Well, I could have just posted the speech alone and I was going to...but I was in the mood to say something anyway. I'm garrulous. What can I say? :)

I'm with you, Joe. Usually, I see political conventions as being in the same category as award shows and telethons, and just skip them. In fact, because of this attitude, I missed seeing Zell's speech live. (I'm glad FoxNews is hosting video of it; even GeorgeWBush.com and 2004nycgop.org don't have it up, yet!)

You can bet I'm watching tonight, though. Of course, I generally tune in to every major speech by our President, regardless of occasion or venue.

(I'm back, by the way. I'm hoping to relaunch the Iranian Liberty Index, but it'll take a little time...)

You're welcome to him.

The only reason Republicans give a damn about Zell Miller is due to Zell's official party status.

It was fun today listening to Rush, Sean, et al try to repair the damage Zell caused. This is a litmus event. Besides packing more lies into a single speech then anyone I can recall - left or right, Zell came across as simply demented and angry. If you are consciously spinning this as "passion" shame on you; if you actually see no problems with the thing ... well either way you lose all credibility.

Gary

"The only reason Republicans give a damn about Zell Miller is due to Zell's official party status."

Zell's official party status may be a black eye to the Democrats and a boon to the Republicans as some might see it. I on the other hand don't see the party line as an issue for either party. The driving factor is Zell's beliefs and convictions and if they are the same as the Republicans so be it. Republicans like Democrats are not excluding people because of party status but are including people because of beliefs regardless of status.

I studied Southern literature for a long time. Zell Miller's speech was in a long tradition. Just read the mock sermons in Old Southwest Humor or Corinthian McClartey's fiery sermons in Robert Penn Warren's World Enough and Time or look at any of Huey Long's speeches or a Flannery O'Connor story or an average Faulkner sentence. I'm not sure Yankees could ever fully appreciate Zell's speech, but I sure as hell did.

USMC,

Your comments really don't address the merits of my statement. Again, the only reason Zell is getting any publicity is due to his party status; indeed, its likely that he has maintained his current status partly because of the above fact. In other words, if he switched parties, no one would care what he says, and Zell knows this.

alan,

please provide specific examples of the damage and the lies. Thank you.

Recovering,

Read this ...

Zell Miller spewed hatred and vitriol filled with lies and words taken out of context . How can the GOP put him up as someone to look up to?

sorry, meant this one..."Zell Wigs Out":http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252 ...

Zell Wigs Out

USMC -

>I on the other hand don't see the party line as an issue
>for either party.
Oh. A curious view...

>The driving factor is Zell's beliefs and convictions and
>if they are the same as the Republicans so be it.
>Republicans ... are not excluding people because of
>party status but are including people because of beliefs
>regardless of status.
"Status" vs. "beliefs": You make it sound like the two got nothing to do with each other, which doesn't make any sense. If your beliefs are such that you fit with Republicans, why are you a Democrat? That's somewhat anti-intuitive (unless, of course, it is in order to raise a furore at the RNC :-), as Gary suggests.)

The only reason Republicans give a damn about Zell Miller is due to Zell's official party status.

That, and the fact he broke ranks with his party's leadership and supports the Republican incumbent for re-election. It's called politics.

Sen. Miller is an "old school" politician. For him, when the fighting starts, you rally around the flag and the President, regardless of the party affiliation of the POTUS. Miller believes that national unity must be maintained during war in order to show a our resolve to our enemies and our allies. I agree with him. Any serious issues should be worked out behind closed doors so that this united front is not fractured publicly.

Since 9/11, Senator Miller has seen the Democrats in Washington:
1) Move the goal posts on WMD's
2) Attack GWB's sevice in the TANG
3) Accuse GWB of lying about Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium in Africa
4) Accuse GWB of going to war in Iraq for oil/Halliburton
5) Compare GWB to Saddam because the prison abuses (thus tarring U.S. service personnel in the bargain)

These attacks weren't made because the Democrats really care about these things. These attacks were made to soften up a President that was riding high in the polls. And these where all done rather spiritedly and vocally in the public forum.

This is what brought Sen. Miller to New York on Wednesday evening. This is what brought out his anger.

The only reason Democrats give a damn about John McCain is due to John's official party status.

Move the goal posts on WMD's

Hunh? Who moved the goal posts from expecting a serious WMD threat to warrant waging pre-emptive war to "weapons-related program activities"?

You know, you might want to check out how little electoral national unity we had during the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War as it pertained to the Phillippines, and of course the Vietnam War. (And what happened in the British general election of 1945?)

George Bush got everything he asked for with his party in control of Congress, and now that job creation, the budget, and the situation on the ground in Iraq look nothing like his predictions, he should be held accountable and dismissed.

If you'd like a country where everyone rallies around Maximum Leader and his party in wartime, please emigrate. There are many such countries, and I do not wish to live in one of them. For one thing, Maximum Leader is no dope: he'll keep his people living in fear, terror, and the threat of war to solidify his own power.

[Thanks to William Saletan (each name separate link) for some of these ideas.]

Checkin Out / Gary

”Status" vs. "beliefs": You make it sound like the two got nothing to do with each other, which doesn't make any sense. If your beliefs are such that you fit with Republicans, why are you a Democrat? That's somewhat anti-intuitive (unless, of course, it is in order to raise a furore at the RNC :-), as Gary suggests.)”

Zell’s speech has nothing to do with his status and have everything to do with his beliefs. For Democrats to suggest that Zell can not be a Democrat and have issues with his party line is ludicrous. To suggest Zell is Republican simply because he believes the same as Republicans on a single issue (he was adamant about the war in Iraq and the war on Terrorism and nothing else) is just as ludicrous. This issue and this issue alone is what afforded Zell the opportunity to voice his opinion and concerns.

If all Democrats took the same view the Republicans take concerning the war and national security this would be a non issue for the upcoming presidential election. The fact that the two parties disagree makes it a political issue divided by party lines.

Did his speech raise furor at the RNC and is this the only reason he was allowed to speak? Yes and no. Would it have been just as effective to have a Gulf War veteran speak in lieu of Zell? Possibly. Would it have carried more weight than Zell’s speech? No. What the Republicans did was show that the Democratic party has no room for anyone who questions or has dissentions against the party line. Not only are those who question the Democratic party line silenced they are alienated and humiliated. If anything that is what Zell wanted to portray. Does he feel betrayed by his party? Absolutely. Can he change the party’s views? Given the chance maybe he could. His biggest complaint is the party will not give him that chance. For that reason and that reason alone he feels alienated without a party.

Senator Zell welcome to the ranks of the Republican Party where you can speak your mind and be heard.

Speak your mind and be heard?

Sure, if you agree with the group. If you don't, shut up! That's the Republican way.

I do agree with one poster that only if there is a difference in opinion on on an issue can there be an issue. At least I agree in principle.

Except that I see no real difference between Kerry's attitude towards the "war on terror" and Bush's, except that I've SEEN the fact that Bush has used this issue to award plum contracts to his associates.

I didn't lile Reagan either, but at least there was a man who acted on his real beliefs about what was best for this country, and sometimes he was proven right! (But sometimes he was proven wrong wrong wrong.)

But the current administration's primary concern is their own pocketbooks.

I'm of the minority of Democrats who believe a war on terror must be fought, but I believe the Bush family and their cronies are too "invested" (using all senses of that word) in certain business interests to wage that war effectively.

Does it even BOTHER any of you that the name Bin Ladin was never mentioned at the RNC by a major administration figure? Or by the President himself?

I don't know about you, but I would HOPE that if a Democrat were in office, and he, shortly after 9/11, kept prodding his CIA chief to try try try to link the disaster to Iraq (because that's who he was planning to attack anyway) and then, at the very least, exxagerated his evidence, and then, worst of all, set up his friends with contracts that they were unprepared and unwilling to fulfill, that I would be mad and want to vote him out.

I don't mind a Republican president, but not this one. No more Bush's. If the Republican party wants my vote in the future...indeed, if they WANT a future, the Bushs must be ejected, stamped out, railroaded out of the party and Republicans, true conservatives in the Grand Old Party tradition, must be willing to stand up and care about more than just the win win win.

Oh and by the way, it should bother you that while, in reality, there is no such thing as a suitcase sized thermonuclear bomb (asopposed to a dirty bomb), George W Bush introduced legislation to all one of the companys in which his father and Cheney have an invested interest, to develip so called "mini-nukes."

Luckily, both sides of the house, and Republicans and Democrats alike, almost unanimously voted it down. Why?

Because if the techonology to create truly miniature sized nukes was ever developed, say goodbye to civilization.

Does Bush care about that?

What do you think?

Andrew Lazarus wrote: "Who moved the goal posts from expecting a serious WMD threat to warrant waging pre-emptive war to "weapons-related program activities"?

I would submit that Saddam's active WMD program constituted a serious WMD threat, regardless of the existance of stockpiles. In any intelligence assessment there are two components: (1) capability and (2) intention.

Capability addresses a continuum from the development of weapon systems to their storage and/or deployment, as well as the means of employing the weapons. In case of WMD, the development to employment cycle is so short in the case of chemical weapons that a prudent analyst would not hesitate to declare the high probability of full capability in a matter of a few months. The development to deployment cycle would be longer for biological and nuclear weapons, but certainly would not be outside the time frame for a "gathering threat." As for the means of employing the weapons, it is clear that Saddam was working on delivery systems that could hit our friends and allies in the region. It is also clear that Saddam could have employed these weapons through third parties to hit any target in the world.

As for intent, the proverbial fly on the wall rarely happens. Instead, most assessments of intent are built on observed behavior and psychology of the main actors. In Saddam's case, a prudent analyst would have easily concluded that he probably had the intent to use WMD against the United States and its allies.

As for moving the goal posts, it is clear that the administration took the reasonable approach that it could not afford to wait until the WMD threat was imminent or actually used. It clearly said that it regarded the threat as a serious and gathering one because Saddam probably had the capability and the intention to harm us. Thus, the war was indeed a pre-emptive war.

I submit that our government properly had decided on pre-emption months before the start of hostilities. That it waited as long as it did to get UN and Congressional approval is testimony to its desire to do all it could to avert war if it could. I happen to think that the administration launched the hostilities almost too late. But, I certainly cannot understand the criticism that the administration rushed to war.

Finally, the assertion that President Bush lied about the seriousness of Saddam's WMD threat because we have yet to find WMD stockpiles is absolutely illogical and may be slanderous. For the assertion to be true, one would have to prove that our Government (1) believed that Saddam did not have a credible WMD capability and intent, (2) either fabricated its own assessments and did not denounce past WMD assessments regarding WMD stockpiles, (3) claimed imminence of attack, and the critic of the administration has proved that WMD stockpiles did not exist when the administration received the Congressional authorization.

Those who have accused the Government of lying have not proven their case; they have thus slandered and are continuing to slander President Bush and his government. This is not logical or ethical. And, if this slander is being made for partisan reasons, I would add that the perpetrators are also un-patriotic and un-American. The former because their love of party is higher than their love of country, and the latter because their hunger for partisan gain is more important than obeying the rules of accepted civic discourse in our Republic.