Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Zell Miller Adores John Kerry

Really, Jolly?

Let's see

Gets elected to the Senate claiming to be a Democrat but caucuses with, votes with, is rewarded by Republicans. Flip flop.

Praises the Democratic Party in 1992 because the GOP is bereft of values and bad for the country. Praises the Republican Party in 2004 because the Democratic Party is bereft of values and bad for the country. Flip flop.

Praises John Kerry when introducing him to a small audience. Attacks John Kerry when he gets his moment on national TV. Flip flop.

Now, Jolly, if you want to argue that a man's views can change, or that one has to understand the context and the reasons for seemingly contrary positions, I am happy to discuss that -- in the context of all politicians whose views evolve, not just those politicians you support.

Ah, down to name calling, are we? You cannot refute what the man said, so you say he has Alzheimer's.

Have you read his latest (it is not his only) book, "A National Party No More"? Or are you shooting your mouth off from the hip, as usual?

No man with Alzheimer's could write such a cognizant work.

Thank goodness for small wonders! :p

I wonder if Larry and Jolly were singing Zell's praises after he did Clinton's keynote address 12 years ago.
:rolleyes:

They're called ghost writers, Jolly. He really doesn't look healthy.

More name-calling.

Have you read the book, or not?

Listen: That speech last night did serious damage to Kerry. It was good and it was funny--it wasn't entirely truthful--but that wasn't the point was it?

Zell tore Kerry a new one and he's won't be able to sit down till after the election.

For what it's worth Bush's campaign plan is working out pretty well--the Swift Boat guys took a lot of heat off of the President for most of the summer. I think this Convention also was pretty well put together. I think at this point things are in the President's advantage.

Bush may screw up in the Debates, but if he does at least OK--I think he's got it.

And, well they should be as an incumbant president, in the midst of his nominating convention. Let's see how things look toward the end of next week.

PS I wish you and everyone else would stop using that little metaphor in your first sentence. It's overused and quite disgusting.

Dear kathy,

Ill never use it again.

On the other hand--I don't thing Kerry has a plan, do you. His Vietnam stuff was wearing thin even before the Swift Boaters came along--what's he got?

The Rovester--he's the MAAAAANNNNNNNN!

It's probably still in the early phase - but after dealing regularly with afflicted clients, I recognize the look, the anger, the frustration . .. poor man.

The book? Nah, haven't read it. Too many books on my stack.

Did you listen to his speech last night? Zell did not caucuse with the Republicans until some months after 9/11, when it became apparent that Tom Daschle was more interested in the good of the Democrat Party, than the good of the United States.

Go back and read the speech. Zell is an old-time Southern Democrat. If Clinton would have delivered on much of his stump speech, he would have been, also. He did not, and I think I would be safe to say Mr. Miller felt betrayed.

George Bush was quite gracious when announcing Clinton a few months ago. It's called manners, John, something sadly lacking in some people.

Now that was a gag line, right? There are politicians I do respect on the other side of the aisle, for they have principles, and mainly it is the principle of country over party.

There's just not that many Dems who can claim that virtue, anymore...

Are you sure it's the clients who are afflicted?

Lady, have you never heard a Southern pol speak before? You would have thought that you'd at least listen to Grand Wizard Byrd, from time to time.

It is a rhetorical style, and an effective one. Most of the truly great politicians this country has produced, come from south of the Mason-Dixon.

Jolly, your asleep at the wheel man.............. You know Dems don't read......... they wait for the movie. That way the actors and directors make it come out the way they Like.

Well then, let me give Kathy something to read. Doesn't look like senility to me:


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.


Text of Zell Miller's keynote speech, 9/1/04

It made me wince a bit to hear him twice refer to his family as possessions. :rolleyes: Azheimer's is slow and progressive. Sometimes it affects behavior before it markedly affects cognitive function.

So, were you lauding his praises in 1992 when he stumped for Clinton, Jolly?

Bump...I'm still waiting John...

Last bump and I'll let it die.

Um, no, actually Zell says that he read the introduction, the Kerry bio he was given. He has publicly retracted those statements and said they were incorrect and he was wrong to have just read what the Democrats handed him.

Edit: I see this has already been brought up. I also see JA and Kathy are attacking the messenger, but have nothing to say about the message.

Sorry, ny. I missed this. I do not have the time that some of you have to spend all day on here and read every post and respond and argue about every one.

Given that Mr. Miller was giving a propoganda laden politcal attack speech (angry and mean-sprited didn't you think?)he made assertions he did not back up. He also attributed to those assertions specific motivations as if they are fact. And he asserted and implied specific consequences for such votes, motivations, etc. Nor did he state who else stood with Mr. Kerry and why.

And this from a man who tries to explain away praise he once gave for the man he is now condemning. I guess such explanations are OK for him to give and he expects us to accept them; but he feels no scruples about giving a series of sweeping one sentence condemnations of another man's actions as if his condemnations were fact.

None of what he said was specific. It was all grandiose hyperbole -- typical of angry political speeches.

Why would I even try to argue with such rhetoric? It would be a complete waste of time.

What I am surprised at in this Convention is how few speeches focused on Mr. Bush's record and on supporting Mr. Bush and how many focused on belittling, angrily attacking and making fun of John Kerry. One would think Mr. Bush has little to offer -- since so little was offered by any of the speakers.

Obviously, the GOP decided the politics of anger and fear is a far better strategy than offering a vision and a view of the future.

Strange. And rather sad, really.

But this tactic says so much about them.

BTW, did you hear that Mr. Miller's book sales have increased significantly this week? It seems like his marketing strategy is working.

Not sure what you were watching. If you saw the convention what you heard were people specifically talking about both Bush's and Kerry's records. That is *exactly* what they were talking about. If you thought Kerry was being belittled, it was Kerry's record being belittled. Of course, the record reflects the man, in both cases.