How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?

  • News
  • Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date
In summary, Zell Miller, a senator from Georgia, gave a speech at the Republican National Convention in which he stated that his family is his most precious possession and he believes the next four years will determine their future. He believes that George W. Bush is the only man who can protect his family's future and that of America. Miller also spoke about the lack of bipartisanship in the country and the Democratic party's current stance on national security, criticizing them for seeing America as an occupier rather than a liberator. He also mentioned the role of soldiers in preserving freedom and defended the weapons systems that Senator John Kerry had opposed.
  • #1
member 5645
How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor??

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_miller_text_1&printer=1

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 (news - web sites).


In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-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Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."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 bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?


Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq (news - web sites) and the mountains of Afghanistan (news - web sites), 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites).

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 percent 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 (news - web sites). 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 (news - web sites)'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 (news - web sites).

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 20 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 protester, 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.

No cliff notes, It's worth reading all of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think they've been calling him a traitor for several years now.
 
  • #3
That speech made me want to reverse peristalize.
 
  • #4
If the tables were turned, and Mr. Miller were a republican that really had his alleigances with the democratic party, i'd still see him in a Bendict- Arnoldian light. How can you take someone like this seriously?
 
  • #5
"How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor??"

About the same amount of time it would have taken for the right to label McCain a traitor if he had spoken at the DNC denouncing the failings of George Bush the Republicans as a whole.

P.S. Where did you find the entire text of Miller's speech, I'd be interested to find the texts of some other events at the RNC.
 
  • #6
I can't fault the Left for calling Miller a traitor. I don't think he is, but I can certainly see why they would think so.
 
  • #7
Gza said:
If the tables were turned, and Mr. Miller were a republican that really had his alleigances with the democratic party, i'd still see him in a Bendict- Arnoldian light. How can you take someone like this seriously?

No more than McCain, who is open about bashing his own part when it falls out of line and doesn't try to hide is friendship with John Kerry.

Zell has been the image of bipartisanship for a long time. A call for bipartisanship and condemning your party for getting out of line is not unique to Miller alone.
I await true conservatism to return to Washington myself. But that's another matter.
 
  • #8
wasteofo2 said:
"How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor??"

About the same amount of time it would have taken for the right to label McCain a traitor if he had spoken at the DNC denouncing the failings of George Bush the Republicans as a whole.

P.S. Where did you find the entire text of Miller's speech, I'd be interested to find the texts of some other events at the RNC.

While McCain hasn't spoken at the DNC, he has done everything else Miller has. And in response he's got conservatives, including myself, wishing he was running in place of Bush.


Found it on news.google.com
 
  • #9
wasteofo2 said:
"How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor??"

About the same amount of time it would have taken for the right to label McCain a traitor if he had spoken at the DNC denouncing the failings of George Bush the Republicans as a whole.

Hmm...you seem to forget that the right (Bush and his cronies) labeled McCain as a traitor, over 4 years ago. Wait, 'labeled' is a euphemism. They simply called him a Commie traitor (since after Bush lost New Hampshire).

The same McCain, who 4 years ago yelled at Bush to "get your hands off me" when Bush grabbed his hand to shake it, it now going all out in support of Bush. For what ? A deal on 2008 ? A high Cabinet position (Sec State) in 2004 ? :confused:
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Gokul43201 said:
a Commie traitor (since after Bush lost New Hampshire).

The same McCain, who 4 years ago yelled at Bush to "get your hands off me" when Bush grabbed his hand to shake it, it now going all out in support of Bush. For what ? A deal on 2008 ? A high Cabinet position (Sec State) in 2004 ? :confused:
Gee Wiz...are you questioning McCains Integrity?!
 
  • #11
It would appear Republicans are backing away from Miller's comments even faster than Democrats can attack them.
 
  • #12
BobG said:
It would appear Republicans are backing away from Miller's comments even faster than Democrats can attack them.

Which is a real shame IMO.
 
  • #13
I don't think he's a traitor...he was just an idiot for being in the wrong party (among other reasons).

Zell proved what a fool he is when he said that he wished that he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel (I'm ****ing serious--he did that!).
 
  • #14
I thought this was funny. Maybe because I'm a little :cool: .

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2004/nf2004092_0807_db009.htm

Sortin' Through Zell Miller's Speech
The Georgian sure seemed to make plenty of sense, but let's listen in as Ma and Pa Mettle go out on the porch and do some ponderin'


EDIT:

Oh, and look at this picture...creepy! :yuck:

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/09/ana04017.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Dissident Dan said:
I don't think he's a traitor...he was just an idiot for being in the wrong party (among other reasons).

Zell proved what a fool he is when he said that he wished that he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel (I'm ****ing serious--he did that!).
Why don't you spell this out, instead of hinting at it.
Yes he did that, and it was hilarious.
 
  • #16
Gza said:
I thought this was funny. Maybe because I'm a little :cool: .

1>http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2004/nf2004092_0807_db009.htm




EDIT:

Oh, and look at this picture...creepy! :yuck:

2>http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/09/ana04017.html


1> It's a poor way to either make fun of the people that agree with what Miller said, or a poor way to try to make a point. God forbid we speak in something besided rhetoric.

2>Well, there's the response from the left I guess. "Zell was so angry,that makes him wrong" , "ahahaha, he was sooooo angry, did you see that?!?"
I can't wait until someone will start actually debating Miller's statements, rather than the cheap shot of attacking him for being angry.

NYtimes did an OP ed piece (by the oh so wonderful Paul Krugman) that shows they too fall inline with the rest of the left so far in the "hurry up and point out how angry Zell was, and how that makes him a lunatic"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/opinion/03krugman.html

Barack Obama, who gave the Democratic keynote address, delivered a message of uplift and hope. Zell Miller, who gave the Republican keynote, declared that political opposition is treason: "Now, at the same time 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 Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." And the crowd roared its approval.

Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).

If one agrees with the statement by Miller, which I do, then the bolded question has an answer - I don't like politics being played with MY safety.

This writer is an *******, who in that very line somehow took Miller's very valid concern, and one that everyone should be angry about (and at people on either side of the fence that play such politics), and washed over it to make some political bash against Republicans because of Miller's 'emotion' at that time.
Why discuss whether political games are being played, when you can just write an article that proves they are. Milller became enemy number one when he stood up for what he believed in.It's disgusting. I was happy when McCain voiced his unhappiness with attacking Kerry as a veteran. I am just as happy to see Miller stand up and say that national security is not an issue that politics should decide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Zell Miller, paraphrased:

"Damn the Democrats for wanting (having a manic obsession for) an election while we're at war."
"John Kerry wants to defend the nation with spitballs." (Zell might want to check out factcheck.org...)
"Let's duel at high noon!"
 
  • #18
2>Well, there's the response from the left I guess. "Zell was so angry,that makes him wrong" , "ahahaha, he was sooooo angry, did you see that?!?"
I can't wait until someone will start actually debating Miller's statements, rather than the cheap shot of attacking him for being angry.


ummmm...chill out dude. I just thought it was lighthearted and funny. No need to be :mad: about it.
 
  • #19
Gza said:
ummmm...chill out dude. I just thought it was lighthearted and funny. No need to be :mad: about it.

Again, I can't wait until someone will start actually debating Miller's statements, rather than the cheap shot of attacking him for being angry.
 
  • #20
Dissident Dan said:
Zell Miller, paraphrased:

"Damn the Democrats for wanting (having a manic obsession for) an election while we're at war."
"John Kerry wants to defend the nation with spitballs." (Zell might want to check out factcheck.org...)
"Let's duel at high noon!"

So we are going to start paraphrasing to twist what he said? I posted the whole speech for so you don't have to make up things. It's there, verbatim in the first post.

Saying that politics is being played with National security is NOT the same as saying "vote for GW Bush just because we can't switch leaders right now".
 
  • #21
I think I would have taken Miller's comments a little more seriously if he didn't go completely wacko after the convention and tried to duel Chris Matthews. I also find it funny how you (phatmonkey) attack Kerry's credibility by labeling him a flip flop, while taking serious an even bigger flip flop in Zell Miller.
 
  • #22
I think Ciro Scotti's column reflects exactly how those on the Left view the average Joe. To them, Middle America comprises The Darlings of the Andy Griffith Show, four grimy Hillbillies standing in the back of a Model T. Keep it up! The more they mischaracterize, the more they alienate.
 
  • #23
the more they alienate.

Alienate who? A bunch of hilbillies? They alienate themselves when they vote for nothing more than who yells the loudest and waves the American flag the hardest without any forethought. They alienate themselves when they vote for the candidate who they themselves can relate to, over a more qualified, more intelligent leader, just because they can't understand a more thoughtful agenda than "we goin git in thur, and kill them turrists, because them Ay-rabs bin sturrin up all this hootin and a hollerin." I tend to judge a persons political thoughtfulness by the candidate they vote for, and the simple fact that middle America chose George Bush tells me volumes of what kind of people they are (excuse the generalizations, I realize that not everyone in middle America is that way).
 
  • #24
I tend to judge a persons political thoughtfulness by the candidate they vote for, and the simple fact that middle America chose George Bush tells me volumes of what kind of people they are (excuse the generalizations, I realize that not everyone in middle America is that way).

Whether or not Bush or Kerry is more qualified to be President is a matter of OPINION. I find it arrogant to insult Bush supporters simply because they plan to vote for someone you didn't think was worthy of being President.

To me, Kerry sounds like a pompous, pseudo-intellectual jackass. You're entitled to your own opinion.
 
  • #25
Gza said:
I think I would have taken Miller's comments a little more seriously if he didn't go completely wacko after the convention and tried to duel Chris Matthews. I also find it funny how you (phatmonkey) attack Kerry's credibility by labeling him a flip flop, while taking serious an even bigger flip flop in Zell Miller.
Stop the ad hominem. This thread is not about me. If you wish to discuss that, there's a new post button at the top of the page. You still have not actually addressed Miller's comments. Instead, as I said, jumped on the "hurry, call him a wacko because he's angry" bandwagon.

But hey, when you use terms like "hilbillies", I can't expect you to do any more than sit on your egotistical high-horse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
For one thing, the list of weapons systems Kerry voted against is a little misleading. Kerry voted against the 1991 Defense Appropriations bill as a whole (which is not the same as voting to abolish the Defense Department of the entire military). The weapons systems Miller mentioned were a part of that bill.

If Kerry's vote on that bill did contribute to reductions in some of the weapons systems, wouldn't that be a positive?

Bush (the elder) bragged about stopping production of more B-2's and slashing the defense budget during his 1992 campaign; and Cheney also complained about the amount that was spent on many of these weapons systems in 1992, claiming the number of M-1's, F-14's, etc went beyond what was militarily necessary. Bush (the elder) and Cheney were both aggressive in cutting defense spending in the post cold war era - a reasonable goal for the times - and the main obstacle was the reluctance of Congress to cut deep enough.

(If one thing is true about the perils of increased spending [defense or otherwise], it's that it's much harder to vote away jobs than it is not to authorize the money in the first place)
 
  • #27
"For one thing, the list of weapons systems Kerry voted against is a little misleading."

Kerry is not a hawk, he is a dove and you know it. Always prefering over 20 years voting record to prefer social programs vs defence programs.
 
  • #28
I wouldn't mind a dove as much if he had the guts to stand on his position. In that sense, I have more respect for Howard Dean.
 

1. How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?

The timing of when the left would label Zell Miller a traitor is uncertain and cannot be predicted. It depends on the actions and statements of Zell Miller and the reactions of the left.

2. Why would the left label Zell Miller a traitor?

The left may label Zell Miller a traitor if they perceive his actions or statements to go against their political beliefs or values. This could include supporting policies or politicians that are not aligned with the left's ideology.

3. Has the left already labeled Zell Miller a traitor?

It is possible that some individuals or groups on the left have already labeled Zell Miller a traitor, but it is not a universally held belief among all members of the left. It is also important to note that labeling someone a traitor is subjective and can vary among different individuals and groups.

4. Is labeling someone a traitor a common tactic used by the left?

Labeling someone a traitor is not a common tactic used by the left as a whole. It may be used by certain individuals or groups, but it is not a widespread practice among the left.

5. How can Zell Miller prevent being labeled a traitor by the left?

Zell Miller can prevent being labeled a traitor by the left by staying true to his own beliefs and principles, and by being respectful and open-minded towards differing opinions and perspectives. It is also important for him to consider the potential impacts of his actions and statements on others before making them.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
534
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
789
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
846
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
511
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
863
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
72
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
12K
Back
Top