Third Party & Independents: Archives

I consider Zell Miller’s “bipartisanship” at the Republican National Convention a slap to the face, if he actually believes undecided independents are supposed to watch his speech, compare his record, and believe for one second that the GOP has suddenly become a “big tent” large enough to fit liberals or libertarians.

A fraud, this one.

It’s amazing that the man has the gall to say this about John Kerry tonight:

“As a senator, he voted to weaken our military.”

When he said this about John Kerry in 2001:

“John has worked to strengthen our military.”

Will anyone in the media ask him about this obvious and blatant contradiction? I’m not counting on it.

Zell Miller is to Republicans what John McCain is to Democrats.

There’s something admirable and stirring in the tradition of American indvidualism about these folks who cross party lines and risk the wrath of the true believers. I admire them both in different ways, even when I don’t totally agree.

McCain, though, seems more motivated by personal ambition than Miller, who has no reason to take his stand and speak truth to power other than deep personal conviction and passion. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admire his fire, the loyalty to his own deeply-held principles that forces him to put himself on the line like that.

He’s a man of deeply held conviction in the uniqely American tradition of Thoreau (or John Brown). Quirky—yes, I’d agree. But deeply refreshing and inspiring. Democrats should be proud of Zell Miller. I wish Republicans could produce figures with that much fire.

Michael Reagan’s tribute to his Dad was wonderful and such a wonderful relief from Zell Miller. Reagan grows a bit more toward godhood for Republicans with each election cycle, but, it is hard to argue with any of the strengths of his legacy which the memorial provided.

Shem:

Its certainly acceptable to ask Miller to explain why his opinion of John Kerry has changed, for it certainly has changed in its entirety.

But it is NOT okay to suggest that only his statements in support of John Kerry are the truthful or accurate ones. One must assess the reasons for the change. We know that its not politically motivated, since at 72, Miller is retiring and not planning a further political career. it would be much easier for him to remain silent, yet his conscience tells him to speak out.

Many people in the 90’s thought Ken Lay was a great man of vision, bringing wealth and prosperity to shareholders. Yet now we have further information by which to judge him. So too with Kobe Bryant, who seemed well above the tawdry sexual behavior of so many NBA players. Yet now we know he too succumbed to those pressures, and at the very least had a consensual affair.

Our perception of people can change when we learn additional information. Zell Miller has changed his opinion of John Kerry, and his opinion of who can effectively run our country has changed too. Ed Koch has changed dramatically as well. On the other side, you have John McCain, who has steadfastly remained Republican, despite the wooing from the other side. Now he could have easily switched, but did not.

The real question to ask is why these opinions changed so dramatically.

Joe, I’d offer that Zell’s motivation is the same that many in the GOP gave for Richard Clarke’s transformation— to sell books.

As the Democrats have pointed out, Zell is a much more interesting figure as a Democrat supporting Bush than he is as a Republican supporting Bush. That’s the kind of thing that sells books.

And Martin…”deeply held convictions”? One doesn’t earn a longtime nickname like “ZigZag Zell” for having “deeply held convictions.”

As I stated elsewhere, Miller’s politics have shifted far to the right in recent years. His stance on abortion being a prime example.

Zell told lie after lie about John Kerry’s record, just three years after he praised it. He attacked John Kerry’s character three years after he called him a hero. Zell Miller is a man whose “deeply held convictions” can change at a moment’s notice.

Jerome:

A bit cynical, but not outside the realm of possibility. Miller certainly recognizes that he is more important as a Democrat supporting a Republican, than as a Republican supporting Republicans. That’s a similar position to that held by “Jumpin” Jim Jeffords. That explains to me why he remains a Democrat, though of course its possible that he wants to change the Democratic party and this is his idea of tough love. Not knowing his heart, I cant fully say.

From what I’ve seen, Miller attacked Kerry’s judgement far more than his character. Of course, in Democratic parlance, the two are roughly synonymous, along with patriotism.

Miller has voted Dem in every pres election and he gae a key note speach at Clinton’s convention…He still votes Dem, he just doesn’t like Kerry.

Kenneth:

How is it that you have such concrete knowledge of a particular person’s choices at the ballot box? It’s my understanding that such things are hardly matters of public record. Or are you saying that this is something we should just take his word on?