PDA

View Full Version : Zell Miller: "I Tried To Tell You..."


Mr. Kotter
11-04-2004, 09:18 PM
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1104/04edmiller.html

MY VIEW

I tried to tell you . . .
Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom

Published on: 11/04/04


America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.

This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.

Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.

A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South.

When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular humanism, socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.

The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.

To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity.

When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.


—Zell Miller is Georgia's Democratic U.S. senator.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 09:34 PM
Hey Rob, this explains what I was hinting at in your other thread -

Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

The article you posted merely talked about changing the delivery of the message and not the message itself. Miller accurately points out that that is the problem.

The message itself is bad, regardless of delivery.

Mr. Kotter
11-04-2004, 09:38 PM
Hey Rob, this explains what I was hinting at in your other thread -



The article you posted merely talked about changing the delivery of the message and not the message itself. Miller accurately points out that that is the problem.

The message itself is bad, regardless of delivery.

I'd argue that changing both the message and the delivery is important. Delivery is what Clinton and Carter changed; now maybe we can change the message too....although I know that's probably asking too much.

Maybe I'll join the Republican party someday; it just seems more natural for me to try to "fix" my own party first.... :shrug:

Bearcat2005
11-04-2004, 09:41 PM
LOL! :clap: Yes Zell is awesome! I think it would be awesome if Bush gave him a spot in his administration!

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 10:03 PM
I'd argue that changing both the message and the delivery is important. Delivery is what Clinton and Carter changed; now maybe we can change the message too....although I know that's probably asking too much.

Agreed, both are important, but the message is oh so much more important than the delivery. Even if some slick politician is able to sell it, the truth of the message will one day be found out.

Maybe I'll join the Republican party someday; it just seems more natural for me to try to "fix" my own party first.... :shrug:

I can totally appreciate that.

And the best way to fix it is to vocally let them know you are voting for the Republicans until they get their shit together. :D

SBK
11-04-2004, 11:16 PM
I love Zell. Suppose he's one of the few, if not the only democrat I could ever vote for....

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 08:02 AM
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1104/04edmiller.html

MY VIEW

I tried to tell you . . .
Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom

Published on: 11/04/04


America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty.


Unless you're a homo. Then it's the back of the bus for YOU! :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 08:04 AM
Unless you're a homo. Then it's the back of the bus for YOU! :thumb:

No, no....they sit at the FRONT of the bus. I don't want those folks "BEHIND" me, if you know what I mean. :shake:

:p

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 08:06 AM
No, no....they sit at the FRONT of the bus. I don't want those folks "BEHIND" me, if you know what I mean. :shake:

:p


Whichever. In any case, I think we can all agree that they shouldn't be treated like real American citizens.

KCTitus
11-05-2004, 08:17 AM
Whichever. In any case, I think we can all agree that they shouldn't be treated like real American citizens.

So marriage is unique to America? That's interesting...

Cochise
11-05-2004, 08:21 AM
The article you posted merely talked about changing the delivery of the message and not the message itself. Miller accurately points out that that is the problem.

That is the reason for their recent failures in my opinion. They keep trying to paint the square peg a different color. They don't understand that it's not the packaging that is the problem.

There are two Americas, allright. The problem is that most people don't want to live in John Kerry or Ted Kennedy's America.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 08:38 AM
Whichever. In any case, I think we can all agree that they shouldn't be treated like real American citizens.

That's not true; they can get married to anyone of the opposite sex they wish too....SAME as everyone else.

No one should discrimate against them because of their preferences... in jobs, or housing, or the like. And if as STATE chooses to extend them the legal standing of "marriages" and call it something else....civil unions, or domestic partnerships, fine. MOST of us would be on their side for those things.

This whole argument over gay "marriage" is really something of a kenard anyway, since any gay "couple" who WANTS TO can have a lawyer draw up the paperwork/contract giving them the same "rights" as "married couples."

But no, they have to be drama queens about it.....and draw attention to themselves, and show everyone how "oppressed" they are..... :rolleyes:

Shut up, already. Go see a lawyer. And shut the hell up about your sexual preference. The rest of us couldn't really care less about it. Just get out of our face with it. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 08:41 AM
....There are two Americas, allright. The problem is that most people don't want to live in John Kerry or Ted Kennedy's America.

Could you stomach Zell Miller, John Breaux, Evan Bayh, or another DLC type though? I'd consider it... :thumb:

Duck Dog
11-05-2004, 08:55 AM
Unless you're a homo. Then it's the back of the bus for YOU! :thumb:


Believe it or not; not everyone who voted for Bush is a homophob.

Baby Lee
11-05-2004, 09:02 AM
Believe it or not; not everyone who voted for Bush is a homophob.
But believing that they do helps focus the animosity.

It's kind of like believing every Raiders fan on earth has a criminal record.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 09:15 AM
.....It's kind of like believing every Raiders fan on earth has a criminal record.

:hmmm:

They don't?

:p

Cochise
11-05-2004, 09:17 AM
Believe it or not; not everyone who voted for Bush is a homophob.

You no longer have to lash out against homosexuals to be a 'homophobe' , it's enough if you just don't celebrate the lifestyle.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 09:23 AM
You no longer have to lash out against homosexuals to be a 'homophobe' , it's enough if you just don't celebrate the lifestyle.

Unfortunately, I agree with Cochise on this.;

Unless you join them in their cause and their parades, you are a "homophobe" in their minds. :rolleyes:

:shake:

Raiderhader
11-05-2004, 09:35 AM
That is the reason for their recent failures in my opinion. They keep trying to paint the square peg a different color. They don't understand that it's not the packaging that is the problem.

There are two Americas, allright. The problem is that most people don't want to live in John Kerry or Ted Kennedy's America.


After the '02 congressional races the left cited a failure to get their message out as an excuse for their failure. I have contended all along that it was the exact opposite, they lost because they DID get their message out.

The left is being rejected. So long as the right does not scrw things up, it will be a long time before the left sees any sort of national power in their hands again.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 09:41 AM
...The left is being rejected. So long as the right does not scrw things up, it will be a long time before the left sees any sort of national power in their hands again.

There are some of us in the party, TRYING to change the message and the delivery. Americans have a short memory in politics, as long as they have a reason to support someone.

We'll see which faction takes over the party, and nominates a candidate in 2008. If it's Hillary, or anyone like Hillary....I'll be voting Republican again then.

KCTitus
11-05-2004, 09:46 AM
We'll see which faction takes over the party, and nominates a candidate in 2008. If it's Hillary, or anyone like Hillary....I'll be voting Republican again then.

Welcome back...

Raiderhader
11-05-2004, 09:50 AM
There are some of us in the party, TRYING to change the message and the delivery. Americans have a short memory in politics, as long as they have a reason to support someone.

We'll see which faction takes over the party, and nominates a candidate in 2008. If it's Hillary, or anyone like Hillary....I'll be voting Republican again then.


As the article that Hel'n clearly shows, your party is about to go into a big ol' power struggle. You had better hope they have it resolved by '08, because I don't see it being done before '06.

In all reality, I see a few Dems switching parties, the radical fringe groups now own your party. They may be thrown out eventually, but I do not see it happening any time soon.

Raiderhader
11-05-2004, 09:51 AM
Welcome back...


Heh, pretty much.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 09:53 AM
That's not true; they can get married to anyone of the opposite sex they wish too....SAME as everyone else.


Quite right. They should be forced to live just like everybody else does.

It's the American way.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 10:12 AM
Quite right. They should be forced to live just like everybody else does.

It's the American way.

No one's FORCING anyone to marry anyone else, are we?

By the same logic and reasoning, a white man should not be denied the "right" to be considered a "black woman" under that law, in the event he wanted to avail himself of the advantages offered by 'affirmative action.'

Of course, consistency is not a strong suit for some folks. :)

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 10:15 AM
No one's FORCING anyone to marry anyone else, are we?


Nope. But not everybody gets married. Gays should be forced to remain single, or marry someone they have no interest in.

This is the only way that we can be free.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 10:18 AM
Nope. But not everybody gets married. Gays should be forced to remain single, or marry someone they have no interest in.

This is the only way that we can be free.

I noticed you ignored my analogy, or are you still pondering that?

By the same logic and reasoning, a white man should not be denied the "right" to be considered a "black woman" under that law, in the event he wanted to avail himself of the advantages offered by 'affirmative action.'

Marriage is, what it is. Homosexuals need not apply.

Affirmative action, is what it is. White men need not apply.

Thoughts?

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 10:19 AM
I noticed you ignored my analogy, or are you still pondering that?


It's totally irrelevant.

So I ignored it.

Lzen
11-05-2004, 12:21 PM
It's totally irrelevant.

So I ignored it.

Translation:

I have no argument therefore I'll just say yours is irrelevant.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 12:28 PM
Translation:

I have no argument therefore I'll just say yours is irrelevant.


No, it IS irrelevant. One is a policy, the other is a physical reality. One can be changed, the other can't.

Idiot.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 12:32 PM
No, it IS irrelevant. One is a policy, the other is a physical reality. One can be changed, the other can't.

Idiot.

Aren't marriage and affirmative action both civil policies? :hmmm:

Aren't BOTH rooted in "physical realities"--being male or female, being a member of a "minority"? :hmmm:

:shrug:

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 12:34 PM
No, it IS irrelevant. One is a policy, the other is a physical reality. One can be changed, the other can't.

Idiot.

FWIW, both phyical "realities" and policies, CAN be changed... :hmmm:

Surgery is amazing these days.... :thumb:

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 12:36 PM
Aren't marriage and affirmative action both civil policies? :hmmm:

Aren't BOTH rooted in "physical realities"--being male or female, being a member of a "minority"? :hmmm:

:shrug:

Nice deflection.

Gay marriage is a policy. A person's actual gender is not.

By the way, you can stop harping about AA, as I do not support it.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 12:38 PM
Nice deflection.

Gay marriage is a policy. A person's actual gender is not.

By the way, you can stop harping about AA, as I do not support it.

GENDER can be changed....if you really wanna get married these days. :hmmm:

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 12:38 PM
FWIW, both phyical "realities" and policies, CAN be changed... :hmmm:

Surgery is amazing these days.... :thumb:

If you change your gender, you now fall into the new catagory, and thus there is no problem, as the law is written.

Of course, there are MILLIONS of people just waiting to have their penis cut off, so they can qualify for AA.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 12:38 PM
GENDER can be changed....if you really wanna get married these days. :hmmm:

That covers the transgender homos.

What about the rest of them?

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 12:41 PM
...Of course, there are MILLIONS of people just waiting to have their penis cut off, so they can qualify for AA.

Personally, I'd go for Skin pigmentation implants....or maybe just a tanning regime, as long as that would qualify me.

In my job, it would guarantee me a raise of $30-40,000 dollars, because I'd be guaranteed a job in administration.... :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 12:42 PM
That covers the transgender homos.

What about the rest of them?

See a lawyer or two; draw up the papers, power of attorney, wills, etc....

BabyLee, can you help here? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 12:56 PM
See a lawyer or two; draw up the papers, power of attorney, wills, etc....

See, there WAS a solution all along.... :)

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 01:12 PM
See, there WAS a solution all along.... :)

Um, okay....provided the "spouses" in question can obtain health insurance, etc, the same way married couples do.

You willing to write that into law?

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2004, 01:26 PM
Um, okay....provided the "spouses" in question can obtain health insurance, etc, the same way married couples do.

You willing to write that into law?

Rights are one thing; "benefits" are another. Benefits and privileges offered by businesses to accomodate "families" should be of their own discretion, or at least that of the STATE....if community standards and local values say yes, I'd say fine. Otherwise, they should be free to make distinctions. It's called "values...."

If such distinctions are disallowed; what about pologamy, what about incest? :hmmm: