Rick
P.S. Meaningless anecdote time: I’ve spoken to two former “undecideds” and two former “probably Kerry” voters who heard Miller’s speech and now say “probably Bush.” I’m sure there are others who switched the other way… but if the poll numbers are any indication, more people are moving towards Bush than away right now. And I couldn’t be happier about my wager’s viability.
The point is that Miller did not offer an opinion on Kerry’s actual record. He lied and distorted Kerry’s record into a strawman and passed judgement on that.
It was a dishonest, malicious, mealy-mouthed speech from an angry, embittered old bigot. That doesn’t mean it won’t work. Negativity and slander almost always work, but it only works on people who don’t check any facts.
If some people are swayed by the rant of a deranged segregationist, so be it. There are more ethical ways to win, but since an honest debate about Bush’s record is not not a viable option for his campaign, I suppose this kind of hate speech is the only strategy available to them.
Bricker, ad DtC has already pointed out: if it were as simple as you said, there wouldn’t have been a big problem.
You’re completely entitled to your opinion on this, but I just have to ask: why would our soldiers have been more vulnerable…? Do you think we would have sent our troops into combat without the necessary equipment? Of course not. The soldiers would not have been more vulnerable, because they would have still gotten their equipment. Besides, you do know that the amount that was appropriated to military equipment from the bill was less than 1% of the total bill appropriation, right? I know it’s silly to ask (so forgive me if I insult your intelligence), but many people still don’t know this.
This truly saddens me. And it certainly explains why the republicans (and even people like Miller) continue to propagate unbased lies to the public about their opponent(s).
LilShieste
Speak for yourself, Moody! Sometimes hate is healthy!
I don’t agree.
Whatever Miller said in his speech, I think his own judgement of Kerry’s record was based on Kerry’s actual record. As a sitting senator, Miller was certainly well aware of Kerry’s votes and the underlying tactical reasons - if any - that surrounded them.
In other words, we’re talking about two different things here.
Now, your complaint may be that Miller (a) made up his own mind based on Kerry’s actual record to eschew support for Kerry, and then (b) gave a speech that distorted Kerry’s record in an effort to convince others to join him.
I agree to a point. Miller’s speech was full of hyperbole; it certainly cannot be characterized as a unbiased as fair-minded recital of Kerry’s record. But neither was it completely off base. The reality is that Kerry HAS been weak on defense issues nearly all of his time in the Senate. Fair-minded people may disagree on whether that’s wise or foolish, but no one can characterize him as a hawk.
He’s an old bigot in the same way that Robert Byrd is an old bigot? In the same way that virtually every southern Democrat of the sixties was an old bigot? It’s funny: I do to recall seeing you describe Robert Byrd as a segragationist, but perhaps that’s just because you’ve never had occasion to discuss him.
Are you saying Bush has not been strong on defense? A hawk’s wet dream? Come on – that’s absurd. An honest discussion of Bush’s record in the context of national defense is certainly possible. Zell Miller didn’t say he supported Bush because of Bush’s tax cuts, or his civil rights stance, or his education policies. He said he supported Bush because he didn’t trust Kerry or the Democrats to be strong on defense. It was a very simple message, and, frankly, not off-base at all.
Of course, if you believe that we hurt our national defense by going into Iraq, then it’s not a message that will convince you. But it doesn’t strain credulity to adopt the position that Miller evidently has.
- Rick
Your point escapes me. The critique of Kerry is that he voted against military expenditures. Of course our troops would not have been sent in “armed with spitballs,” but a lack of readiness could have caused our troops not to be sent in at all. Of course, if you think that’s a good thing - not deploying the troops in Iraq, for instance - then Kerry’s votes certainly are defensible.
And… what? how is that relevant? Again, the critique of Kerry in this instance is that his voting record has not been pro-military. I fail to see the relevance of the the percentage of military equipment expenditures on a spending bill. The question is: were the expenditures sufficient?
While I agree that Miller’s speech was full of hyperbole – and, strictly speaking, hyperbole is not the truth, but “lies” - his basic point is a sound one: Kerry’s record in the Senate paints him as weak on defense spending. That’s not an unfair characterization.
- Rick
Now we know what sort of people Republicans want to be. This was their chance to show everyone what the party aspires to, and I wonder if, we’re they not duty bound by cognative dissonance to defend it, people here would really be so pleased as featuring this side of it, above all.
John Stewart and the Daily Show just got finished ripping a new asshole into Zell Miller and his pyschotic speech. They labeled the piece “Zell on Earth”, which ought to give you a good idea on their angle. They also showed his meltdown on Hardball where he longed for the days when he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel. I say that undecided voters watch Miller’s speech right after Barack Obama’s and then decide what party they want leading this country for the next four (make it eight) years.
Bricker, two things:
1.) If I haven’t said it before, I’ll say it now. Robert Byrd is an old bigot and he’s an embarassment to the Democratic party (and FTR, I’ve never been a Democrat).
- No, Bush is not strong on dfense. 9/11 happened on his watch because he ignored warnings about OBL and al Qaeda by the Clinton administration and paid no attention to terrorism until 9/11. He made a half-hearted excursion into Afghanistan, scattered al Qaeda, failed to bag bin Laden and replaced one group of governing thugs with another group of governing thugs.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing at all to do with defending the US, has killed thousands for nothing, and has only increased terrorism and hostilty towards the US. Bush is a menace to national security, IMO.
Rumors abound that Kerry is taking the gloves off. It’s about time! No need for him to stray from the truth or use the smear tactics we’ve seen from all the President’s men. He can just tell it like it is and not be so damned polite about it.
Meltdown? He could hardly get a word in edgewise. I’ve rarely seen Matthews be such an obnoxious unrelenting loudmouth. He’d ask a question and then yell Miller down with follow up comments and accusations as soon as Miller started to speak, and when Miller would try to answer anyway, Matthews just yelled louder. What a jerk! Admittedly I don’t watch him all that often but I’ve probably seen seventy five to a hundred of his shows and I’ve never seen him so obnoxious.
What do you mean by strong on defense? Sure, he has been a hawk’s wet dream. He has also been Osama Bin Laden’s wet dream. He never could have spent the sort of money recruiting foot-soldiers for Al Qaeda that Bush has invested.
You know, God (or whatever the hell one wants to believe in) gave us brains for a reason…So, that we could use our intelligence in addition to our “strength”. I never thought that one political party in this country would so wholeheartedly endorse using one capacity to almost the total exclusion of the other.
It was also bullshit. As I documented in my first post in this thread, Zell has broken with the Dems on everything. If he isn’t supporting Bush because of the tax cuts, why is he voting for them, going around singing their praises, and talking about the need to make them permanent. If he isn’t supporting Bush’s rollback of environmental protections, why isn’t he earning more than 6% or 0% records from the League of Conservation Voters. (Just for the record, John McCain’s numbers were 36% and 54%. Olympia Snowe got 82% and 74%. Susan Collins: 76% and 68%. Judd Gregg got 53% and 53%. Hell, even Orrin Hatch got higher at 6% and 5%!) Zell has made a clean break from the Dems and even the moderate Republicans. And, to try to claim it is just because he is so concerned about this one issue is just not true.
Oh yeah, and he beat out Senator James “Global warming could be could be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” Inhofe (0% and 5%), a man who is pretty much evil incarnate as far as environmentalists are concerned.
But, yeah, you’re right. Zell is a committed Democrat who just couldn’t stomach their softness on defense and thus had to break with them despite his true commitment to all their other ideals. :rolleyes:
Now that the Bush administration seems to have backed off after looking at those polls they never look at, I wonder: will anyone here explain why Rove et al are suddenly de-endorsing Miller the day after Cheney praised his speech and then echoed many of his claims?
That’s try that first sentence again (late night coding is a bitch):
Oh yeah, and he barely beat out Senator James “Global warming could be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” Inhofe (0% and 5%), a man who is pretty much evil incarnate as far as environmentalists are concerned.
Then you’re both wrong. I’ve posted excerpts in this post, but I highly recommend you read the full article at FactCheck.org:
Small excerpt (emphasis theirs):
Which is a shame, seeing as how his entire hate-filled speech was filled with lies and specious claims.
Really, Rick, I would have expected you to have been more dilligent in learning the facts before making a decision as important as this one. Please tell all your friends with whom you spoke about this, that you now know that Mr. Miller was factually incorrect. Thank you.
Maybe I’m missing something, but as far as I’m concerned, our troops were going to be going into Iraq, regardless of what happened with that damned $87 billion bill. The focus of the bill was “How are we going to pay for this?”, not “Do we have the resources to carry this out?” Besides, if voting against this bill makes Kerry “weak on defense”, then I contest that Bush is also “weak on defense”, since he threatened to veto the same bill, if he didn’t get his way. Cite.
The relevance is that republicans are getting off by telling everyone “Look! Kerry voted against body armor!!!” when body armor was one of the most miniscule things represented in the bill appropriation. Miller repeated this lie, as did Bush tonight (big surprise there).
It only “paints” him as weak when republicans frame the argument in a way that “paints” him as weak on the subject. To me, it sounds like smart spending (“How are we going to pay for this $87 billion? Maybe we should make some of it loans, so the american public doesn’t have to foot the bill completely.”)
I would also like to point out that we really need a president who will be reasonable in his spending. At this point, the president could say “We need to pass this bill calling for $700 billion that will go towards the War on Terror. Some of this money will go to the mililtary (eh, let’s say $10,000), so if you object to it you are weak on defense, and hate our military,” and the american public would follow along - no questions asked.
Of course, it could just be called “hyperbole”, and it would bead up and slide right off their backs, when confronted about it.
LilShieste
I refresh my nomination of Shayna for Queen of the Jungle.
(Assuming, of course, that it is gender-appropriate, and accepted in the same spirit of cheeful enthusiasm with which is offered…)
cheerful enthusiasm with which it is offered, of course.