Zell Miller ripped.

[Grins]

There’s a short, interesting comment by the New Republic's "etc." on Zell Miller’s Sunday appearance on Meet the Press. Russert asked Zell (what kind of screwy name is “Zell” anyway?) why he states in his book that Democrats, basically, tell the south to go to hell?

Zell starts with Kennedy. “And John Kennedy was popular in Georgia. He could have been re-elected because (I guess like today’s republicans?) he stood up to the Russians, and he cut taxes; he was a tax-cutter. And Southerners liked him. He carried other states: North Carolina, South Carolina. But that was in 1960.”

He fails to mention that Kennedy was a tax cutter – and – cut spending!

He goes on: “…(the democratic) party has been pulled by these special interests with their own narrow agenda so far to the left that they're completely out of the mainstream. These special interests, they see their narrow agenda as being more important than the sum total of the party."

Special interests? Democrats? I guess this clown spent the last three years in Washington, so asleep at the wheel, that he never heard of the "K Street Project”. Does he not know that Bush has packed the government with former (former?) industry lobbyists into policy positions within the agencies they formerly lobbied? What a miserable excuse for a human, southerner, Senator, American. Good snake though.

The New Republic then rips him up!! Reminds him of the history that he lived through, knows quite well, and totally ignores. It’s good, it’s short, and it’s here:
<http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml>

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

2. Yesterday's Conservative Southern Democrats

The same pack which voted for slavery, etc., are mostly Republicans.

You might do some checking up on the Dixiecrats, Southern Democrats left the party and ended up in the Republican Party when the modern Democrats lead by Truman, Humphrey, JFK and LBJ started pushing for civil rights. Thus the slavery and segragationist Dems of old who supported that kind of crap are now part of the modern Southern Republican Party.

L-

[markbark]

3. Uh...

That was one hundred and fifty years ago.
The Southern politicians became disgusted with "The Party of Lincoln" and signed up with the Dems in droves.
In later times the Southern Democrats broke with HST and his drive for integration thus forming the "Dixiecrats"
Finding that third party politics would forever consign them to powerlessness, many went running into the warm embrace of the GOP in the 70s and 80s (e.g. Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and, for all intents and purposes, Zell Miller)


--MAB

[OKHRANA]

4. Zel Miller is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat

that's all.

He shouldn't be allowed in Democratic Party caucus meetings, he can't be trusted. Maybe that explains lots of things. At least he's not running for re-election.

[Enjolras]

5. I have 2 points in rebuttal:

First, John Kennedy stood up to the Soviets -- and Zell should have called them such, not Russians -- because, at the time there happened to be a Soviet Union to stand up to. How does one employ that strategy now?

Second, Miller's charge of pandering to the narrow agendas of special interests is obviously hypocritical. If the GOP didn't pander to its own set of special interest groups and base political strategy based on the direction of the winds of popular opinion, Karl Rove wouldn't have a job. What do you call the Southern Baptist Convention, the Business Roundtable, and the NRA if not special interest groups? Moreover, one can easily characterize a decision to adhere to a special interest (aka a principle) at the expected cost of political popularity as noble and courageous. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he said "I may well have just delivered the south to the GOP". But it was the right thing to do. How would this nominal Democrat characterize California Republicans after they nominated Bill Simon instead of Riordan to run against Gray Davis last year, knowing he was likely to lose?

Miller was on CNN's Newsnight with Aaron Brown tonight. Brown asked how he thought the Democratic party should change, and Miller cited not only Kennedy but also Clinton as models. Funny, he didn't cite Carter, though Carter won more southern states than Clinton. He cited Clinton's welfare reform, and his statement that "The era of big government is over." He failed to mention that now, under Bush, the era of big government being over is over. And he somehow forgot that Clinton is deeply unpopular in his region; in 2000, Republicans campaigned in the south against Al Gore by tying him to Clinton, contributing to Gore's loss of every southern state, including his own home state and Clinton's.

The article is right; I'm not sorry to see Zell go. And if his region would like to try that secession from the union thing again, we might have a different answer this time.

[OKHRANA]

6. Answer

It looks to me like we agree for the most part.

I don't understand what your point is in pointing out JFK stood up to the Soviets "not Russians". As I remember, the Russians were the Soviets (most of them), it was a term used interchangeably.

Your point that Miller's charge of Democrats pandering to special interests is hypocritical because Republicans have their own and only the Democrats bug him is just my point; and shows why he is really a Republican.

I saw the interview with Aaron Brown too, and I recall that the reason Miller gave for not using Carter as a model for winning the South is that he said Carter won it only because he was a "favorite son."

The only reasons Miller cited for JFK and Clinton being good was to the extent they adopted issues normally Republican (standing up to Russians, tax cutting, welfare reform, fighting crime, reducing big government - Clinton said that, etc.)

When asked why he just didn't change parties, Miller had no good answer.

[Enjolras]

8. I guess my point was that .....

technically, it is still possible to stand up to the Russians, since there are still Russians. But what would be the point? Also, there were actually millions of Soviets who were not Russian, and would have been and would still be quite offended at being so charaterized. They still exist too, but here again, they don't make attractive targets for saber-rattling anymore.

He did refer to Carter as a favorite son, but if we're talking about the southern region and not just the state of Georgia, then wasn't Clinton a favorite son, too? He's from Arkansas, after all.

[OKHRANA]

9. yes Clinton was a favorite son too, but...

Zel Miller's point (not that I'm agreeing with it) was that Clinton won the South unlike Carter, without having to rely on his favorite son status, but with campaign issues that appealed to the country as a whole, issues which he named that sounded like the Dick Morris "triangulation" type issues, normally Republican type like "the era of big government is over" as Clinton put it in the 97 state of the union address which Miller referred to.

On the Russians, he said "Russians" and meant "Soviets". He was speaking in the context of JFK's time on that. The Russians were the dominant Soviets (not counting Stalin of course who was Georgian - Soviet Georgian that is).

Neither the Democrats of Republicans have any issues of contention with the Russians now.

[amber dog democrat]

15. Good Riddance

He's done enough damage already. Never was a Democrat. What has he done for Georgia, I wonder?

[OKHRANA]

7. check this pic out

I REST MY CASE.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fixated]

11. ....

Yeah, Republicans and their gay rights crusade...

[Mioshi]

12. Zell Miller

Zell Miller's book is number 3 on Amazon. He's appealing to somebody.

[Enjolras]

13. So did Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Buchanan, etc.

Who knew so many conservatives (and yes, I include Miller and his "fans") could read. Of course, it's also possible that Scaife or some like-minded neo-con benefactor with deep pockets may have snapped up enough copies to put it in that position.

I will confess I have read a few conservative books, mainly so I am not so easily accused of not keeping an open mind, and thus of hypocrisy. I read Buchanan's "The Death of The West", and wrote a damning 6 page critique of it. I was unable to get it published, though.

I also read Coulter's "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", and was very surprised at the number of times she quoted the New York Times, including editorials and liberal columnist Maureen Dowd, to buttress her argument that Bill Clinton is the living embodiment of evil. I didn't read "Slander", but I'll bet there's no shortage of slandering the Times for some "left-wing bias". Yeah, that's consistent.

[burr]

14. lobbyists PARTYDOWN fur ZELL and sixpack-JOE!!!

:smoke: hold a "swank" party for his wonderful new book and "in honor" of us working people..click here for the sorry details. <http://www.billshipp.com/>