posted on November 3, 2003 11:11:44 AM new
Why this lifelong Democrat will vote Republican next November.
BY ZELL MILLER Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
If I live and breathe, and if--as Hank Williams used to say--the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president.
I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.
Why George Bush? First, the personal; then, the political.
I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."
I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.
I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact that he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.
That's the personal. Now, the political.
This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.
This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.
I have just described George W. Bush.
Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.
I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign--the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost--with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign--watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.
So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier.
Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia and the author of "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," published last month by Stroud & Hall. You can buy it from the OpinionJournal bookstore.
posted on November 3, 2003 12:26:55 PM new
Zell Miller is also the guy who endorsed the republican candidate for senate who won by trashing the Democrat by calling the demo unpatriotic. The dem was a triple amputee Vietnam vet who lost both legs and aan arm in Nam. Yet the republican candidate dodged serving in any service. Yet another chicken-hawk. You must be so proud bear to hear they trashed the Nam vet. Did it give you a warm fuzzy feeling to hear that?
posted on November 3, 2003 01:35:36 PM new
Keep up the smart azz remarks & we'll see who's laughing when President Bush is re-elected.
Helen keep falling & laughing I'm sure you have plenty to spare
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
[ edited by BEAR1949 on Nov 3, 2003 01:37 PM ]
posted on November 3, 2003 02:37:43 PM new
If you want to align yourself with Zell and the chicken-hawk clown who trashed a triple amputee Vietnam Vet, feel free. You must be so proud to support such men. After all, your family has serve in every battle of every war on American and foreign soil.
posted on November 3, 2003 02:41:38 PM new
bear - We must remember that the Vietnam war/conflict deeply divided the democratic party.....and they've never really re-cooped from that division amongst themselves.
So far it looks like Dean might get the nomination, that would be a good thing. He's the 'McGovern' side of their party and will make an easy win for the re-election of our President.
posted on November 3, 2003 03:05:26 PM newbear - We must remember that the Vietnam war/conflict deeply divided the democratic party
Bear does not care about nam anymore. After all, his neo-con heros can trash any vet all they want and he is so proud of that. And remember, family has served in every battle of every war on American and foreign soil.
Linda, That war divided the whole country and where do think the term chicken-hawk came from? That's right, the old-cons were dodging the draft and service long before the neo-cons were on the scene. You see, the neo-cons are carrying on a long tradition.
posted on November 3, 2003 03:25:13 PM new
Miscreant, All you know is what you THINK, (and I use the word loosely for your sake). you know. When in fact you know nothing at all.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on November 3, 2003 03:40:26 PM new
Bear, don't you think it was terrible what Chambliss and Zell Miller did to Vietnam vet Cleland? Or is your worship of chicken-hawks so complete you will forgive them anything?
• 3.2 million private sector jobs lost since President Bush took office: Even the one month of modest gains in September only made up for 2% of the job loss that had taken place.
posted on November 3, 2003 05:19:16 PM new
Bush helped Chambliss unseat Max Cleland last year. Cleland, a vietnam vet and company commander lost two legs and an arm...Chambliss conducted a smear campaign to falsely portray Cleland as soft on homeland defense and Osama bin Laden.
posted on November 3, 2003 07:04:22 PM new
Almost missed this one.
World airline body says traffic back to pre-SARS, Iraq war levels...
Passenger traffic for European carriers rose 3.6 percent in September while passengers carried by North American airlines fell 3.6 percent in September over the same period a year earlier.
An increase everywhere else but here? Do you even read the articles?
posted on November 4, 2003 12:06:21 AM new
Is this where you get all your info Linda
Anti-war Doom and Gloom
James Hirsen, NewsMax.com
Saturday, Jan. 11, 2003
” [i] Martin Sheen goes on the "Today" show and spouts leftist nonsense. Ramsey Clark wants to dress up in a Hans Blix outfit and search the White House and Naval Weapons Yard for WMDs. All this is going on just before a possible military encounter.
Some of the same folks on the left that kept quiet during Clinton's Monica bombings are now piercing everyone's eardrums. We've heard them before.[/i]”
It seems all those of conservative compassionate inclination are also comparatively vacuous.
How you guys can possibly continue comparing a war to a blowjob, is beyond comprehension.
It must be a bible ‘thing’.
posted on November 4, 2003 12:48:16 AM new
Okay....I'll change that to the DOOM and GLOOM CLUB.
Clinton was one of our most corrupt Presidents this country has ever seen, IMO. Nothing to do with a blow job to me.
And, no I hadn't read that old article.
But the Jan. 2001 article you posted does prove a couple of points doesn't it? The predictions from the far left if we went to war in Iraq were proved wrong. Just like most everything else they've said was going to happen.
"The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War recently predicted that an invasion of Iraq could lead to casualties as high as 250,000 within the first three months, even without the use of nuclear or chemical weapons. Not sure why they would be so worried about nuclear or chemical weapons since *you're all so sure there where none*, and that this President lied to us. Maybe it was all those democrats that were saying the same thing and were being believed. LOL
AND the prediction of 250,000 casualties in three months? Yes, that was another incorrect prediction the angry left made too.
But hey...want your taxes raised? Vote for a democrat....that's one thing they're REAL good at.
posted on November 4, 2003 02:27:54 AM new
Couple of major difference here Linda.
"The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War”
do not represent or speak for me or the anti war movement.
Bush does represent you and the chickenhawks for war and a PNAC.
The former’s prediction or rather, ‘warning’, that “invasion of Iraq could lead to casualties as high as 250,000 within the first three months” is firstly not ‘incorrect’ because they didn’t say ‘will lead to’.
And was there fore not a false assertion.
The neo-cons took us to war on the basis of false assertions, ie evidence of WOMD.
That’s false witness Linda, don’t you have the integrity to admit that?
Personally speaking, I was never certain that they had or didn’t have WOMD, which is why I expressed objections to going to war on the basis of WOMD.
You however, claimed blind faith in a president that claimed to have evidence but refused to show it.
Somehow, in spite of the absence of evidence of WOMD and even light of evidence to show that ‘intelligence’ was falsified by the neo-cons, your c;aim to ‘faith’ in these liars is just as strong.
Linda’s response to 11 empty chemical warheads found in Iraq posted on January 16, 2003
RE: U.N. inspectors today found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported.
“Yes, another breach. Surprise, surprise.
Do you guys know why the inspectors would take only one away to test?
Have you read if this discovery could have/did come from any of the information the Bush administration may have recently given to the top-level UN inspectors? I've heard that Blix was pressuring the President to make them aware of any information we have to help with their investigation. The concern has been that it would be hard to do without revealing anything that would jeopardize our sources.”
Sure thing Linda,,, Bush didn’t want to dick his sources!!!
And that was his big excuse for not revealing his evidence to war.
About as dangerous as those aluminium tubes he used as a case for war.
Just like the case of Yellow Cake from Nigier.
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=166358
“A war is coming.. get use to it. We'll do what we have to.
If he wages a war, and nothing is found he would be committing political suicide.
He, and the people behind him are not fools.
Amen,
God Bless President Bush,
Reverend Colin “ on Jan 29, 2003 06:23 AM ]
posted on November 4, 2003 05:58:44 AM new Sure thing Linda,,, Bush didn’t want to dick his sources!!! And that was his big excuse for not revealing his evidence to war. About as dangerous as those aluminium tubes he used as a case for war. Just like the case of Yellow Cake from Nigier.
.... aluminum tubes as a case for war.
Now the military is grotesquely euphemizing the returning American bodies as "transfer tubes".
posted on November 4, 2003 06:21:15 AM new
What War???
The war for A PNAC 12.
Evidence of BS Mass Global Propoganda,
courtesy of
DeSquirrel posted on February 15, 2003 01:03:27 PM
12, Ultimately the US neo-con Regime does not have final say in any matter.
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.
- Abraham Lincoln
The tree of liberty grows only when watered by the blood of tyrants.
- Bertrand Barere
The US didn't start it. They have never ever backed up, funded,supported, bank rolled or dealt in any way with SAdam Hussein (especially in the supply of chemical weapons- Just ask Rumsfeld)
They had no involvement with Suharto, Pinochet, the Argentine junta, El Salvador, Nicuragua, Colombia, Venezuala and never did illegally bomb the hell out of Cambodia or Laos.
They don't trade with murderous regimes like China, or oppressive states like Saudi Arabia. They have never supported corrupt governments like the shah of Iran, or pre-Castro Cuba.
No wonder the thinking world questions the US motives and that of the West in general
[ edited by austbounty on Nov 4, 2003 06:25 AM ]
posted on November 4, 2003 06:44:46 AM new
Austbounty anyone that would listen to your inane postings would let the random street bum take care of their children....
How would you feel if your neighbor consistently popped in and spoke of how you and your mate weren't doing things the way they seen them... they don't live there and are just a nosey neighbor... starting to ring a bell now...
posted on November 4, 2003 07:18:56 AM new
More damning evidence from the chickenhawk cheerleaders.
courtesy of bear1949
posted on February 6, 2003 09:00:15 AM
"several Kuwaiti citizens....All expressed their concern about the production of anthrax in roaming mobile labs & the capability of air dispersal by Iraqi Mirage jets"
12
RE: Nosy Neighbour.
If my neighbour were screwing a chicken, I’d let him ride to his heart’s content, as long as it was out of sight.
But if he were screwing children and other innocent people, then too right I would stick my nose in.
Starting to ring any bells now???
RE: Australian involvement.
Prime minister says U.S. given intelligence on al-Qaida link
"There will be no stability – no security – for the nations of the Gulf until Iraq is disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction – totally and permanently," he said.
So he wants us to believe that US is at fault for bad ‘intelligence’ and Bush wants you to blame the Poms.
They all seem to offer as evidence, what any court would call ‘hearsay’.
But you see…The US regime, are the leader of the pack, we have become a minority joke, regionally and globally.
The US are the Ring Leader, Head Honcho, God Father.
I just wish the evidence against Howard were as damming as the evidence against Bush, so he’d have a better chance of being voted out in next elections too.
I think that, just like the chickenhawks, Howard’da’Coward is trying to appease the HyperPower (USA), either under duress or under the misguided belief that allegiance will be similarly demonstrated when we need it.
(HyperPower: Recent status upgrade as China approaches superpower status)
posted on November 4, 2003 07:26:24 AM newBut if he were screwing children and other innocent people, then too right I would stick my nose in. Starting to ring any bells now???
Yeah I always did think you were some child molesting deviant... but didn't know you enjoyed screwing chickens too.
A Democrat Who Dissents Zell Miller on his party: "Have we lost our minds?"
BY JONATHAN KARL
Tuesday, November 4, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
When Bill Clinton captured the Democratic nomination in 1992, he tapped his friend Zell Miller to give a keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. And why not? Mr. Miller was a popular governor of an important state (Georgia) and a Democratic loyalist......
Since coming to the Senate in 2000, Mr. Miller has proved to be one of the most reliable votes in favor of the Bush agenda--more reliable than many in the president's own party. He was the first Democratic sponsor of both Bush tax cuts; he has stood with the president on all his controversial judicial nominees; and he has unflinchingly supported the Iraq war.
In a "National Party No More," Mr. Miller sets out to take his party to the woodshed with colorful and caustic attacks on fellow Democrats for steering the party too far to the left and in the process abandoning conservative Democrats in the South. His harshest criticism is of the current field of Democratic presidential candidates, whom he compares to "streetwalkers in skimpy halters and hot pants plying their age-old trade for the fat wallets on 'K' Street." He doesn't like any of them but detests Howard Dean the most. "Clever and glib, but deep this Vermont pond is not," Mr. Miller writes.
His journey from party loyalist to party apostate began shortly after Al Gore became the first Democratic presidential candidate since Walter Mondale to lose every state in the South (even Michael Dukakis managed to win West Virginia). Mr. Miller had just come to Washington to replace Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell, who died in 2000, and was convinced that Mr. Gore lost because he alienated conservative Southerners on issues ranging from taxes to gun control and abortion. As Mr. Miller reached out to the new president--"I'm with you on a lot of things," he told President-elect Bush.....
At first, Mr. Miller was impressed with Tom Daschle, but his relationship with the entire Democratic leadership changed in the months before the 2002 midterm elections, during the debate over the Department of Homeland Security.
Virtually everyone in Congress was in favor of the new department, but the bill creating it was tied up for months as the Democrats insisted that its employees have the same civil-service protections as other federal employees, a top demand of the labor unions. Mr. Miller could not believe that his party would hold up homeland security to please an interest group. Like the Republicans, he believed the president wanted the flexibility to hire, fire and reassign workers.
"Have we lost our minds?" Mr. Miller asked fellow Democrats in a speech five weeks before the election, as the homeland-security bill languished. Failure to give the president flexibility, he said, "will haunt the Democratic Party worse than Marley's ghost haunted Ebenezer Scrooge." At a press conference, he brought his finger across his neck and said, "We're slitting our own throats." His warnings were unheeded, and, as he predicted, Republicans played the issue up in the final weeks of the campaign. Democratic incumbents lost in Missouri and Georgia, and the party lost control of the Senate.
He's looked upon as a traitor to his party by those on the farleft, for being a conservative democrat who see's his party is headed in the wrong direction, once again. And those that read this article will see he completely supported clinton.
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 4, 2003 07:54 AM ]
