Where is the Zell Miller talk?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

swizzlestick

The Fly
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Messages
127
Location
Lee's Summit, MO
I thought it was interesting no one has mentioned this speech. This being a primarily liberal forum, what are your thoughts on a Democrat saying the things he said last night? Do you feel betrayed?

Personally, I think he has some serious b@lls to say some of the things he said. But it was beautiful none the less.

Zell, brought up some interesting topics that have not yet been talked about very much...Kerry's Senate record.

Here is a transcript of his speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_miller_text_1&printer=1
 
I didn't see the speech or read the transcript, but I don't feel "betrayed" at all-good for him for standing up for his beliefs.

Obviously the GOP "used" him very well (just like the Democrats "used" Ron Reagan), but he's a grown man and knows that I'm sure.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I didn't see the speech or read the transcript, but I don't feel "betrayed" at all-good for him for standing up for his beliefs.

Obviously the GOP "used" him very well (just like the Democrats "used" Ron Reagan), but he's a grown man and knows that I'm sure.

I agree. Maybe betrayed was a bad choice of words. But, I think bi-partisan politics is bad for the country. There are 2 political parties, and many different points of view. I comment him for standing up for what he believes in and would do the same if it were a Republican at the DNC.

BTW, Ron Reagan is a Independent who has a cause. He was there by choice, the DNC welcomed him with open arms. I don't thing they used him, nor do I feel the GOP used Zell.
 
I think Zell had a very moving, almost convincing speech but it should have been vetted more carefully IMO. He got torn apart to a degree by CNN and supposedly by Chris Matthews, when he was interviewed -post speech. Also many contradictory talking points are already on the internet which sort of make his speech not as effective. Also, he didn't answer back, quite well when he was called out by CNN and MSNBC. He should have been more prepared to spin his responses or give more information on why he mentioned/ made particular statements.

However, it was a powerful speech and very charismatic (I was thinking it would suck). If you are on the fence and superficially following the election, I can see people jumping on the Bush bandwagon.

The RNC is actually pretty effective IMO and I can actually see a good bounce for Bush but it all depends on how Bush's speech comes out this Thursday.
 
Really? I thought Miller campaigned to try to remove the rebel flag from the Georgia flag as well as saying...

"I would put my record on civil rights up against anyone's. As Georgia's governor, I named more African-Americans to state boards than any Georgia governor, and I named more African-Americans to judgeships than all previous governors combined. I named an African-American female as the first to serve on the Georgia Supreme Court. I also appointed an African-American as state Attorney General, the first one in the nation at the time."

Its probably his stance on gay marriage though that has you using ad hominems...
 
Yes, I know Ron Reagan is an Independent and was there for stem cell research, but you have to admit, having the son of a Republican icon at the Democratic convention is a coup

And if you've ever read any of his comments on Bush, well...
 
I don't think using Ron Regan was as much of a coup as the Repubs using Zell Miller. I also think the end results from using Zell Miller will be much greater. His speech was somewhat entertaining, his "position" as a democrat and former keynote speaker of a Democratic National Convention intriguing, and just the "anger"/ energy he displayed was something to talk about. Depending on your point of view, sort of like watching a car accident or witnessing a last second shot in a tie game type of moment.

Ron Reagan is pretty liberal from what I understand, and that just takes away from the effect of having a Reagan speak at a convention, especially since Ron has been at odds with his family.
 
Apart from bringing up the Kerry's Senate record (to an extend), the way he brought it was more impressive than the actual contents. References to other conflicts and past presidents are really getting old. Actuallly, this entire election is getting old. Doesn't anybody in this circus know anything to talk about that didn't happen 20+ years ago?
 
DrTeeth said:
Apart from bringing up the Kerry's Senate record (to an extend), the way he brought it was more impressive than the actual contents. References to other conflicts and past presidents are really getting old. Actuallly, this entire election is getting old. Doesn't anybody in this circus know anything to talk about that didn't happen 20+ years ago?

The 1991 Gulf War was not 20 plus years ago, neither was Senator Kerry's vote against 87 Billion dollars in funding for troops and the development of Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Zell's a bit wacky :wink:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics.../miller_objects_to_145hardball146_questioner/

Sorry, I don't have time to find a source-maybe it's on the CNN website, but this is an interesting letter to the editor..

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...articles/2004/09/03/but_it_doesnt_hold_water/

But it doesn't hold water
September 3, 2004

ZELL MILLER'S personal attacks on John Kerry at the RNC were not only mean-spirited; they were filled with falsehoods. CNN analysts Jeff Greenfield, Wolf Blitzer, and Judy Woodruff raised several key points that rebutted Miller's charges:

(1) Dick Cheney voted against funding for the same weapons systems Kerry voted against because the Cold War was over.

(2) Miller derided Kerry for calling our presence in Iraq an occupation; Bush has called Iraq an "occupation" on four occasions.

(3) Miller criticized Kerry as an ineffective, antimilitary senator. But Miller praised Kerry in a 2001 speech, noting: "Early in his career . . . John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military."
 
DrTeeth said:
Apart from bringing up the Kerry's Senate record (to an extend), the way he brought it was more impressive than the actual contents. References to other conflicts and past presidents are really getting old. Actuallly, this entire election is getting old. Doesn't anybody in this circus know anything to talk about that didn't happen 20+ years ago?

I agree. I don't give a :censored: who did what back in the '70's. The voters want to hear about the economy, Iraq, terrorism, health care, etc, etc.
 
'Get out of my face. If you are going to ask me a question, step back and let me answer. I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel," Miller said to MSNBC ''Hardball" host Chris Matthews, who is 58.


This guy absolutely qualifies as a nut job.
 
I loved his statement "what you say in 20 weeks of campaigning shows how you WANT people to see you, but how you vote over the last 20 years shows what kind of person you really are, on the inside"

That's what I thought all along:|
 
Last edited:
what you say in 4 days of a phoney convention shows how you WANT people to see you,

but the last four years in office shows what kind of person you really are
 
Last night on NBC Nightly News Tom Brokaw asked Laura Bush about Zell Miller's speech. she said something to the effect of, "Well he was up there expressing his own opinions." Zell was also dis-invited from watching W's speech from the Presidential box. Looks like they're trying to distance themselves from him.
 
Last edited:
U2Kitten said:
I loved his statement "what you say in 20 weeks of campaigning shows how you WANT people to see you, but how you vote over the last 20 years shows what kind of person you really are, on the inside"

That's what I thought all along:|

So what did W do in the 20 years before his presidency that showed what kind of man he was on the inside?
 
I know some people in Georgia who are eagerly looking forward to Miller's retirement. The press tore him up after his speech. John McCain was less than impressed with it. The guy has been a slippery politician ever since he got Georgia a lottery when he was governor. Some people in the press are comparing it with Patrick Buchanan's infamous "Culture Wars" speech in 1992.
 
Last edited:
deep said:
what you say in 4 days of a phoney convention shows how you WANT people to see you,


True of both candidates. Those conventions were phoney to the max, nothing but stage shows with scripts and slick production.
 
Leeloo said:


True of both candidates. Those conventions were phoney to the max, nothing but stage shows with scripts and slick production.

I basically agree. Conventions are slick, silly, scripted political theatre. They've outlived their usefulness. Why don't we just scrap the damn things? I don't think the parties want to do that. Quite frankly I regard party big shots on both sides as a real pain in the neck. There is so much damn stupid partisan stuff going on it's ridiculous. We might could change this situation if it weren't for the damn partisan top brass. :mad: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
Last edited:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/carter.miller.ap/index.html

I found the letter on another msg board..


Here is the text of a letter that former President Jimmy Carter sent to Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) over the weekend:

You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as lieutenant governor and as governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. Senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.

Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, and Sam Nunn disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican Convention because of your being a "Democrat," and it's quite possible that your rabid and mean-spirited speech damaged our party and paid the Republicans some transient dividends.

Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign's personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as "one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders — and a good friend.")

I, myself, never claimed to have been a war hero, but I served in the navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don't believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacifist.

Zell, I have known you for forty-two years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral preemptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited.

Sincerely, and with deepest regrets,

Jimmy Carter
 
Last edited:
I don't prescribe to the "loyal" party tie bullshit, everyone's entitled to disagree with their party. But that being said, everything else in that letter stands true. In fact I think he was a little soft.

Go Jimmy!
 
It is interesting that the Jimmy Carter of today obviously prefers the company of someone like Michael Moore than Zel Miller.
 
Back
Top Bottom