As you know if you follow politics, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, a putative Democrat, has basically truned his back on his own party. While retaining a nominal Democratic affiliation, he has written a scathing book attacking the Democratic Party, has voted a straight Republican line in the Senate, and has even agreed to speak at the Republican convention.
I’ve been turning this over in my head for some time now. What is Zell Miller’s motivation for becoming such a Republican lapdog here in the waning days of his Senate term?
D’Amato’s recent “Maybe Bush should think about replacing Dick Cheney” suggestion (paraphrasing) struck me as a studied trial balloon, and I’m betting D’Amato didn’t make the remark spontaneously.
I am wondering if Zell is trying to angle for the VP slot under Bush in his second term. I can see it all now:
Cheney resigns for “health reasons.”
Bush in a “show of bipartisanship” reaches across the aisle to tap “Democrat” Zell Miller as his new VP.
Miller, whatever else he may be (and I can think of a few descriptors not fit for mixed company) is a helluva speaker, and would make an excellent candidate. John Edwards would be hard-pressed to out-folksy him in a debate.
So is this what Miller is up to? If not, what is Miller’s motivation for being a turncoat? (And if you say “genuine conviction” I will only laugh at you and dig up his past speeches lambasting Republicans.)
My thought is that he went to Washington thinking that he’d fall into a leadership or spokesman position with the Democratic Party. I think he expected that he’d become a darling of the Democratic Party in the same way that he was highly respected as a governor in Georgia. When that didn’t happen – I hear because he has a mean streak a mile wide – it sounds like he got pissy.
His turn against the Democratic Party was basically complete by early 2001. It has nothing at all to do with the Vice Presidency.
I doubt he’s angling for the VP slot, but he’s probably ready to do a party switch, and wants to lay groundwork for it so it will be seen as reflecting his convictions rather than mere political convenience.
A follow up question that doesn’t merit it’s own thread:
In most european situations such an individual would (most likely) be expelled from the party, spend the rest of his or her term as an independant and not be allowed to run as the party candidate during the next election. Do the american parties work along the same lines and what would be the possible political consequences for the democrats if they did indeed dump one of their (putative) own in such a fashion?
I don’t think he has any intention of making a party switch. He is leaving the Senate after this term, and doesn’t seem to have any future political office in his plans (unless it would be VP), so what would be the point?
Maybe John Mace is right. Maybe it’s all about book sales. I have never doubted his avarice.
When he ran for Governor here he had to give up a lake house in the mountains when it was discovered Georgia Power had provided it to him in a sweetheart deal. So I suppose we can’t rule out graft, either.
Also, he does seem to be an attention hound, so maybe that’s it.
But convictions? Don’t make me laugh. The man doesn’t have any.
Miller used to be called “Zig-Zag Zell” around here. Now I understand why. Contrary to his assertion that the Democratic Party has changed, it’s clear that he’s the one who has made a remarkable shift. Still can’t figure out why, though.
No. A candidate can choose to run for any party’s nomination that he wishes, and the party members choose, in what’s called a “primary” election, which of those candidates should represent their party in the later “general” election. The party bosses cannot bar someone from attempting to gain nomination. (though they can underhandedly manipulate internal party politics to effectively undermine a candidate they’d prefer not be nominated)