Will Miller be thrown out of the demo party?

[chequita guevara]

I don't care. Both your parties suck ass.

[Lincoln]

"There was a lot of hate coming from that podium tonight," Senator John Edwards said late Wednesday, after Vice President Dick Cheney and keynote speaker Sen. Zell Miller told an enthusiastic crowd of Republicans why Sen. John F. Kerry should not be trusted to lead America. "What John Kerry and I offer to the American people is hope....

Now they are the party of hope? Maybe they can just hope that the troops have enough money to fight a war that Kerry approved of. And if you don't like the record of Kerry you can always accuse those of exposing it as being hateful. Kerry is imploding. Good riddance. And I say that with love.

[GePap]

Wow, this guy is so out of touch he metions Ted Kennedy as the great Liberal boogeyman

I doubt seriously that a speech of this type will convince any moderates to back anyone Miller backs.

I must say thought it seems someone pumped some uppers into Cheney's embalming fluid, cause he seemed a lot more relaxed and active in his speech last night.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
I must say thought it seems someone pumped some uppers into Cheney's embalming fluid, cause he seemed a lot more relaxed and active in his speech last night.

relaxed at ease if you will....


Yep, that normally happens when your in front of a freindly audience as opposed to the hack media he normally faces.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap
Wow, this guy is so out of touch he metions Ted Kennedy as the great Liberal boogeyman

I doubt seriously that a speech of this type will convince any moderates to back anyone Miller backs.

Actually, it brought me back a little towards Bush. Right now I'm 50-50, as opposed to preferring Kerry by a little a few nights ago.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by GePap
Wow, this guy is so out of touch he metions Ted Kennedy as the great Liberal boogeyman

You mean Ted isn't a boogeyman?

[Patroklos]

There is always going to be a problem with fiery speeches. What they normally do is whip up your own followers rather than atteact new ones. Good to keep votes, no so much to win them. But they followed up Miller with a speech of a totally differnent calibre. That abrupt change in emotion may be very effective.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Patroklos
But they followed up Miller with a speech of a totally differnent calibre. That abrupt change in emotion may be very effective.

I agree, it made Cheney look kinda warm and fuzzy. An interesting contrast between the Democrat speaker and Republican speaker. Still, I await the reactions over the next few days.

[Q Classic]

i've always liked zell. he was a kickass governor. as senator, i might not have agreed with him 100%, but i have never regretting voting him for office a few years ago.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Actually, it brought me back a little towards Bush. Right now I'm 50-50, as opposed to preferring Kerry by a little a few nights ago.

You can't even vote, so you don't matter.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

One of the better analysis on Zell's speech

ZellzaPoppin'
Jonah Goldberg (archive)


September 3, 2004 | Print | Send


First off, as a journalist, let me take the time to do what no other pundit has been willing to do: to thank Georgia Sen. Zell Miller for being named Zell. It's been a long time since a politician occasioned such euphoria over euphony in political commentary. From the conservatives I've already heard "Give 'em Zell!" "Zell it like it is!" "Zelling it Old School!" From the other side of the aisle we've had "Zellotry" and "Zell-out." And who the Zell knows what else is coming down the pike - Zello-Dolly?

So thank you, Sen. Miller (or your parents), because on this teeny-tiny point you, sir, are a uniter not a divider. And had you been christened Cleophus, the partisan divide would be just that much wider today.

Of course, Zell did some serious widening himself. His speech here Wednesday night was straight out of the Atkins diet cookbook: all red meat. As political theater, most observers here found the speech marvelous. Where they differ is on the question of whether or not it was smart.

The instant reaction from liberal and anti-Bush journalists, as well as the DNC, was that Miller was as bad as or worse than Pat Buchanan. DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe noted that at least Buchanan smiled in 1992 when he gave his (now somewhat undeservedly) infamous speech at that year's convention.

Matthew Yglesias of the American Prospect, dripping with nuance, denounced the speech as a "fascistic tirade." The New Republic openly compared Miller to Joe McCarthy. Jonathan Cohn explained that Miller was much worse than Buchanan because "Buchanan's speech, after all, was an assault on decency. Last night Miller declared war on democracy." Time magazine's Joe Klein declared on CNN, "I don't think I've seen anything as angry or as ugly as Miller's speech."

Andrew Sullivan, a senior editor at the New Republic and a highly regarded blogger, noted the contrast between the Dem's Boston keynoter, Barack Obama - "a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American" - and the Republicans. "Then you see Zell Miller," Sullivan continued, "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."

This last bit is amusing, since Zell Miller was once considered a Southern statesmen by liberals because as governor he was willing to take the politically courageous step of removing the Confederate Battle Flag from the Georgia state flag. Indeed, Sullivan's magazine dubbed Miller "as reasonable a Democrat as there is." And Miller's stemwinder of a speech at the Democratic Convention in 1992 - in which he grilled the first President Bush ("If the 'education President' gets another term, even our kids won't be able to spell potato") - didn't provoke any assaults on his humanity.

In other words, when Democrats are mean or harsh they are labeled as passionate populists or some such. When Republicans are, they get called things like "Cotton Mather behind the cross" (Maureen Dowd's words). What is "righteous anger" for Democrats becomes "hate" when offered by Republicans (or, in this case, by like-minded Democrats.)

Now, none of this is to say that Miller's speech wasn't stern stuff. But was it really, in Sullivan's words, "gob-smackingly vile"? (Translation for the un-British: very vile). This charge rests on the assertion that Miller was questioning the patriotism of Kerry and the Democratic leadership (not rank-and-file Democrats, as so many commentators seem to think), despite such qualifiers as: "It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking."

Both strategically and substantively, I think the speech probably crossed the line in parts. Substantively, it clearly painted with too broad a brush, at times suggesting Kerry & Co. are more than merely wrong but are actually hostile to America. And, strategically, I think the style went a bit too far. If there had been a bit less Southern wrath and a bit more Southern charm it might have been even more effective.

However, in part because Kerry's left his record undefended, Miller's speech was effective (and not that much more negative than, say, Al Sharpton's in Boston). The focus group "real Americans" I saw on TV were impressed, and I bet lots of other Americans were too. The question is whether that impression will be revised in the next few weeks as the Democrats and the media try to spin this as a disaster.

Indeed, the Republicans took a big gamble when they decided to give 'em Zell at this convention. If a Republican had delivered a speech half as relentless, the media and the Democrats would have colluded to make it the only story of the week. The Republicans calculated that a respected Democrat would be inoculated because, again, Democrats are never, ever, mean - even when they suggest Republicans are baby-killers (as Jesse Jackson did at the 1992 convention). So by concentrating all of their ammo in one sustained blast of Zellfire, they gambled that the usual counterspin about Republican "hate" wouldn't wash.

Only time will Zell if they were right.

[GePap]

Zell's post speech behavior does not help stop the spin of him an an angry, angry, hatefilled man.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by GePap
Zell's post speech behavior does not help stop the spin of him an an angry, angry, hatefilled man.

His speech style has always been about the same, very "impassioned," he was just as impassioned in his speech for Bill Clinton when he hoped Bill would bring the party back from the extreme left.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Zell's post speech behavior does not help stop the spin of him an an angry, angry, hatefilled man.

Zell IS angry. What is wrong with that? He feels (and rightly so IMO) that his party has betrayed him and its core values. His impassioned speech is a good thing. Democrats need to wake up and take notice as to what is going on in there party.

[GhengisFarb™]

Zell's been around a long time. When he got started in politics this type of speech wasn't abnormal.