Zell Miller

Zell Miller is tearing shit up. Love it Love it Love it.

The Republican Key note speakers highlight speakers have been phenomenal.

Romney had some money jokes too.

That was fantastic.

yea zell miller had an AWESOME speech. i didn’t get to watch yesterday’s but i heard that rudy guilioni (can’t spell his name) and ahnold kicked ass too

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
Zell Miller is tearing shit up. Love it Love it Love it.

The Republican Key note speakers highlight speakers have been phenomenal.

Romney had some money jokes too.[/quote]

Yeah, he did a good job. Attacked Kerry a little too much, but still a good speech. Especially the “This marine…” line.

I just got an email from my Mom titled “Chris MAtthews gets bitch slapped by Zell Miller”

apparently they were talking of a duel or something…I dont have cable so I didnt see. Can anyone report?

Zell Miller is the man.

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 (news - web sites).

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Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America “all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger.”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 (news - web sites) and the mountains of Afghanistan (news - web sites), 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites).

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 (news - web sites). 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 (news - web sites)'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 (news - web sites).

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.


Watched the whole exchance between Matthews and Miller. I’m no fan of Chris Matthews. I watch his show during these events because it gives me an idea about the effectiveness of Republican speeches. You will see me posting polls from Democratic news sources (LA Times). In order to do well in both medias, the Republican has to overcome the bias.

The exchange between Matthews and Miller began when Matthews asked Miller if he trully believed that Kerry wanted to defend the U.S. with spitballs. Miller responded with a devastating 2 page/front back list of weapons systems that Kerry voted against. Matthews interrupted him several times to poo poo various weapons systems like the MX.
Miller said, “I wish I was with you so I could get in your face for interrupting me. You ask a question and then don’t let me answer.” He said to Matthews, “You aren’t going to bully me like you bullied that young lady the other day.” Matthews persisted and Miller finally said, “I wish we were back in the days when a Congressman could challenge a reporter to a duel.”

Remember that post where I said that if I was Tucker Carlson in Hardball, I wouldn’t let Begala speak over me. This is an example of what I meant. You can’t let the Democrat ask questions and then speak over your answer. It is a tactic that I trully hate. The Democrat will pontificate without allowing you time to respond.

The answer is yes, I hate it when Conservatives do it as well.

Miller was absolutely devastating tonight.

It’s to the point now, where I’m beginning to wonder why anyone would even consider voting for John Kerry. I begin to wonder at people who will.


Zell Miller is a T-Man’s T-Man. What a fantastic speech. And, what you don’t often get from politicians anymore…no B.S.!!!

The speech gave me chills! That was the shit. Here is the link to watch it, in case anyone missed it, or wants to watch it again.


It’s in the right column. I strongly suggest you watch it. Zell is now one of the people I admire the most for being a straight shooter, stand up for what you believe in people!

I tell you what: You can tell Zell was one pissed off old marine up there. He really opened up with both barrels.

Maybe someone who spent more time in Georgia than I have can give some more background on Zell Miller or flesh this out. Goldberg?

I spent the summer in Georgia as a summer clerk for a law firm in Atlanta back in 2000, right when Zell was appointed to the Senate by the Democrat governor at the time to fill the seat that became available when Paul Coverdell passed away. The managing partner and I were discussing politics at a dinner, and he was telling me that Zell was wildly popular in Georgia, but was more of a wildcard than a typical Democrat – I believe his description was “a populist, an academic, professorial type” [apparently Zell was a professor at one of the state schools after he was governor?], and “a guy that no one could tell what to do”.

At the time, the last vestiges of the Yellow Dog Democrats were still in charge in Georgia, but the Republicans were ascendant, and the Governor appointed Zell because he thought Zell was a Democrat he could appoint who wouldn’t get the Governor excorciated as a liberal in the next election, and was probably the only person popular enough to retain the seat for the Democrats.

Anyway, Zell’s the last of a dying breed of Democrat w/r/t foreign policy – the Scoop Jackson Democrats, who were hawkish on national security issues, but more willing to engage in social spending than traditional Republicans. Sam Nunn, the late Georgia Senator, was also of this breed of Democrat.

Too bad the Democrat tent wasn’t big enough to accomodate those types of views this time around (if it were, Joe Lieberman probably would be the nominee, and he probably would have won if he stayed on message from his primary stump) – but a good thing for George W. Bush.

Here’s the transcript from Chris Matthew’s interview with Zell Miller on Hardball after the speech – Zell continues to “tear shit up.”
[Note, apparently the show originated somewhere with a Kerry audience, given the booing]

Excerpt from full transcript:

BTW, I can’t be sure, but it looked as if Zell was having a hard time hearing Matthews, which may or may not come through in the transcript.

Still, you can definitely say that Zell is not about to be intimidated by a Q&A…

Zell is no pussy. If there more of him in the Democratic Party they would be more mainstream.

I think his speech was devestating to Kerry. So do most pundits on both sides.

Zell is old school…gotta love the passion.

I’m not much of a cheerleader - but Zell Miller had me on my feet. Talk about a t-man…calling Kennedy and Kerry out…he knows no fear, and he yields to no one.

Too bad the Democrats left men like Miller and Leiberman hanging and went favor of the tree-hugging fringe left.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not much of a cheerleader - but Zell Miller had me on my feet. Talk about a t-man…calling Kennedy and Kerry out…he knows no fear, and he yields to no one.

Too bad the Democrats left men like Miller and Leiberman hanging and went favor of the tree-hugging fringe left.

I like Lieberman. Good guy. Miller, like him too. He’s a firecracker.

That was an impassioned heartfelt speech. The transcript doesn’t totally do it justice. They said Zell was going to tear kerry up, they were not kidding.

One thing I love about marines is they do not mince words. I feel honored to have witnessed that live!

Now,THAT was a T-Man speech: One that should make us REAl T-men proud…Dangerously hardcore…No holds barred…tellin it like it is!!!

Most powerful speech I have ever heard…


Of course you guys loved his fire and brimstone rhetoric he was preaching to the choir! Because he espouses your beliefs you love him, but if it was a different issue and a repub flipping to the left you would call them a flip-flopper! Remember, this is the man who was praising Kerry a couple of years ago!

I watched him on Chris Mathews and I felt sad to see the man lose his composure and disintegrate into threats of “I wish we could have a duel with pistols” it was pathetic! He seemed to be sliding into dementia. But, those on the right who don’t care for rational thought and love the macho act will be eating this shit pile like caviare!

Interesting take on the media criticism of the Zell Miller speech.


September 02, 2004, 10:10 a.m.
Here Comes the Umbrage
Typically selective outrage about ?hot? Zell.

By Tim Graham

Dick Cheney’s speech last night underscored the peculiar nature of his nomination in 2000. He is not a stirring stump speaker. He is not, to quote Laura Ingraham’s name for John Edwards, a camera-melting “Silky Pony” of good looks. He is sober, serious, and casting-agency perfect in the role of Respected Washington Insider, something Governor Bush needed for the voters last time around. But his speech wasn’t going to upstage the presidential address tonight. It did have some nice lines, like “Senator Kerry’s liveliest disagreement is with himself.”

The pre-speech talk was about building a case for Cheney’s unpopularity. Before the speech, NBC White House correspondent David Gregory told Chris Matthews on MSNBC that “one of the obstacles for Dick Cheney tonight is the fact that he has become a dark figure. And Karl Rove and the president’s advisers understand this. … There are those who believe that Dick Cheney has led this administration and this president down a path of recklessness. That maybe his approach, his dark approach to this constant battle against another civilization, is actually the wrong approach for ultimately keeping America safe.” Last night was utterly typical, as the media elite have tried to change Cheney’s image from Respected Washington Insider to Scary Neoconservative Puppetmaster.

But the media didn’t really want to talk about Cheney last night. On CNN, Aaron Brown proclaimed, “I don’t know if anybody’s going to remember the vice president’s speech tomorrow morning, honestly. They’ll remember the Zell Miller speech. Will it matter, will it change the equation at all?” Brown invited on a list of outraged reporters. Only the Boston Globe’s Nina Easton said that the Democrats were pretty harsh at their convention, mentioning Carter, Sharpton, and Ted Kennedy. Brown immediately objected that “at least two” of those were “not in prime time and hardly viewed.” They were all on cable in the standard definition of prime time, but none of them was aired on the Big Three, except Peter Jennings was so enamored of Sharpton that he ran a clip at the start of ABC’s show on Wednesday night in Boston.

More typical was Wall Street Journal reporter John Harwood. When Brown asked him to provide the newsman’s take on the Miller speech, he said: “Republicans like the emotion that he showed tonight, because they don’t underestimate what real, unvarnished emotion counts for in politics. You got to wonder whether other voters look at Zell and say, uh, he looks like the guy, the spouse at a divorce proceeding who says, ‘and oh yeah, she’s a child molester, too.’ You know, how credible are those charges?”

Time’s Joe Klein, perhaps the most undisguised Democrat-booster in the print media today, was howling. While “Democrats a month ago was them being under-the-top, you know, uh, benign and positive, and that’s because they believe their focus groups,” the Republicans were hot and deceitful: “Let me just point out that even the vice president said that John Kerry says he sees two Americas, that’s John Edwards’s line. I, it seemed pretty clear to me that Kerry has been careful not to talk about two Americas. So you have angry inaccuracies by the basketful here tonight, and I don’t know how it’s going to play.” How hypersensitive is that? Cheney used the “two Americas” line as a joke to say, “America sees two John Kerrys.” Kerry clearly allowed Edwards to make the whole “two Americas” line an official Kerry-Edwards slogan in his speech in Boston. It’s important to note that, despite wild charges made against the Republicans in Boston, the networks were not playing the role of factual quibbler with those speeches.

But Klein was on to something, and that’s how focus groups and the media have drained the “hot” talk ? and even more so, the Miller contemptuous scowl ? out of the Republicans’ repertoire. As Jonah Goldberg noticed last night, it took only minutes for pundits to reach for “Pat Buchanan” in their memory banks. On ABC, George Stephanopoulos said that was coming across in his e-mails (no doubt from all his Democratic blood brothers … er, sources).

To conservatives, Miller’s words were so refreshing because the White House has seemed rhetorically timid in talking diplomatically to Democrats and reporters and European allies. The other side has accused the president of intentionally misleading the country into war in Iraq. No one in the media-Democratic complex labors to remember that they were the ones who went on television and predicted massive casualties, massive resistance by regular Iraqi citizens, chemical-weapons attacks on our forces, and a military “quagmire” without the dislodging of Saddam.

The media-Democratic complex has, without much protest, routinely presented our men and women in the armed forces as occupiers of Iraq and Afghanistan and denied that they are liberators. No wonder Miller’s words sting in their ears. The media-Democratic complex has for at least three decades attacked nearly every new weapons system as the next boondoggle, much like John Kerry. No wonder Miller’s words sound harsh. The media-Democratic complex has since the Vietnam War generally seen America’s best moments in offering apologies for our depredations and our worst moments in bold military action. No wonder Miller sounds too angry to them.

But their outrage over “hot” Zell is a typical double standard. In the first half of 2003, the media loved the harsh words of another old Democrat, Robert Byrd. He spat on the notion of American liberation of Iraq: “In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of ‘liberation,’ we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years.” But Time magazine praised Byrd’s pompous speechifying as “bracing,” and compared him to Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. A year ago, Howard Dean’s hot stump speeches ? full of reckless charges against President Bush ? were all the rage in the political press, and pundits fully expected as 2004 began that Dean would probably be the Democratic standard-bearer. Don’t believe for a minute that the national media elite are the guardians of our political civility. They only dislike hot rhetoric when it zings against the liberal media’s heroes.

? Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and an NRO contributor.

A small focus group, but for what it’s worth:


The focus group gathered by pollster Frank Luntz appeared to like Zell?s speech better than Cheney’s. They’re describing it as, “stronger… focused on the family… dead on, convincing coming from a Democrat.”

Then there?s one woman: ?His entire focus was on terrorism and why we should be afraid.?

The “spitballs” line got a big laugh. The focus group seemed to like the line, and many thought it illustrated a serious point well.

Cheney?s line about ?as if al-Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side? did well with his group, and in particular, “He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked” sent all the lines on the instant-response graphs taking off. Sounds like even the Democrats agreed with that line and liked it.

Final count, 11 out of 17 liked the speeches tonight and said they’re more likely to support Bush-Cheney this year.