Redstate

I mean these are the Frank Luntz people. They are normally really squishy. They moved to 11 out of 17 for Bush with two obvious Kerry plants.

Maybe the Dem/Veggie convention left people wanting some authenticity?

I was trying not to cringe through this speech.  And trying not to be paranoid that Zell is some kind of mole.  I am worried the mushy headed swing voters are going to be freaked out by him.  I think he went too far.

Being something of a swing voter myself, I can say that the text of Zell's speech impressed the hell out of me.

I'd be surprised if I made up my mind before the last debate, but Zell makes a hell of an argument that Kerry is completely unfit for the most important task he'd face.

what Zell said and are in full meltdown mode because of where and how he said it. (how much are the Dems "getting it" when you have examples like Ron Reagan Jr. charging Miller was bribed with cash to giving that speech?)

The man was royally pissed ... at the party he feels has abandoned him and people like him; the anti-Left, pro-American classical liberal Democrat party of John Kennedy, FDR, et al. I've heard this from numerous Dems (several that are keeping their Dem registration while voting GOP and many who have changed parties).

The only thing missing from Miller's speech were huge "Amens!" "Hallelujahs!" and "Preach it, brother!" in response.

but who cares.

This will help Bush a lot in Arkasas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Missouri. I can't see where it will hurt him substantially with anyone who might have voted for him to begin with.

If it gets to the point where we have to worry about offending swing voters I'd just as soon we pack our crap and get off the battlefield.

As they say, there's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead possums.

Anyone know where I can get a copy of the audio?  That was a great speech, it just felt great to listen to it.  A light righteous indignation never hurt anybody...

Did you just call Franklin Roosevelt a classical liberal??  The mind reels...

Zell's speech was a masterstroke.  This convention needed a moral outrage speech and a Democrat is the best messenger to give it.  Perfect combination.  I think it will play well in TN, AR, MO, and WV, but also blue collar democrats in the rust belt and midwest, and with seniors and older veterans.  Soccer moms in suburbia may not like it, but once again it came from a democrat...

Great message, great messenger.  I loved it.

FDR is more "anti-Left" than modern Democrats? Wow.

Anyway, raved the Zell:

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is

George Bush.

Here the Z-Man lays out the options in this election in a way even the moderates can appreciate: vote for Bush or your children will die.

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan,

Shhh! For goodness' sake, don't remind them that soldiers are still dying.

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.

Yes, tell it to Iran, Greece, and Germany - three countries who'd vote for Kerry over Bush.

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.

"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America." -- Dubya

"And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either." -- Dubya

"The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs."

Why is Senator Miller trying to divide America by getting mad at the President?

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell it to Dubya, Zell.

By the way, is there anyone out there doubting that the one-half of Europe would vote for Kerry over Bush any time? The biggest countries in that one-half of Europe certainly didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq. Trying to equate Bush's Error to previous, righteous conflicts is dumb. It's almost as dumb as arguing that you mustn't disagree with the Preznit or you're hurting America.

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.

Oh man. I guess Zell won't be voting for Dubya after all.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

"In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. [...] John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment." -- Zell Miller (a couple of years ago)

I guess if you're going to be frothing at the mouth, you can't be bothered with honesty.

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.

Zell's list of weapons systems - following a line set by this Republican National Committee briefing, by the way - reveals the depths of his dishonesty. Most of the listed weapons systems Kerry "opposed" by being against the defense appropriations bill of 1991. These include the B-1, B-2, F-14, F-15, F-16, Patriot Missile, Aegis Air Defense Cruiser, and Trident Missile System. Being a senator, Zell knows very well that such a vote doesn't mean that Kerry opposed all the weapons systems included in the bill. Being a dishonest hack, he doesn't care.

By the way, around that time, after the Soviet Union had fallen, Republicans were singing a different tune than now:

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." -- George H.W. Bush in 1992

"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. ... And now we're adding to that another $50 billion ... of so-called peace dividend. ... Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. ... You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s--all great systems ... but we have enough of them." -- Dick Cheney in 1992

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Tell it to Dick Cheney, Zell.

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.

More out-and-out lies from Zell. This sort of thing may play well with the ignorant, but that makes it good propaganda, not good argumentation.

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.

This contrasts nicely with how Zell used to claim that "John has worked to strengthen our military".  But that was before he started getting his talking points from the Republican National Committee.

As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

Actually he blamed the civilian leadership. Zell seems to hate it when that happens. (Of course, back when he was still sane, Zell called Kerry "one of this nation's authentic heroes".)

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.

Dubya sends 40000 troops to Iraq without best-grade body armor, and Zell has the gall to attack Kerry on it - echoing one of Dubya's ads in the process. Zell is talking about the infamous the $87 billion - the very same $87 billion Bush threatened to veto if the bill wasn't to his liking. I wonder, does the fact that Bush didn't support the $87 million unequivocally - months and months before money for the troops would have ran out - shows how Bush is willing to weaken the military.

The speech closes with some mush about how Dubya believes in God and that makes him just the man to lead America, but the substance of the speech is above. And it's rubbish.

It is a waste of time to reply to this point by point. I mean anyone who cares about honesty would not be supporting a John Kerry who has lied in his accounts of what he has done on so many occassions... from the stories from Vietnam, from his throwing away of Medals (where he lied to Tim Russert on the air and Matt Lauer later got one back for Tim on the Today show) and the list goes on and on....

I think someone can realize the truth of what Zell said and separate it from the petty argumentation that is guided by a mind that thinks like those who try to distort "what the meaning of 'is' is"

Thankfully, the American people can to. And I'm sure that makes you angry.

You wasted precious time writing this. Fortunately, it appears to be more or less devoid of reason, so minimal energy diverted to your brain was used.

Part II of the third day convention coverage. Pretty bad feed, though.

will never do when the day demands prophetic clarity from greathearts. Manly men must emerge for this hour of trial." --Theodore Roosevelt

Mullah's only.  Those yearning for freedom would probably support the man that's already liberated Muslims in two countries.

As someone who respected Miller greatly for providing free college educations to many Georgians (including some friends of mine) I am saddened by his inconsistancies.  

The best explanation I've heard is that as a Southern Democrat he went to Washington and realized he had greater cultural affinities with the Trent Lotts than the John Corzines.  He clearly experienced a political shift to accommodate his new discomfort and has cast aside prior statements and beliefs.

His praise of John Kerry 3 years ago as being a war hero and good for the national defense has been often cited and is not wished away by September 11.  What Miller considered 'strong' for Kerry from 1984-2001 doesn't suddenly become irresponsibly weak after the terrorist attacks.    

Miller cites votes against weapons systems as if that implies opposition to those systems.  As he well knows, there are pork-laden or irresponsible budget appropriations that Senators will oppose in order to get a less wasteful bill before them.  The fact that Cheney and McCain and many others also voted against these particular bills demostrates the dishonesty of Miller's charge.  

Similarly, the mischaractarization of Kerry's vote against the $87 Billion Iraq appropriation fails to note that Bush would have vetoed an appropriation bill that funded the war with a decrease in the tax cut for the highest tax bracket.  Clearly both sides were willing to postpone (though obviously not defeat) Iraq appropriations that were not in line with their other goals.  To show this as 'voting against the troops' is dishones in the extreme.

If Miller had coolly stated that his opinion on national security matters had changed since 2001 he would have had more credibility.  But felt that the inclusion of these types of misrepresentations along with the fury undermined Miller's speech.

And I was led to believe that it was the Democrats 'studiously avoiding what Zell actually said'.

I'll pass the opportunity to compare Kerry and Bush's relative honesty.

You are entitled to your own opinions, as they say, but not your own facts.

Miller did not mischaracterize Kerry's vote on the $87billion. Kerry proposed a fairly stupid alternative. It lost. Then he voted against the real bill. This issue came up on Face the Nation and Kerry was asked, point blank, if he would support the $87billion if his

alternative failed.

I'll let Johnny Nam speak for himself:

Doyle McManus:If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?

Kerry: I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible.

What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they're on the right track. There's a way to do this properly. But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job.

Your characterization of Kerry's vote on Defense Appropriation bills is nothing short of pure fantasy. In October 1991 he voted against the Defense Appropriation bill to buy ammuntion and spare parts for the impending Gulf War.

In short, Miller was 100% on target.

Dem talking points are on Red State  By: Estes  

"It is a waste of time to reply to this point by point. I mean anyone who cares about honesty would not be supporting a John Kerry who has lied in his accounts of what he has done on so many occassions..."  

Most excellent. When you can't counter a cogent, well-reasoned, fact-based argument, first dismiss the message as beneth you, then change the subject. Classic tactic of the vanquished.

And to think  By: Thomas  

"You wasted precious time writing this. Fortunately, it appears to be more or less devoid of reason, so minimal energy diverted to your brain was used."

Actually, it's the only reasonable thing on this website. But, then again, insults are generally the last resort of the intellectually defeated.

was that coalition of the wild eyed thing meant as an insult?  

"If it gets to the point where we have to worry about offending swing voters I'd just as soon we pack our crap and get off the battlefield."

there is 0 doubt that this election is coming down to the "swing voter".  I share your basic disdain.  These are people that can't decide between steak or lobster and play coy while people fawn over their inferior deliberations.  But you sure you want to give up the battlefield because of it?

Is it possible to have a discussion on the issues without calling your opponents names?  

I guess our Vice President is similarly "faint-hearted," "weak," and "wobbly".

Dick Cheney, Feb 1, 1990: "these are the programs that I have recommended for termination to the Congress, with some success - not total success, but some success. The V-22 Osprey is at the top...The F-14B, of course, we're terminating in '90. There's no new money in it for '91. The AHIP, the Phoenix missile, the F-15 aircraft, et cetera - all of those are being terminated in '91. A couple of things that I would point out in particular. The Apache helicopter, of course, ends in '91. The M1 tank, we're proposing to shut down the M1 tank production lines in '91."

How much credibility should I give someone who says

As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

Actually he blamed the civilian leadership.

Actually Kerry blamed his own "Band of Brothers"

...at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war ...

not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

Continue paddling up that river in Egypt and don't forget the cheese and brie to accompany your whine.

Something to consider about these deletions from our arsenal is that they have replacements, as part of the military transformation program to update our force from a cold war/WWII fighting force (massive forces/ linear battle lines), to a more relevant fighting force for todays fight (uncoventional / small local actions).  In the Army, these changes were instituted by then Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki (Clinton).

   M1 replaced by -Stryker BCT

   F14/15 replaced by -F-22

I don't know about the Apache.  The V-22 Osprey has been killing soldiers.

Lets remember that the p-51 was a good weapon system as well, but we don't use it anymore either.  For more information, try typing "army transformation into google.  I think one can find the official document that will give the specifics.

Your post is just one of the most bizarre pieces of work that I have ever encountered.

In Feb 1990 the realization that the Cold War had ended had just set in. Everyone was talking about the peace dividend. The Army's endstrength was on a steep downward slide from 781,000 to 550,000. At this time the US Army was fully equipped with M1 tanks. The Warren, MI assembly line was to be kept open to upgrade the M1A1 to M1A2. So this is not a vote to cut a weapons system. It was a acknowledgement that there was no longer a need to produce tanks when there were already more tanks that soldiers to man them.

AHIP-- the upgrade of the OH-58 Kiowa to the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Same as above. The final buy to upgrade the OH-58 was made in FY90. Upgrades continued in depots until May 1991. Again, the Army had upgraded 100% of its fleet.

F-14B-- was being replaced by the F/A-18 so there was no need to continue production. The F-14-D, that Miller referred to, is not what your post is about.

Phoenix missile-- could only be used on the F-14A/B. When the decision was made to replace the F-14 with the F/A-18, which couldn't use the Phoenix, it wouldn't have made very much sense to produce a weapon for a plane you were retiring.

Apache-- existing Apaches continued to be upgraded to the AH-64 Apache Longbow. But no new airframes were needed because the Army was losing 25% of its strength... if it was very lucky.

V-22 Osprey-- a controversial aircraft then and now. The aircraft was/is revolutionary but unfortunately it has probably killed nearly 100 Marines by now. It still isn't in service and I'm not sure it ever will be anything but a technology testbed.

In August 1990, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Using statistical models from the Yom Kippur War we expected a very heavy attrition of tanks and armored vehicles. The Defense Appropriation Act was redrafted during Operation DESERT SHIELD (Aug 90-Jan 91) to reflect those loss estimates. Kerry voted against this bill.

You've got it by the boatload.

I'm not sure of you're objection to it.  Kerry makes it perfectly clear that his opposition is to the President's policies not to the funding of troops:  "But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

It's incredible for the Bush administration to blame Kerry for denying the troops flak jackets.  There is no reason why are troops should be receiving supplies from their families at home- it is a disgrace.

MacManus asked Kerry about his, Kerry's, alternative spending plan. Kerry explained it.

MacManus: If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?

Kerry responds, in part: "But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Are you saying that Kerry told MacManus that he was going to vote against it? It means on thing or the other. What is it?

"But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

John Kerry was correct, what's the problem?  The troops received their supplies but John Kerry used his vote to demonstrate his opposition to George Bush's willingness to put his tax cut before the needs of the troops or the war on terrorism.

...we can win in spite of his posturing!

Kerry's obstructionism doesn't matter - because it's also ineffective!

Republican majorities in both houses of Congress means that he won't be able to get anything out of committee.  America can drift to victory!

Vote Kerry:  he's too ineffectual to be really dangerous.

Neither Bush or Kerry (or any other Senator) was going to allow the troops to go without supplies (except for body armor- but that's another story).

Kerry wanted to make it clear that we were borrowing the money to fight this war.  It was clearly a principled decision and at the time I wished he'd just go along.  Oh well.

. . .no honest person would question FDR's willingness to defend the United States against its foreign enemies to the best of his ability, without apology or regret.  If anything, he erred on the side of going too far on at least one occasion (Japanese-American internment).  Can you imagine John Kerry committing to a program that cost what the Manhattan Project budget represented to the US economy in the 1940's?

Please tell me you had this sitting around for some paper you wrote. Yikes. You and Barone.

I feel almost as stupid as... well, I'm too stupid to complete the comparison.

Its sad that no one can respond rationally to Fleischer's post.  I mean, sure, its obviously anti-bush, and that makes us mad, but some of you folks stopped just short of calling him a "stinky head" and pushing him in the sand.  If you have time to do that, why not address one of his points?

For instance, he brings up Bush and Cheney's feelings about reducing the military in 1992.  Obviously, there is good defense spending and there is bad defense spending, but in this election, you have to look tough, so you accuse the other guy of not wanting more guns.  I understand how that kind of propaganda works, but really folks, do we all buy into it here?

If we acknowledge the fact that defense decisions have to be looked at in the context of the time in which they are made and the bill/pork in which they are wrapped, we cannot justify Cheney's decisions without also suggesting that maybe Kerry's decisions were not so black and white.  

Maybe I am asking too much of people so close to the election.  But if its going to be all partisan reasoning all the time, what is the point of hanging around here getting our theories confirmed?

I gave the snarky response I did because I thought his comment was long on glibness and short on thought. Believe it or not, I've been known to engage in debate with folks with whom I strenuously disagree (even here); I just didn't think he'd reached the threshold that required a response.

Also, I had a migraine, so maybe I was too short.

It was the DNC talking points which have each been addressed on TV and other places. Cheney had no vote as Secy of Def. He managed the budget that was given to him by people like Kerry. On the other hand, Kerry has a track record of anti-defense that spans wartime and peacetime alike. The comparison is laughable.



Case in point. If Kerry had one pro military vote in Congress don't you think they would have presented it?? No, instead they list various people who at some point in time or another agreed with independent nay votes. It is the classic Michael Moore, attack the attacker not the attack, defense.



Zell also explained his comments, I believe on Fox News. He was given a bio to talk about Kerry at that time and he basically read it. At that time, Kerry wasn't running for President, 9/11 hadn't happened, and therefore Zell hadn't gone back and researched Kerry's record. If you think that without research, Zell is supposed to remember 2 decades of votes from one individual out of a group of 100, then I guess you expect God-like memory. If you think that everyone researches every point on a bio handed to you by the guy's staff before speaking, then you are accusing Zell of being lazy, not dishonest.

There were no points to respond to.

There were half-truths. There were lies. There was a demand that we ignore history and what was happening politically between May/June 1989 and August 1990. But there were no points to respond to.

...give troops their equipment? Another Kerry double-talk. He doesn't think anyone would not give the troops what they need and then goes on to be one of those "anyones." Not to mention that he already cut off this line of excuse when he said that knowing everything we know today he would still have probably taken us to war. So what is he protesting now? His current opinion?