Zell Responds to Critics

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Zell Responds to Critics
4
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 8:55am


Telling It Like It Is

I will never trust John Kerry with my family's safety.

BY ZELL MILLER

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

My critics in the national media are working overtime trying to paint me as an angry nut who got the facts all wrong in my speech to the Republican National Convention. Since there's not enough time to challenge all of these critics to a duel, let me set the record straight here and now.

First, the anger. A lot has been said about my angry demeanor. I've made enough speeches to know that you're supposed to connect with the audience by telling a joke or a humorous anecdote or some amusing tale. It's a tried-and-true formula that I've used for most of my life. But this was not a normal speech in a normal time.

Today, we are at the most serious moment of history that we may ever know, and I wanted to connect with the seriousness of this moment, not the audience.

Now, about those facts. I charged that John Kerry is weak on national security, and I listed some of the many weapons systems he has opposed over the years. My critics tripped over themselves to point out that Dick Cheney opposed some of the same weapons systems when he was defense secretary.

But, like with so many things in life, timing is everything. Mr. Kerry was proposing the cancellation of many of these weapons systems at the height of the Cold War--the worst possible time to weaken our military strength. It would be comparable to a senator in 1943 proposing to scrap the B-29 Bomber or Sherman tank or Higgins landing craft. By contrast, Mr. Cheney waited until after we had won the Cold War to propose modernizing our forces and replacing older weapons systems. There's a huge difference. Whether it's the Cold War of yesterday or the war on terror today, Mr. Kerry has sought time and time again to weaken our military at the exact moment we need to show our strength.

I also charged that John Kerry and his fellow Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator, and that nothing makes this old Marine madder. My critics pounced on that one, too. Aren't you aware, they sneered, that President Bush has used the term "occupiers"?

Do they mean when the president said this in April?--"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation--and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power." Are the people of Iraq not liberated from a terrible dictator? Did we not transfer sovereignty over to the Iraqi people exactly when we said we would?

John Kerry and his crowd derisively call American troops "occupiers" because it fits with their warped belief that America is the problem, not the solution. While more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are enjoying freedom, Mr. Kerry is still fretting over whether the U.N. crowd likes us or not. The American people will not abide a commander in chief who gets squeamish over America's role as a liberating force in the world.

And my critics love to point out that I had nice things to say about John Kerry when I introduced him to a Georgia Democratic dinner in 2001. That's true and I meant it. But, again, timing is everything. I made that introduction in March 2001--six months before terrorists attacked this country on Sept. 11. As I have said time and again, 9/11 changed everything. Everything, that is, except the national Democrats' shameful, manic obsession with bringing down a commander in chief. John Kerry has been wrong many times, but he's never been more wrong than in his failure to support our troops and our commander in chief in this war on terror.





So, my critics can call me a psychopath and fire spitballs at me and froth at the mouth when an ex-president sends me a nasty letter. That's the freedom of speech they all enjoy, courtesy of the American soldier.

But for David Gergen and this newspaper's Al Hunt, among others, to call me a racist was especially hurtful. For they know better. They know I worked for three governors in a row, not just one: Carl Sanders, Lester Maddox and Jimmy Carter. They knew I was the first governor to try to remove the Confederate emblem from the Georgia flag. And by the way, when I called each of Georgia's former governors to tell them what I was about to attempt, Jimmy Carter's first question to me was, "What are you doing that for?" Mr. Gergen and Mr. Hunt also know I appointed the only African-American attorney general in the country in the 1990s and more African Americans to the state judiciary than all the other governors of Georgia combined, including that one from Plains.

So, they can call me names and ridicule my angry demeanor all day long. But facts are facts. And the fact is, John Kerry has a long record of proposals to weaken our national security in a time of war. And I would never put my family's safety in those hands.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005614

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 9:12am

I was about to post this very link :).


<<"Today, we are at the most serious moment of history that we may ever know, and I wanted to connect with the seriousness of this moment, not the audience. ">> !!



<<"I also charged that John Kerry and his fellow Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator, and that nothing makes this old Marine madder. My critics pounced on that one, too. Aren't you aware, they sneered, that President Bush has used the term "occupiers"?


Do they mean when the president said this in April?--"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation--and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power." Are the people of Iraq not liberated from a terrible dictator? Did we not transfer sovereignty over to the Iraqi people exactly when we said we would?

John Kerry and his crowd derisively call American troops "occupiers" because it fits with their warped belief that America is the problem, not the solution. ">>...!!!


Oh well, I could actually quote the entire article, so I'll leave it at this :)

Djie

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 1:59pm
James Carville & Mary Matalin talked about Zell Miller on Meet the Press, 5 Sept 04. Carville accused the Republicans, while talking to Don Imus during an interview, of drugging Miller for when he talked with the media following his speech!! ( http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/8/142649.shtml )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."

MR. RUSSERT: But, Mary Matalin, you will you will acknowledge that there were a lot of comments made about Senator Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief at the Republican convention. Here's Zell Miller, Democratic senator from Georgia, addressing the Republican convention.

(Videotape, September 1, 2004):

SEN. ZELL MILLER, (D-GA): This is the man who wants to be the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces? U.S. forces armed with what, spitballs? 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.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: James Carville you ran that man's campaign for governor of Georgia in 1990.

MR. CARVILLE: Right, I did. It's a shame they put that poor man out there in the twilight of his career with a bunch of half-truths. Then they put him on TV after, out there making a fool of himself, and they're showing how he said, "Well, you said Kerry did this." It's the very thing that Dick Cheney recommended. "You said that he called them occupiers." In fact, President Bush had called them occupiers on three separate occasions.

You know, it's a shame, because Senator Miller's had a distinguished mid-career, and I'm very sad for him and the people that work for him that he's going to be remembered, as Joe Klein said, you know, probably the most, you know, hate-filled speech that he's ever seen at a convention. But the problem is, how does a man who sits on this thing, the vice president, who says that we expect to be greeted with roses and you said--you asked him in a follow-up question, "Well, suppose there's insurgents?" He said, "Tim, we don't expect that." How could he possibly, possibly question John Kerry's judgment about being fit to make decisions as a commander in chief?

The record of this administration is already out there. The president has admitted--and when it comes to the war on terror, in June, President Bush said, we can win the war on terror. By August, he had changed his mind and said we can't win the war on terror. So I think there are legitimate questions about judgment. I think there are legitimate questions that don't relate to what happened in Vietnam or not. But they relate to the record of this administration, the miscalculations, the errors and they are all in that report from this royal institute in London, that we've already lost this. We're not going to have a democracy there.

MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin, the vice president did say we'd be greeted as liberators, and now, Jim Schlesinger, Republican secretary of defense said that we are unprepared for the insurgency.

MS. MATALIN: We have never, ever, in our history or any history in war, found on the ground plans that went exactly as were planned. It's called the moment of contingency. We have said, the president has said, that the march to Baghdad was completed more expeditiously than had been expected. And it is true that Iraq's become a magnet for all the terrorist, and we do want to fight them there. We don't want to fight them here. And we are winning. This Iraq is in a relatively short period of time on the road to self-government.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Miller, spitballs, weak, wobbly. Was he over the top?

MS. MATALIN: No, this is--you know, Senator Miller is a man of great passion. If you look at his 1992 keynote Democratic convention speech, he was equally passionate. This is a man who is angry at his party, his party who left him. He is a delightful and loving and wonderful man who officiate at our wedding.

MR. CARVILLE: I love Senator Zell. I'm just so angry at what those cynical Republicans did to him, putting him up. and making him stay stuff that is indefensible.

MS. MATALIN: Well, you know, Senator Miller...

MR. CARVILLE: ...sticking him on TV when he was questioned on it...

MS. MATALIN: Senator Miller, since he's been in office, has been with the president. I saw him regularly on the Hill when I would go up there with the vice president. He was disappointed with his party on economic issues, on these issues of war and peace. He is a wonderful senator. He is a passionate man, brought just as much passion to the Democratic convention in 1992 and these guys just don't like the truth.

MR. RUSSERT: We've got to...

MR. CARVILLE: The difference is when Paul wrote Senator Miller's speech in '92 it was based on fact. When Karl Rove wrote Senator Miller's speech in 2004...

MS. MATALIN: Senator Miller wrote his own speech.

MR. CARVILLE: ...it was based on no fact.

MS. MATALIN: I think I know who wrote Miller's speech.

MR. CARVILLE: You know?

MS. MATALIN: Senator Miller wrote his own speech.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5921259/

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 8:50am
Opinion


Miller Time: What the Democrats Don't Understand



By Daniel Sterman

September 13, 2004



So much anger was prompted by Zell Miller"s speech at the Republican National Convention; so much anger, and so much adoration. Most of it focused on his point-by-point recitation of John Kerry"s defense voting record in his 20 years of being a U.S. Senator, not to mention his cynical joke about spitballs.

When Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC"s Hardball, tried to target Miller, leveling accusations in his interview and refusing to give him a chance to respond, Miller"s infamous challenge of a duel only increased his stature further in the eyes of the red half of the country, and made him look even more deranged in the eyes of the blue half.

In the midst of all of Zell"s righteous anger was one line, one brilliant line that went unnoticed not only in the entire media response to his speech, but by the convention-goers themselves, for whom this line was partially swallowed by enthusiastic cheering.

That line goes as follows: 'It is not their patriotism, but their judgment, that is so sorely lacking.' This one line encapsulates the Republican view of John Kerry"s voting record. It encapsulates everything that is wrong with Kerry"s faltering campaign. It encapsulates everything that has been wrong with Democratic protestations over the past three years.

The Democrats fail to realize this, but not one right-wing statesman has tried to accuse their party of being 'unpatriotic.' They whine and complain about it all the time, claiming that right-wingers try and paint them as being Communist, in league with terrorists, and 'America-haters.' But the truth is that such statements are found only in the realm of far-right radio show hosts, not in that of legitimate politicians.

Republican spokesmen limit themselves to attacking specifics. They attack Ted Kennedy"s history of voting to slash defense and intelligence funds. They attack John Kerry"s history of failing to show up to Senate Intelligence Committee meetings, even after Sept. 11, 2001. They attack President Clinton"s history of ignoring the growing threat of terror during eight years of presidential complacency. But not once have they ever described these people as being unpatriotic. This is because, under the official view of the Republican Party, it is not the Democrats" patriotism, but their judgment, that is so sorely lacking.

Yet the Kerry campaign, along with so many Democrats who ran for--and lost--legislative seats in the 2002 election, fails to realize this. They whine; they make speeches and waste interviews complaining that the Republican attack machine paints them as 'unpatriotic.'

But they fail to realize that, in the public eye, this simply isn"t true. While Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh might make these accusations on a daily basis, the American public has never--and will never--attribute those statements to President Bush or Vice President Cheney. The majority of the American public doesn"t even listen to Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, whose target demographics consist solely of the choir.

In other words, in the eye of the American public, John Kerry keeps insisting he isn"t unpatriotic without anybody"s ever claiming the contrary. In the eye of the American public, John Kerry"s protestations do not differ greatly from Richard Nixon"s famous 'I am not a crook' or Bill Clinton"s 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman.' In all cases, the repeated denials only serve to reinforce the public"s perception that the accusations are true.

In this case, if John Kerry wants to have any chance of winning, he has to do two things. First, he must seek to provide a satisfactory explanation to the public for his horrendous Senate voting record and abysmal attendance record at the Senate Intelligence meetings. And I mean an explanation: no sidestepping, and no claiming that these charges 'attack his patriotism.'

Second, he must lay off the 'patriotism' bit, especially the part where he tries in vain to attack the patriotism of the Republicans. It makes him look petty when he attempts to explain away his Senate record by trying to resurrect the Bush Air National Guard 'scandal.' Such insults make it look like the Kerry campaign is trying to avoid Kerry"s own Senate history with childish posturing of 'Well, I"m more patriotic than you, so there!'

Remember the mistakes of Max Cleland. You can"t run only on your Vietnam service; not when you have a voting history that voters don"t like and constantly question. You can"t win an election on patriotism. Not when your judgment is being called into question.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/13/414514392e908



iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2004
Wed, 09-15-2004 - 8:12am
Excellent article, Schiff!