Thread: Zell Miller attacks Kerry

Did you see his interview with Chris Matthews after the speech? He got so flustered he challenged Chris to a duel. If you have to threaten an interviewer with violence you've clearly lost the argument. What a loser.

Since 2001 Miller has supported Conservatives on votes relating to No Child Left Behind, drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, the Patriot Act, the GOP Homeland Security Department plan, the Iraq war, and the partial-birth abortion ban. Let's not pretend he's a Democrat.

This fuck ass is ridiculous

That was an EXCELLENT speech!

Transcript: Zell Miller

Wednesday, September 01, 2004



The following are remarks by Sen. Zell Miller as prepared for delivery on September 1 at the 2004 Republican National Convention:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family — they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also.

Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley.

Our country was not yet at war but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could. President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide. John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away. George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip. From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the First Lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted, self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

He forgot to remind the faithful that Bush was "appointed" by God.

I lived in Georgia while Zell Miller was governor. . .during the time the state instituted the highly unpopular requirement that fingerprints be taken for driver's licenses. Of course, in southern states like Georgia, Democrats are really conservative Republicans; Republicans are religious right zealots.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Of course, in southern states like Georgia, Democrats are really conservative Republicans; Republicans are religious right zealots.

Exactly, Zell Miller sounded more like a Republican than any of the moderates they've paraded up there in the last couple day's.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

He forgot to remind the faithful that Bush was "appointed" by God.

I lived in Georgia while Zell Miller was governor. . .during the time the state instituted the highly unpopular requirement that fingerprints be taken for driver's licenses. Of course, in southern states like Georgia, Democrats are really conservative Republicans; Republicans are religious right zealots.

This is one of the more ridiculous posts I have read in a long time. Reminds me of why I try to stay out of political threads.

Originally Posted by Stickboy

Wow, A democrat at the RNC attacks Kerry. Obviously, if he didn't support Bush he wouldn't have been there, but ...Damn.

I don't think I've ever seen such a in party attack like that. What he said was true (again, look at the voting records), but....damn.

Kerry is a twat, but so are the histrionics of the convention, which is a marketing campaign to seel ignoramus Amerikans a bad script that never has a happy ending.

I missed the speech last night because of putting kids to bed, but as I sat there and read that, I realize just how much Kerry DOESN'T deserve to be president. I don't really know what or who Miller is, but I can tell by his speech, he is an uncompromising, stand up for his beliefs, tell it like it is politician. I think he summed it best in this remark............."Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?".
If more people thought like this, this country would be far better off.

Really...? As someone who was a resident of both your state and the state of Georgia for several years, I have fond recollections of a certain governor in South Carolina ten years ago who refused to support repeal of the state's sodomy law because it would encourage sexual relations with animals. The state, at the time, also required that people with AIDS be registered and wrote an exemption for insurance coverage.

While Zell was governor in Georgia, residents were required to be fingrprinted to obtain their driver's licenses. The reason? To allegedly cut down on license theft. During the same period, a Republican-dominated suburban Atlanta county passed an ordinance making it clear they didn't want gays living in their county. The controversy that resulted after that law prompted a suburb on the other side of the city to pass a resolution encouraging them to live there.

I met with one Republican congressman in Atlanta while doing a story about unemployment in his district in the late 1990's. When asked about growing concerns about job creation in that district, he responded that his own children were graduating from college soon but that he knew they would be employed. He recommended that other people pray.

As for Bush being appointed by God, you only need to see remarks made by a Republican precinct committeeman in a letter to the Cleveland Plain-Dealer (a conservative newspaper, by the way) in which the writer expressed dismay at Tom DeLay's statements during an official Party Lincoln Day dinner last February.

That's funny..............I would support all of this. And as far as drivers liscense goes, that is a priviledge. It's not a right. So the state can do whatever they want. Don't like it, move.

Hmmm...her eis an interesting set of remarks by Sen. Miller when he introduced Kerry at a Georgia State Democratic Party function. . .

"My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this Party's best known and greatest leaders — and a good friend. He was once a Lieutenant Governor — but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984." U.S. Senator Zell Miller [Remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia]

Good friend? Yeah he found out what a peice of crap Kerry is.

Originally Posted by dg806

That's funny..............I would support all of this. And as far as drivers liscense goes, that is a priviledge. It's not a right. So the state can do whatever they want. Don't like it, move.

I'm not surprised at all that you'd support all of this at all, even if the number of driver's license thefts may have been negligible in relation to the number of drivers in the state. And it wouldn't surprise me at all that a Republican would support ordinances attempting to restrict where some American citizens could live in their own country.

Isn't anyone a "piece of crap" who doesn't toe the Party line?

Originally Posted by dg806

Good friend? Yeah he found out what a peice of crap Kerry is.

What do you think will happen when he finds out what a piece of crap Bush is?

It doesn't matter, as long as the Party can invoke "God" as an explanation for every policy mess.

Here is an interesting example of the RNC stealth campaign to establish an American theocracy. . . .while Arnie was onstage plugging the Prez and appealing to the public to vote Republican, the Party's evangelical power elite met at a "Faith, Family and Freedom" rally where the religious right got a video message from the Prez. . .

"Bush appeared on video, outlining his support for the policies most important to religious conservatives, including his support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He pledged to 'foster a culture of life' and 'end discrimination against people of faith' in federal funding. -- Advocate.

Ahh...more taxpayer's money for the 700 Club.

How in the hell is that a campaign to establish a theocracy? You have simply gone off the deep end on this one.

You can't even put a baby Jesus next to Santa Claus on state property in this country and Bush having a meeting with his supporters is a campaign for a theocracy?

You are starting to make the anti-Clinton people look like a pillar of rational thought.

Just a couple of things Bush has done since inheriting a bad economy from Clinton.

The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades.
Productivity grew at the fastest 3-year rate in more than 50 years.

NYC firefighters to endorse Bush!

The union representing the city's 8,600 firefighters will endorse President Bush Wednesday night at a social club in Queens, bolstering the Bush campaign's efforts to focus the nation's attention on the president's leadership following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Uniformed Firefighters Association president Steve Cassidy said he will announce the union's endorsement as he stands beside Bush at the Italian Charities of America hall in Elmhurst. Cassidy and Bush will share a meal of pizza and sodas with about 100 firefighters and watch Vice President Dick Cheney's address to the Republican National Convention, Cassidy said.

``The reason we're supporting President Bush is leadership,'' Cassidy said. ``Post-9/11 we needed someone who had the courage and the integrity to do what was right for this country. The president said he would take the fight to the terrorists and he has done that.''

Does anyone have a link to Kerry's remark about fighting a more "sensative" war on terror?

I will have to see it before I believe he said it.

1)Pepper, I have to agree with you on this. It is ridiculous that people make a stink out of religious items on state/federal property. It amazes me that someone has so little to do so as to be offended by Jesus in a christmas decoration. How this does not fall under freedom of speech/expression is beyond me.

2)DG, you have to be kidding me, CLinton left us with a much more solid economy than we have now. Was that From him? I have no idea, but one thing is for sure, Bush did anything BUT improve the economy.

Originally Posted by Pepper

How in the hell is that a campaign to establish a theocracy? You have simply gone off the deep end on this one.

You can't even put a baby Jesus next to Santa Claus on state property in this country and Bush having a meeting with his supporters is a campaign for a theocracy?

You are starting to make the anti-Clinton people look like a pillar of rational thought.

That quote, if you read it correctly, was a reference to federal funding, something that the Administration has used to provide certain "religious" groups with taxpayer dollars while rejecting others it doesn't consider religiously correct enough to get that support. Those dollars would hardly be used for putting the baby Jesus next to Santa Claus on state property. In a nation with a constitutional first amendment that clearly says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, why would you need the baby Jesus displayed on state property anyway? Aren't there enough churches in a given community that could make sure that is displayed on a religious holiday?

I do question the emotional security of anyone's faith when it requires that everyone else in the country not only embrace it's symbols on all community property, but demands financial support from non-members in order to feel secure about it's beliefs.

Before you accuse me of being "anti-christian," maybe you should ponder the attempt by "christian" citizens in a Michigan town who demanded a city ordinance prohibit a mosque from broadcasting its call to prayer because of the noise. Of course, christian church bells ringing each hour weren't a problem for them. It's cases like this that end up causing everyone's religious beliefs to suffer.

I could care less about religious displays on state property, as long as we put up a star of David on each Jewish holiday, a statue of Buddha for a buddhist event, a replica of a Mormon temple etc. But this is where "christians" become incensed - apparently their notion of "freedom of religion" means only the practice of religiously correct christianity, which would naturally exclude even those christian denominations that President Bush and evangelical Republicans disapprove of because of differing biblical interpretations.

I do care about my tax dollars going to support Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, especially when the Administration disallows federal funds for other religious groups they deem not properly faithful.

No the economy was already in a slide when Clinton left office and then 9/11 hit. THe tax cuts IMO are responsible for bringing the economy out and back to a respectable position. Home ownership is at an all time high, interest rates are still low and unemployment is still dropping.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

I could care less about religious displays on state property, as long as we put up a star of David on each Jewish holiday, a statue of Buddha for a buddhist event, a replica of a Mormon temple etc.

That is the problem in all cases. Where ever you have large groups that want different things, you will NEVER make all of them happy. That is the good thing about a Democratic republic.................majority rules!

[QUOTE=Dale Mabry]1)Pepper, I have to agree with you on this. It is ridiculous that people make a stink out of religious items on state/federal property. It amazes me that someone has so little to do so as to be offended by Jesus in a christmas decoration. How this does not fall under freedom of speech/expression is beyond me.

Ideally, I agree with this - and I'd yell just as loud if I thought that state/federal property was being used for other religion's symbols and excluding the baby Jesus. But federal funding isn't being used to purchase baby Jesus figurines for holiday display - it's being used to endorse specific "christian" doctrine attached to "charities" that provide services specifically attached to their religious beliefs. Others are rejected as not being "religiously correct" enough, even though they are recognized as religious institutions for tax exemption purposes. That translates to government endorsement for certain religious beliefs.

Heck - ask any televangelist - they'll readily tell you which christian denominations are no longer christian.

What the fuck kind of name is "Zell"?