Yeah yeah another election type thread, but I'm curious what others think about this. now I'm pretty much a middle grounder this isn't surprising given some of his previous comments but still.......

Text of speech by Sen. Zell Miller September 1, 2004

Text of speech by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia as prepared for delivery Wednesday at the Republican National Convention:

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 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Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."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 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 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. 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 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.

Great speech, interesting observations...

Fandros

Considering he's been a Democrat for many years his speech was pretty impressive. He pointed out the flaws in his own party that people need to know about. It's interesting to see how Bush has obtained support from some such a wide base of people -- McCain, Democratic liberal Zell, social liberals Arnold and Rudy, etc. Certainly presents a lot broader support and unity than the single focused DNC presented.

yep that was a great speech , very well done although alot of the more senstive people complained it was to harsh for their fragile selfs haha.


The biggest dem complaint and drumming up for their issues is the lost manfacturing jobs , that supposedly is bush`s fault and a dem pres will solve all that lol .

Honestly i see it as neither a dem or a repub pres has any real control over job loss or growth , it`s not like they can with a pen mark suddenly create millions of jobs .

The best they can do it creat tax breaks, incentives and hope the companies use that as a basics to open up more jobs within their companies either through building new plants or adding new employees .

I see the reason why jobs are going to shit is from the north american free trade agreement . in theory it looked great when it became active 10 years ago . as people thought it would open up manfacturing jobs in canda and mexico stimulating job growth here for meeting trade demands .

In reality all it did was give the ok for companies here to close shop and build new plants in mexico or canda where they could get cheaper labor and thus produce products cheaper thus increase bigger revenues.

Also it allowed companies from canda and mexico to bid on jobs here and under bid american companies taking jobs while having a standard policy of hiring within their on country and limiting hiring outside companies doing work in their country.

Now after 10 years the result is finaly hitting home . with the inclusion of central america and south america into the trade agreement i can`t see it getting any better.

But that`s not the pres fault that`s captalism and companies selling out their fellow americans in the name of higher profits. all they can do wether it is bush or kerry is to create incentives and higher tax cuts for cxompanies that hire american companies and keep plants here open wether then closeing to build overseas .

I could be wrong but from all i have seen read over the last 10 years leads to this . free trade agreement was a great idea but due to greed of companies over well being of it`s employee`s it doesn`t work unless goverment steps in and desginates what they can and can not do .

That was indeed a very well done speech, both in research and presentation.

When the CNN folks were talking to him after the speech, and presented him with the information that Dick Cheney as Secretary of Defense had also opposed and/or wanted cuts in many of those same weapons programs Miller could only reply, "I am talking about John Kerry's record."

It is unfortunate that most people do not take the time to actually learn about the votes that are being discussed, on both sides, and why a Yea or Nay was cast. Most often votes are cast less against the bill's primary function (for example the Defense Budget bill, which asked for body armor and many other perks for the military but at the same time had add-ons that actually would cut veteran's benefits, among other things) than against the add-ons which either contain pork projects or remove some benefit to the voting senator/congressman's state.

Trent Lott used the tactic of attacking a Senator's vote on a defense budget bill, until the discussion turned to the 5 billion dollar air craft carrier Lott had gotten included in the bill over the objections of the Navy and at a higher dollar figure than the Navy said it should cost. Of course, the carrier was to be built in Lott's state, meaning jobs and economic boost. Pork, none the less.

Miller's speech was a great one, I agree. I simply take the attacks on voting records on both sides with a few grains of salt.

Was on my lunch hour earlier and ran out of time, but I wanted to include the following in a discussion of voting records.

I wanted to point out another casualty of the "look at how he voted" tactic.
A certain Senator who had lost an arm and both legs fighting in Viet Nam was accused of being an ally of Osama and not a patriotic individual, for the sole reason that he voted against Bush's Patriot Act. He explained the reason for his Nay vote was the inclusion in the original bill to remove the civil rights of federal employees, which he said was totally unneccessary and not needed for Home Land Security to be effective; and he did not leave his limbs in a foreign land to come home and vote to deny fellow countrymen their constitutional rights.

Nonetheless, the phone banks were activated and people were told that he was against supporting Bush in his fight to protect the US and of being no better than Osama himself. He lost the seat in the Senate that November.

Really, all the members of the Senate and House should post detailed explanations of their votes for the public record if they want to avoid getting slammed undeservedly. If they oppose a bill because of riders or pork and publicize that fact, I can't help but think it would help them come election time.

I told you all it would be an interesting speech, lol. =) I'm glad it did turn out to have good points and observations.

I hope you're not insinuating that Kerry had such good reasons to vote that way over a 20 year period.

One or two outstanding situations like you said above may very well have grounds and justification. 20 years of voting speaks something more permanent. Perhaps even that you'll vote whichever way you think will keep you in a position to be voting, rather than what's right in your heart, your convictions, or your country.

I am certainly not insinuating anything about Kerry's record.

I am only making the point that the speech presented a tunnel vision look at the voting record rather than a full in-depth view. Both parties make those attacks in the same way, and often when you find what was really voted against it can bring a smile to the face, or a frown depending on your frame of reference.

And, as CNN pointed out, a comparison of Cheney and Kerry positions on those weapons systems would surprise many, with Cheney being Secretary of Defense during many of those votes. But, politics being what they are, Cheney is not going to say, "Hey wait a minute, I didn't want that weapons system either." Integrity is one of the first casualties of political life, and these are not the first politicians to point fingers at another politician for taking the same position on a bill as they themselves did.

All in all, neither party is offering up it's best for the election, and the next four years do not bode well for us regardless of which candidate wins; so, I am just trying to amuse myself with the process of the election campaign knowing the result will be a disappointment either way.

You guys would take that Zeel guy seriously? He challenged a member of the press to a duel ... you know, with firearms. What a fucking wack job. Guess that shows you need to be a nutter to want to speak at the Republican National Convention!

Also, as to Gulor's "Really, all the members of the Senate and House should post detailed explanations of their votes for the public record if they want to avoid getting slammed undeservedly. If they oppose a bill because of riders or pork and publicize that fact, I can't help but think it would help them come election time." -- that'd be the biggest waste of time for our taxpayers money. Most Senators and Representatives don't even READ the bills they are voting on, let alone have time to write out detailed explanations of all of their votes. Our government is slow as hell as it is, they'd never get anything done.

I would rather they were actually working for their money, rather than spending their time on the golf course or schmoozing with lobbyists. You are paying them either way...they are on salary. I don't think it is too much to expect at least the concientious ones to detail their votes, especially on major appropriation bills.

Certainly all the House members and Senators in the appropriate subcommittees are familiar with the bills as presented, intimately one would hope. As for the others, if they are not reading any of the bills they vote on, perhaps we are voting the wrong people into office.

And, as CNN pointed out, a comparison of Cheney and Kerry positions on those weapons systems would surprise many, with Cheney being Secretary of Defense during many of those votes.
Just to clarify, there aren't "many" and the ones that are against them are after the Soviet Union disintegrated. Quite different from Kerry's wanting to do it during the Soviet Union's buildup. You decide which was the better choice.

Anyway, the same attack on Cheney doesn't stick because overall he's not been anti-military. The exact opposite actually.

You know why the same attack has stuck to Kerry though? Because it's truthful.

You can say Kerry is a flip-flopper and you can say Bush is a flip-flopper. Yup, both true. Which has really stuck in the press though? And everyone of you know why, because "it's complicated" to use Kerry's own words.

There's a difference between changing your stance because of a change in the situation, and changing your stance because you're in front of a different crowd. The citizens of this country aren't stupid, they can see the difference. "I own all kinds of SUVs..." unless of course it's Earth Day, then "the family owns them."

That snafu alone shows the heart and soul of Kerry, and his wanting of appeasement and likeability by everyone he meets. It's like he never left high school or something.

Zell a thorn in Repubs side? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897622/)

Late Thursday, Miller and his wife were removed from the list of dignitaries who would be sitting in the first family’s box during the president’s acceptance speech later in the evening. Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said Miller was not in the box because the campaign had scheduled him to do too many television interviews.

There was no explanation, however, for why Miller would be giving multiple interviews during Bush’s acceptance speech, or what channels would snub the president in favor of Miller. Nor was it made clear why Miller’s wife also was not allowed to take her place in the president’s box 24 hours after his deeply personal denunciation of his own party’s nominee.

The change was made only a few hours after Laura Bush, asked about Miller’s speech, said in an interview with NBC News that “I don’t know that we share that point of view.” Aides to President Bush and his campaign said Miller was not speaking for all Republicans.

From a blog www.andrewsullivan.com

Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric.
Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.

Fil

You guys would take that Zeel guy seriously? He challenged a member of the press to a duel ... you know, with firearms. What a fucking wack job. Guess that shows you need to be a nutter to want to speak at the Republican National Convention!


Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric.

Or you could remember that he is the guy the Democrats loved so much that they had him give Clinton's keynote address at their convention not too long ago.

Or you could remember that he was Governor of the Year in 1998.