« Joke Preview | Main | "Jacksonian America" »
Zell
Watching that speech from inside the hall, I was genuinely afraid at one or two points. The audience was so enthused by his frankly fascistic remarks that at any moment I thought the distinguished Senator might point up and say "see, there, right there is one of these unpatriotic liberal journalists busy abusing the freedoms our soldiers fight to protect -- he must be destroyed for the safety of the Republican" and that Matt Welch and I would need to fend for our lives against the onrushing hordes.
Of course it didn't quite come to that, but I don't believe I've ever heard a more disgusting speech delivered in the English language. The fact that I couldn't see a single person on the floor who seemed to feel anything less than the utmost enthusiasm for that lunacy was, well, a bit disturbing.
September 2, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/58113/1080646
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Zell:
» He even looks mean...Right? from social tonic
Just a really quick post. I haven't posted for a couple of days (gasp!). Been quite busy. Anyway, I caught a few minutes of Cheney's speech last night. I have not been too involved in watching the RNC this week, [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 10:33:06 AM
» Zell Reaction from The Green[e]house Effect: a Weblog
If the reviews give any indication, we can describe the reaction in one word: slackjawed. We'll start from the right:Mike Krempasky: "I'd be lying if I said that it didn't cross my mind that we might have waded a little... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 11:44:37 AM
» Zell Miller Roundup from Political Animal
ZELL MILLER ROUNDUP....Reaction to Zell Miller's temper tantrum last night has not been pretty: Eric Zorn has transcripts of Miller's just-short-of-clinically-insane interviews on MSNBC and CNN right after his speech. William Saletan goes nuclear: this... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 12:44:37 PM
» Ongoing Zell Commentary ... from GregsOpinion.com
Just to slap together a running post on the various responses to Zell in particular: David Adesnick, the erstwhile Lieberman-crat from OxBlog and currently undecided voter, is not impressed. Sen. Miller is pathetic and dishonest ... Zell Miller has no... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 1:33:06 PM
» Who invited Howard Dean? from QandO
Opinion seems split on Zell Miller's performance last night. Democrats: " Miller was abrasive, shrill and misleading!" Republicans: "Yeah yeah yeah, but we're cool with that. He's our abrasive, shrill, misleading guy." Valid criticisms of his speech ca... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 1:57:27 PM
» Emile Durkheim on Zell Miller from Crooked Timber
Well, OK not really — Durkheim died in 1918. But there’s more to crowds than being able to estimate prices accurately and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life is without doubt the place to begin when reflecting on the Republican... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 10:15:19 PM
» Emile Durkheim on Zell Miller from Kieran Healy's Weblog
Well, OK not really — Durkheim died in 1918. But there’s more to crowds than being able to estimate prices... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 10:17:59 PM
» Blogger Survives Fascist Rally from Who Knew?
I am quite certain that no words more sinister and false and generally toxic to everything free thinking people hold dear have ever been uttered or written by any person living or dead in any language on this Earth or indeed on any planet on which we m... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2004 11:54:02 PM
» Zell Miller is an asshole from The Lone Iowan
Amen. Watching that speech from inside the hall, I was genuinely afraid at one or two points. The audience was so enthused by his frankly fascistic remarks that at any moment I thought the distinguished Senator might point up and [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 3, 2004 8:12:34 AM
» Delusions of Grandeur from How Do You Spell That?
Matthew Yglesias was in mortal danger while covering the RNC Convention on Wednesday. Watching that speech from inside the hall, I was genuinely afraid at one or two points. The audience was so enthused by his frankly fascistic remarks that at any mome... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 3, 2004 8:34:38 AM
» What Is It to Hear a Speech? from Opiniatrety
In comments over at Matthew Yglesias' site, Matt Austern raises a point which I am going to take as a pretext for some entirely unoriginal philosophy-geeking. (For obvious reasons, everyone in this post is going to get referred to by... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 3, 2004 1:47:35 PM
» Is the Baby Gonna Cry? from damnum absque injuria
Matthew Yglesias sure can dish it out, but apparently, he can't take it (h/t: Brock Sides). Is anyone surprised by this? At all? [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 4, 2004 6:48:21 PM
» Lies, Politics, and More Lies. from kengourlay.com
... and so the battle begins. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 8, 2004 1:32:59 PM
» "NEWS" that meets Rather basic standards! from Who Tends the Fires
The Word for the Day is: "Dain Bramaged" - he's become a Blank Firing Mechanism. "We're supposed to make Kerry look an idiot," Bush replied, "but right now, no one is doing a better job than John Kerry. So now... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 13, 2004 2:49:31 AM
» "NEWS" that was Rather hard on Furby... from Who Tends the Fires
"Well I met a guy who'd anchored the news
And I asked him why he'd turned recluse -
But he just cursed and turned away..." [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 15, 2004 5:01:47 PM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 4:10:11 AM
Comments
Yes, you were in grave danger there. You deserve a medal. Profiles in courage. Like a WW2 or Spanish Civil War journalist on the front lines, fearing for their lives - you are now in that same tradition.
Tell us your other romantic fantasies about yourself!
It's hilarious
Posted by: Blixa | Sep 2, 2004 2:49:35 AM
I keep hearing about Zell's meltdown on Hardball but can't find a link -- could anybody help out? I'm dying to see it
Posted by: gene | Sep 2, 2004 2:55:13 AM
i'm anxious to see the hardball performance myself. and cnn if they're floating around out there.
i saw the speech twice (!) on cspan, but i cannot imagine how chilling it must have been in person. sounded fascistic to me as well.
Posted by: bs23 | Sep 2, 2004 3:00:15 AM
I didn't watch any of the network coverage, since I don't get MSNBC/CNBC where I am now and since my remote is fucked up. I just stick with C-Span, and like you, I cringed at the speech.
But anyway, after reading dailykos.com and other blogs, the general impression is that most commentators were horrified, when they weren't laughing at his screw-ups, by his vicious, dishonest comments. It might have been the start of a true nightmare for the Republicans.
Will the public react the same way? Well, one can hope.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 2, 2004 3:00:37 AM
Quoth Senator Miller:
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.
In other words, once our soldiers are in the field, it's treasonous to question the reason they're there. Our guys can do no wrong.
Posted by: bad Jim | Sep 2, 2004 3:02:15 AM
bs23,
Here is part of it:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001493.html#001493
Posted by: Brian | Sep 2, 2004 3:03:02 AM
holy f$@%& --- over at eschaton is an awesome photo of zell doing his best emperor impression...
thought he looked vaguely familiar during the speech...
Posted by: bs23 | Sep 2, 2004 3:03:20 AM
bad jim: that was exactly the line which first triggered the "you fascist" response in my mind (i came a little late to it both times, so maybe there were some juicy bits early on that i missed).
in contrast, i found parts of cheney's speech (before the kerry bash phase) at least coherent and arguing a point or two, unlike the empty let's-feel-better-about-ourselves-by-chanting-USA
propoganda of the previous speeches. are the speakers told to slow the pace and chant "george double-u bush"?
[note to self: of course they are, dumbass!]
Posted by: bs23 | Sep 2, 2004 3:07:54 AM
I think we on the left need to be careful about conflating *our* opinions of Zell's speech with the opinions of the Public. Whatever *we* might think of his speech, there are surely millions of Americans who think Zell was right on.
Maybe even a majority.
It's easy for us to get lost in our own bubbles, in our own communities. But how did his speech play in the deep South? The Mountain West? The rural areas? I'll bet there were millions who thought his speech was dead right on.
Maybe even a majority of all Americans.
We need to consider that possibility very, very seriously, and think about what our options are in the face of that, if that fact is true. We have to be careful that we don't convince ourselves of what we want to believe. We want to believe that our opinion is the majority opinion. It might not at all be true. Maybe Zell speaks for the majority in many areas of the country. Maybe Zell speaks for the majority, period.
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 3:08:01 AM
I'm mildly confident that most people tuned out to the convention. Boring old white guys making bombastic speeches, whoopee!
Zell speaking for the majority? Not according to the polls or the last election results.
Posted by: bad Jim | Sep 2, 2004 3:30:18 AM
Jeff (or his evil twin) has been posting a similar ideas over at Eschaton.
I think it's FUD. But if everyone opposed gives up the fight due to a self-induced trance of defeatism, it might be reality some time in the future.
Posted by: modus potus | Sep 2, 2004 3:41:16 AM
Zell speaking for the majority? Not according to the polls or the last election results.
We'll see -- I wouldn't dare try to predict what would happen if, for example, there's a major terrorist strike between now and Election Day. At that point, we could find out what Americans *really* think of the sentiments Zell expresssed...
My point, I think, is that we seem so certain that Zell doesn't speak for many Americans; and maybe he doesn't. But I guess a little caution might be in order to remember that even if Zell didn't punch *our* buttons, there are tens of millions of Americans whose buttons he *did* push. We just have to remember as we plan and act from here forward that what *we* think isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks.
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 3:46:22 AM
Yeah. Lots of defeatist posts everywhere. Looks like a trend.
Perhaps the people who are willing and able to sit through this sort of entertainment are particularly susceptible to anxiety.
I'm confident that the actual spectacle of this president on stage tomorrow night will restore regular readers and viewers to projectile vomiting.
Posted by: bad Jim | Sep 2, 2004 3:52:11 AM
Looks like Jeff's definitely out of the closet.
I wouldn't dare try to predict what would happen if, for example, there's a major terrorist strike between now and Election Day.
No, thanks to our president's steely resolve, no one anywhere is vulnerable to terrorist attacks any more.
Posted by: bad Jim | Sep 2, 2004 4:06:28 AM
Jeff (or his evil twin) has been posting a similar ideas over at Eschaton.
After some encounters with some vicious trolls out there on that board in the deep long past, didn't think posting on that board under my real name and e-mail was a wise idea.
I think it's FUD. But if everyone opposed gives up the fight due to a self-induced trance of defeatism, it might be reality some time in the future.
True -- but I think we're equally in big danger if we fall into the trap of thinking everyone thinks like we do. I mean, it's that inability to think outside of the bubble, that misperception that everyone thinks the same way, that has caused so much trouble in so many other fronts over the last few years, isn't it?
Of course if we give up, we're dead. We've got to fight to the finish. But we've got to fight *smart* -- and that means considering the possibility that a *lot* of people *don't* share our opinion, and what to do about it. I'm certain we all know many folks who would fall into that category. I mean, for starters, reports are that the RNC floor reacted quite well; surely they aren't alone in their home communities?
As subsequent comments on Atrios have seconded, there *are* not a few folks who thought Zell was right on. That's a reality we're just going to have to figure out how to deal with. But the near-triumphalism that seems to be the liberal blog consensus so far to me both seems premature --and more importantly, dangerous.
Every challenge can be dealt with and overcome on the way to victory --but only if we don't blind ourselves to those challenges first. How much of thinking Zell Miller's speech was a failure is *hoping* that the majority of Americans saw that speech as a failure, out of fear of what it would mean if the majority bought the entire speech lock, stock, and barrel? If that prevents us from figuring out strategies to make *sure* the speech gets seen as what we want it to be seen as, then that is a problem.
Even if the best way to deal with this problem is to write it off or ignore it, it's something we need to consider, I think, and consider it carefully. *We* might not agree with Zell Miller, but there are a *lot* of folks who *do*. How do we either change their minds, or neutralize their power? You're right --we give up, we perish. But we can't fall into the same deadly mistake made by others of thinking that just because we're convinced we're right that that alone will give us the victory.
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 4:09:31 AM
Jeff,
Go read Digby. Then get a good night's sleep.
At this point, there's nothing to fear but fear itself. And lots of work yet to be done.
Posted by: modus potus | Sep 2, 2004 4:28:29 AM
Good line, Jeff:
But we can't fall into the same deadly mistake made by others of thinking that just because we're convinced we're right that that alone will give us the victory.
We definitely have to avoid the Republican disease.
The Democrats are probably not going to win by fighting the war in Iraq. We'll win by pointing out that the Republicans are loading the dice against anyone who isn't already a winner.
Posted by: bad Jim | Sep 2, 2004 4:35:10 AM
Actually, the comments about defeatism touch on a pet peeve of mine. It's only defeatism if you *quit*. I mean, part of why we're in such trouble in Iraq is that people like Shinseki, who said we'd need many times more troops than we really sent, the people who warned that we *wouldn't* be seen as liberators, the people who warned we didn't do enough pre-war planning, were dismissed as "defeatist", as insufficently confident, and look where *that* got us!
Quitting the fight when things look bad --or thing *might* look bad-- is stupid, foolish, and cowardly. Especially this fight. This fight we've got to wage, without flagging, without pause, until the very utter end. This is our country --our homeland, and everything we hold dear-- and we've got to fight for that to the very last, no surrender, no quarter.
But false confidence is, in its own way, equally cowardly and certainly as stupid. We've got to have the guts to consider the possibility of truths we really, really hope aren't true --and more to the point, *plan* and *fight* against them. Considering and worrying ain't enough. We've got to fight *back*, and fight *smart*. And we can't do that if we hide from truths we hope aren't true.
Yes, there are a lot of truly defeatist people out there. But merely pointing out seriously unpleasant possibilties by itself isn't defeatist. We could have used a lot more serious consideration of "defeatist" talk before we went into Iraq, so at the very least we could have avoided some of the mistakes we subsequently made because we put too much confidence in things we really had no basis to believe. Let's not fall into the same mistake of substituting hopes for plans.
Are there a lot of folks who don't share our opinion of Zell's speech? Probably. Are there ways we can deal with that? Absolutely! Should it be fought against? Damn straight! Is it a serious enough threat to spend limited resources on? That's a good question. Maybe the size of the problem isn't worth dealing with. Maybe, after due consideration, the best way to deal with that problem is to ignore it, and concentrate on other fronts. But we're *not* going to get to answers on that if we're so lost in our own confidence that we forget there's lots --and lots and lots-- of folks out there who see things very, very differently than we do.
Now none of us were born yesterday -- we know how to deal with these sorts of things. And guys like Atrios, Kos or Yglesias are damned smart and sharp fighters. I've confidence in them --and in us-- that we'll find a way to throw back --with interest-- whatever gets thrown at us. And we *have* to --this whole election, and everything it stands for, is not a fight we can afford to give up or run away from. In the end, it's our country we're fighting for, damnit, something I'm sure everyone here would agree is worth fighting for. We just have to be careful that we don't forget that the way we interpret things --the way we *want* to interpret things-- isn't the same way everyone else does. Our leadership in the White House is often accused of failing to think outside their bubble. Let's be careful not to make the same mistake.
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 4:38:09 AM
I want to affirm the Jeff = nontroll line.
On the other hand, I want to point out that Pat Buchanan seriously damaged Bush41 at the '92 GOP convention. At least if Al Franken is to be believed, nobody thought it was a problem for the GOP at the time. But as it turned out, people weren't in the market for his 'red meat' and the speech is now regarded as a disaster.
Posted by: Ethical Werewolf | Sep 2, 2004 4:44:10 AM
Spiked by curiosity regarding the comment about defeatists on Atrios and other boards, went over to take a look. And encountered folks talking about fleeing the United States.
Okay, *that's* defeatist.
Fleeing the country? Screw that noise -- my family, like so many others of you out here, already *did* that fleeing thing once already. And even for the few of us who *could*, we've got lots of friends and family who *can't*. What, we're just going to leave them behind? Screw that.
I mean, even in the worst concievable circumstances, there were folks who fought back, fought to the very last -- I mean, where did guys like Havel come from? Or Mandela? I don't pretend to even have a fraction of the courage that a guy like Mandela has in his left middle toenail --but I can at least try. Yeah, we gotta fight smart --but above all, we gotta *fight*.
'course, it doesn't seem like any of you here need that reminder. :-)
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 4:54:20 AM
Jeff=sneaky Repub troll
Yes a majority of Americans think John Kerry wants to arm our soldiers with only spitballs.
Are you kidding me Jeff? Of course you are since you are a stealth troll trying to convince this board that a majority of Americans believe the crap Miller was selling so it must be true and those the disagree are in a bubble. Miller flat out lied with his crack that Kerry won't act unless he gets UN approval. Yes Kerry voted to cut defense spending. Peace dividend ring a bell. Funny how Sec Def Cheney also thought programs like the B1 and B2 were expensive and UNECESSARY. Nice try Jeff
Posted by: Muldoon | Sep 2, 2004 4:58:50 AM
Which were the "fascistic remarks," Matthew? "Fascism" is a word that used to have a very particular meaning. Are you just using it as a synonym for "nasty"? I'm genuinely curious (a) if you know what the word means, and (b) if so, which lines in Sen. Miller's speech you believe endorsed or promoted that political system.
Posted by: Beldar | Sep 2, 2004 5:03:54 AM
Jeff sure *seems* like a troll because he *keeps* putting stars around *way* too many *words*. No real person would do that.
Also by the way he keeps saying "we" over and over and over again. It's farcical.
Kerry voted against weapons programs that Cheney voted against. And now Kerry is unfit and Cheney is a paragon of national security. Funny how easy it is to believe lies like these when *you* live in a *Republican* *bubble*.
Posted by: mattfwood | Sep 2, 2004 5:17:45 AM
Of course you are since you are a stealth troll trying to convince this board that a majority of Americans believe the crap Miller was selling so it must be true and those the disagree are in a bubble.
Did you actually *read* what I wrote? (On a non-sequitur, I sure seem to have written a lot tonight...)
Since when did what the majority believed necessarily mean that the majority was *right*? Those two facts are in no way related. The majority, for example, thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction --that's why they supported going to war. They were *wrong*, but that's what drove the dyanamic. Unfortunately, merely being right doesn't win elections --you've got to have a majority behind the right, too. And if many --potentially, a majority-- of folks think Zell Miller's right, that doesn't change the facts or the lies --but it *will* hurt our cause. Unless we do something about it.
*You* know and *I* know and everyone else on this board knows the truth -- but how many folks out *there* know it? And much more importantly, how do we make *sure* they know it, and get convinced of it? Did you even catch that idea?
My point is that it seemed everyone in the liberal blogosphere was convinced that Zell's speech was a disaster for the RNC -- when there are probably plenty of folks who ate it right up. It's up to *us* to make sure the speech gets seen the way *we* want it to get seen. It's not necessarily going to be a disaster for the RNC unless we *make* it a disaster for the RNC. A lot of liberal blogosphere folks seem to think it's going to take care of itself, that what is obvious to us will be obvious to everyone else. I think we'd better be prepared to *make* it obvious. And we've got a lot of sharp, smart folks who can make it so.
Modus Potus had it dead right --we've got lots of work to be done. Let's do it.
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 5:20:03 AM
I do use an awful lot of stars -- it's a function of my verbal rhetorical style, which involves a lot of stressing particular words, which doesn't translate well to the verbal page.
I'm also hoping there isn't some rule against too many posts from the same individual. :-)
Regarding the substance of your complaint, mattfwood, if after this many paragraphs from me you still can't tell the difference between me thinking Zell Miller is right and me worrying too many folks out there are going to think Zell Miller is right, then I really ought to give up.
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 5:28:22 AM
I'm with Beldar; I don't think the word "facist" quite means what you think it means.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Sep 2, 2004 5:38:58 AM
Looks like Beldar is on the rampage tonight; kind of like Godzilla, but with less brains. Let me quote for him what Andrew Sullivan said about Miller's speech:
"Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, 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. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude..."
[Three paragraphs detailing Miller's particular McCarthyesque smears follow.]
"What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day."
Still, try to look on the bright side, Beldar. He never did call Miller a fascist.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Sep 2, 2004 5:48:59 AM
Wondering just how the heck I could have been misunderstood badly enough to be labeled a Republican, I went back to read through what I wrote, and I guess it's not sufficently obvious: I agree with everyone here that Miller's speech is full of it. The interviewers immediately afterwards called him on it. Miller's own previous words slam him on it. I certainly don't agree with Miller. I think Miller's so far from the truth that he'd need borrow Burt Rutan's Spaceship One to get to it. But do enough people out there yet agree? Or are they just going to eat this one up? And how do we get them to see things our way? I hope that makes things clear enough to slap down any further misunderstandings.
And with that, I damn well better get some sleep...
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 5:59:25 AM
Some hate-fest they're having there in NYC. If a majority of Americans are, indeed, in tune with this stuff, then Canada seems like a really good alternative.
Posted by: abb1 | Sep 2, 2004 6:07:46 AM
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Sept. 1
Posted by: abb1 | Sep 2, 2004 7:14:55 AM
The quite genuinely fascist Northern Irish nut Ian Paisley (who received a doctorate from- can you guess- Bob Jones University) had a splendid way of going about this, as described by Martin Bell of the BBC. Speaking at a crowd of massively inflamed Ulster Protestants, he would say 'The BBC, as you all know, have been supporting the IRA in their murder campaign and spreading lies about our people. THERE (pointing) is one of their worst liars, the journalist Martin Bell and his film crew. Of course, as a clergyman, I strongly deprecate all forms of violence. But, alas, I realise I am totally unable to restrain a mighty crowd such as yourselves.'
Quite brilliant- the BBC crew would get a kicking and Paisley's defence against incitement was on film.
Posted by: Dan Hardie | Sep 2, 2004 7:34:18 AM
what's more telling is that Zell's "Praise of Kerry" spiel came from Remarks at a Georgia Democratic Dinner.
Well.
There you go.
Miller praised Kerry
while making introductory remarks
at a dinner.
for Democrats.
:eyeroll
Meanwhile MY's likely to be indistinguishable from the band of ill-dressed Young Republicans to a mob. Unless MY's wearing a 'BUCK FUSH' tee-shirt and a trucker cap borrowed from Michael Moore I doubt he was in much, if any, physical danger.
Unless Al Franken was in the area.
Posted by: MYGoodness | Sep 2, 2004 7:39:39 AM
Speaking of the media:
- We do not need to hear further justification of his invasion of Iraq. It seems clear to us that the whole war is a mistake, a detour from hunting down terrorists that was undertaken on the basis of wrong information and is likely in the end to do far more harm than good when it comes to ending fanaticism in the Middle East.
Interesting, no?
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 2, 2004 7:40:07 AM
Somebody email electoral-vote.com and get them to update Tennessee. It just went from a light blue to dark red.
Posted by: Chad | Sep 2, 2004 9:18:16 AM
Bruce, if I'm on a roll, it's just a reaction to some very loose language. I know from reading what you've written elsewhere, sir, that you're smart enough to know what fascism is, but in case others don't:
fas·cism n. often FascismA system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
You respond by saying, Miller has a history of being anti-civil rights, and argue from that that he's a rascist. Well, yes, like most southern Democrats in the early 1960s, he was on the wrong side of that issue. I believe he'd be the first to agree with you about that. But if that's your charge, or our host's charge, against Sen. Miller, then call him "racist" and let's evaluate that charge on its merits.
I repeat, what in his keynote address constituted fascism?
I won't insult your intelligence, sir. Rather, I appeal to it.
Posted by: Beldar | Sep 2, 2004 9:23:25 AM
Like Matt, I thought the speech was disturbing.
It was partly a combination between the "Democrats are a fifth column" talk and the way the crowd seemed to be whipped into a frenzy. The chanting was part of it. I got a sense that the crowd there had a certain blood lust that only Zell was really able to satisfy.
I don't think, Jeff's concerns aside, that this kind of militarism plays well in the MidWest. This was McCarthyism, and it is worrisome to me to see it given such a prominent platform and a receptive audience.
Posted by: praktike | Sep 2, 2004 9:34:41 AM
Well, Beldar, fascism is a bit like pornography: you know it when you see it; dictionary definition doesn't help much.
Posted by: abb1 | Sep 2, 2004 9:36:59 AM
I won't insult your intelligence either, Matthew. I'll commend it.
Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
Posted by: Bgno64 | Sep 2, 2004 9:40:25 AM
Fafblog had Arnold pretty much nailed, but I think Zell might be just a little too over the top to be given a fafblog treatment.
I think it would be safe to say that Democrats should drastically curtail their efforts to re-recruit Zell back to their side, unless, of course, we have some physical evidence that the Republicans implanted something in his brain, and that it went hay-wire, or the setting for "Hitleresque" was configured drastically wrong.
Posted by: theCoach | Sep 2, 2004 9:44:52 AM
I, too, am awaiting the Fafbloggian response with trepidation.
Posted by: praktike | Sep 2, 2004 9:50:24 AM
I don't know about you, but I was totally enraged after ZM's speech. The words "rapid response" were the first thing that came to mind. Hack gap be damned, I want to see some counterattack. They don't get to get up on stage in NYC and say Democrats are afraid of a fight.
Posted by: dave | Sep 2, 2004 9:58:14 AM
Skimming through, I didn't see the video link to Tweety's interview of Zieg Heil Zell last night, so here it is: Zell explodes
Posted by: Bragan | Sep 2, 2004 10:04:30 AM
HEY, did Zell Miller speak last night?
I get the Boston Globe and New York Times at home, and guess what... they don't even mention the KEY NOTE SPEACH by Democrat Senator Zell Miller. This reminds me of the Old Commie-loving British writer George Orwell's famous novel 1984.
Among other things, he said "If we don't report it it didn't happen."
Has anyone else noticed how the evils reportedly committed by Conservatives as portrayed by our academic, artistic and journalistic communities actually acurately describe the standard operating procedures of the Left?
Has anyone else noticed how the world described by outraged lefties looks nothing like the world we actually live in?
Yesterday I asked if Left Liberals are really as stupid as they appear to be. I went on to point out that they are not really stupid but that they just have no idea of what is really happening in the world. Any good-hearted, intelligent Lefty who get's his news from the Globe, the Times and their ilk knows nothing about the very significant substance related by Miller about Kerry last night. If they know anything they "know" that he told a few misleading lies.
DEMOCRATS SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE DATA ABOUT HOW THE WORLD WORKS. In other posts I've used the analogy that they can't tell the hamburger from the picture of the hamburger on the menue.
The picture of the hamburger (world) they know of is on the menu of the NY Times, Boston Globe, ANCCBSNBCCNN et al.
DEMOCRATS MAY BE INTELLIGENT, BUT THEY ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT.
They believe theory over their lying eyes. In less forgiving earlier societies these Splendid Fools would die early, weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection. Our "more advanced" society has allowed these SFs to live longer and reproduce.
I'm afraid it's too late for them to go away, so we much make sure that the demonstrable fact of their self imposed ignorance becomes an accepted part of our culture.
Text of Zell Miller's Speech at RNC
Wed Sep 1,10:13 PM ET
By The Associated Press
Text of speech by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller
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...
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/09/hey_did_zell_mi.html
Posted by: Adrian Spidle | Sep 2, 2004 10:05:38 AM
Kelly Wallace on CNN was just saying how good it was. Clearly, Matt, you need to watch the pundits more.
Posted by: John Isbell | Sep 2, 2004 10:07:17 AM
Adrian, saw where you posted the exact same thing on Atrios.
You getting paid to troll? How much?
Posted by: Bgno64 | Sep 2, 2004 10:41:39 AM
Frank Lunz' msnbc focus group of undecideds showed 11 of 17 more likely to vote for Bush now than before the night started and all but 2 stating that Miller's speech was excellent.
If you REALLY want to know how others thought of it. I am not sure some of you really do. The truth hurts. If Miller is lying, I am sure Kerry will hold a Q&A press conference TODAY to clear the record, right? I mean, wouldn't YOU if you were running for President and starting to drop in the polls?
But by all means, continue to diss a guy who has fought hard for Democrats his entire life, write off the entire South, and dismiss Ed Koch, Ron Silver and all the other 9/11 Democrats as nuts.
Might check an electoral college map of Carter's and Clinton's victories though. Those of you old enough to remember them in your party are not taking quite the same take.
And most importantly, dismiss everything I say as coming from a Republican troll. That is the key to your political happiness.
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 2, 2004 10:44:45 AM
There's a difference between Southern populism and redblooded Southern militarism. Carter and Clinton were the former; Zell was the latter.
Posted by: praktike | Sep 2, 2004 10:49:25 AM
what's more telling is that Zell's "Praise of Kerry" spiel came from Remarks at a Georgia Democratic Dinner.
Well.
There you go.
Miller praised Kerry
while making introductory remarks
at a dinner.
for Democrats.
:eyeroll
And now Miller attacked Kerry
while making introductory remarks
at a convention
for Republicans
:eyeroll
(This is why he's known as Zig Zag Zell.)
Posted by: Marc | Sep 2, 2004 10:53:10 AM
Frank Luntz's Cincinnati focus group of undecideds last night on MSNBC largely favored Miller's speech, found it persuasive and compelling. When asked why, most of them said it was because Miller is a Democrat. After more discussion of Miller's speech and Cheney's, Luntz asked how many of the focus-group participants now felt more likely to vote for Bush. Eleven of 17 said they were.
Our fellow commenter Jeff has a point.
Posted by: John | Sep 2, 2004 10:54:49 AM
Yesterday I asked if Left Liberals are really as stupid as they appear to be.
Did that post have as many misspellings, grammatical errors and mouth-breathing moronic comments as this one?
Tell me again about Miller's great KEY NOTE SPEACH. Or the great analogy you made about people being too stupid to know that was a hamburger on the "menue."
Pull your finger out of your nose. You've hit what's left of your brain.
Posted by: Ryan | Sep 2, 2004 10:57:24 AM
If someone had given the Democratic equivalent of Miller's speech at the convention which nominated Kerryy a couple of weeks ago, we'd still be hearing about irrational Bush hatred and how the Demcorats are the party of crazy extremists. It's okay now that you're a Republican, though, Zell.
Posted by: rea | Sep 2, 2004 11:00:34 AM
We should be out of italics now.
Posted by: John | Sep 2, 2004 11:04:00 AM
Guess I was wrong.
Posted by: John | Sep 2, 2004 11:06:01 AM
That's better.
Posted by: John | Sep 2, 2004 11:11:22 AM
Shorter Zell:
Extremism in the defense of extremism is no vice.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Sep 2, 2004 11:12:34 AM
Wow! Defending Zell has inspired some to condemn the entire liberal movement as deluded! Amazing.
When Matthews questioned Miller's rhetoric he went ape shit. When Bush policies are questioned by reporters he storms off stage. That's what we need, more anger at people who disagree with dubious policy.
Go Zell! Go! Let's breed more anger and intolerance. Turns out the guys who breath fire and brimstone, can't take the heat.
Let's be honest. There's one side of this election that can't address issues, has no plan, and no successes to speak of, and there's another side that keeps pointing up the tragic consequences of those bad decisions as politely and civily as possible. Which side's suppporters can only address legitimate concern with derision, who have radio "entertainers" operating 24/7 in every media market constantly repeating talking points? When Bush wanted to address his realistic admission that a war on terror is not winnable where did he go? Did he hold a press conference, as any traditional president of the last 60 years would have? No he granted an interview with Rush Limbaugh? One side has lived and died by hiding behind and unsustainable system of propaganga, the other is trying to bring the nation out of this painful mess through dialogue, discussion, and consensus.
"DEMOCRATS SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE DATA ABOUT HOW THE WORLD WORKS." Are you crazy?
Krugman has cited the complete corruption of the reporting by the OMB. I mean this is an MIT/Princeton guy who swims in data. And he's been screaming for years about the lack of data the administration releases, or even acknowledges.
This administration has created a culture of secrecy second to none to prevent the public from learning the truth. DEMOCRAT'S DON'T HAVE THE DATA? They've been screaming for it the whole administration. When Kennedy brought us to the brink of war over Cuba he had a open/shut case with photographic evidence. This administration FABRICATED a case with support from foreign intelligence agencies. Colin Powell's speech was completely discredited. Let's not even talk about the non-existent WMD. The press led snipe hunt that graced the New York Times. The continual spying and tampering with Defense Department internals for personal gain.
I could go on and on and on.
WE HAVE THE DATA THAT'S WHY WE WANT TEAM BUSH REMOVED AND IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEY CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE NATION. There were nearly half a million people in New York marching on sunday with the data. They didn't carry FIP FLOPS. They carried COFFINS. Because the Bush adminsitration has put a GAG ORDER on the national media from showing and honoring the sacrifices of our brave men and women.
Zell Miller's psychotic rage in defense of bloated defense department contracts, is not defendable. Even Zell cannot disppassionately defend it.
Enough with the anger and vitrol. Enough with the sniping. As much as the convention would like to create national hostility, by painting all who disagree with it as a danger to the nation, it will not work. This is a serious time. Let's have discussions about serious issues. Maybe Bush will rise to the occasion tonight and talk a little. We can only hope.
Posted by: patience | Sep 2, 2004 11:21:36 AM
I agree with Digby about the defeatism. Some Democrats have the morale of a whipped dog.
I also think that the only intelligible purpose of the trolls on liberal sites is to annoy people, damage morale, and divert discussion from productive channels. Whether it's organized or not, whether they're paid or not, that's what's being done.
Ignoring them doesn't work. Ridiculing them doesn't really work. Deleting their posts works, and banning works, at least for the less IT-adept ones.
No host has the obligation to allow anyone he doesn't like on his comments: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone: No shoes, no shirts, no service".
Anyone who wants to can run a forum open to all, but there's no obligation. An internal center-left dialogue is a good thing, and certain people need to be excluded for that to take place. We have lots to talk about among ourselves, and morale-building is a good thing.
Policing a thread is work, but it can be delegated. Matt, Kevin, Atrios, and the others should give some of their regulars the codes required to delete hostile posts (Kos is a model).
You can expect them to whine about free speech and open debate, blah blah blah, things they don't care about at all, but let them whine elsewhere.
I've seen several threads today which were half troll. To paraphrase one of the trolls: If Democrats can't defend themselves against feeble little moron shits like Al or Adrian Spidle, how can they defend the US against Osama?
Posted by: Zizka | Sep 2, 2004 11:26:31 AM
The truth hurts?
How about this- Anthony Zinni:
"In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption. I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning. The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two."
You want to talk about who's not fit to be Commander in Chief?
Democrats Stand Up And Fight Back.
I give a damn about Miller's Dixiecrat wanna be tough fantasy. I'm sick this. It's time to win this damn election and put the people who really think about how to defend this country and not just about how to fire up ignorant warmongering back in charge. Listen closely: we are not safer for attacking Iraq. There is more terrorism now, not less. Can we have some accountability - please.
Posted by: dave | Sep 2, 2004 11:41:42 AM
Matthew's blog is always one I like to check out when political television/current events heat up. I'll leave no room for labeling by others though; I'm not voting for Kerry and do not want him to win. I'm not trolling either. If you cannot resist thinking everyone who does not agree with you is a troll, stop reading this now and go on to the next post.
Matthew, why would you use a word like "fascistic?" You are clearly smart enough to have a decent understanding that even professionally trained political scientists are not completely in agreement on a single definition of the ideology. You are clearly intelligent enough to know the context of the the word in our society and how people who use it casually are viewed. Frankly, it looks a lot like an attempt to delegitimze something by crawling down into to gutter with it. If you didn't like the speach, fine. Jeff's post of 5:59am does a great job getting *that* point of view across without ever hurling the same type of rhetorical cocktails that Miller was firing last night.
Posted by: eric | Sep 2, 2004 11:43:00 AM
Now you have seen what we are fighting, Matt.
I saw it first-hand in Houston at the '92 Republican convention. They bussed in a bunch of young Republicans to disrupt Ron Brown's press conference. These identically dressed (shirt, tie, blue slacks/skirts), red-faced blond kids surrounded the resturant, screaming and banging on the glass. Pure Nazi Youth style initmidation tactic, we were tempted to get them to chant "One Nation, Above All!".
There was one Asian-American girl there, the only minority in the crowd, I'm guessing she grew up to be Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: tib | Sep 2, 2004 11:43:25 AM
Well, this time I wholeheartedly concur with the "X = fascist apparatchik Y" line. The whole speech was like an angry panegyric to war. Man, Kerry better fucking show up for the debates.
Posted by: spacetoast | Sep 2, 2004 12:08:55 PM
I'm still waiting for anyone to identify the lines from Miller's speech that were "fascistic remarks." I mean "fascism" as it actually existed in the Twentieth Century when the word was coined and World War II was fought, not some blurry babbling about "ur-fascism" (although I like ole Umberto's fiction).
Perhaps that makes me a troll, I dunno exactly how one qualifies for that particular insult. But I've asked the question as politely as I can, and have yet to get an answer.
My goal in posting here isn't to persuade anyone to cast his or her ballot differently in November; I have no illusions about that. My goal is more modest. Just as I object when someone from the right side of the political aisle starts hurling the term "communist!" around recklessly (the original example being the self-same Joe McCarthy referenced several times above), I object when intelligent pundits from the left, who I think are capable of far better, start hurling the term "fascist" around.
So, Matthew: Do you want your rhetoric to match your commenter "tib" above? Or can you transcend that urge, sir? I'm still hoping that you can.
Posted by: Beldar | Sep 2, 2004 12:58:39 PM
To paraphrase the quote... "I enjoyed Zell's speech much better in the original German."
Posted by: Doc | Sep 2, 2004 1:01:27 PM
you can't hold up 1992's buchanan and declare zell's made the same mistake without factoring it through the lense of 9/11. maybe voters will mistake bombastic for strength and security. i have no idea. i'm not assuming anything at this point. we'll have to see how it plays out.
Posted by: -y | Sep 2, 2004 1:08:02 PM
I'm not sure I understand what he was trying to convey here:
And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
[...]
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 rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
Is he under impression that the US military occupied, um, sorry, liberated Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union when Reagan was president? It seems confusing. Do any of the trolls care to explain? Thanks.
Posted by: abb1 | Sep 2, 2004 1:12:11 PM
"Matthew, why would you use a word like "fascistic?"
He can use the word because any of you Republicans
who aren't brown-shirted racist Nazi fucks are enabling the vast majority of your party who are. Jeffords switched because of milk-price supports.
There are no adult or decent Republicans, because if there were, we would be deafened by their outrage.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 2, 2004 1:14:13 PM
Maybe Bush will rise to the occasion tonight and talk a little. We can only hope."
Fuck Bush. Yes, the lying little weasel is going to look all moderate and compassionate. Two key things I heard last night on MSNBC
1) Mike Barnicle saying he has never heard Bush say a bad word about anybody. Fuck. FUCK! The Bush family has always outsourced its wetwork. I can't believe I heard Barnicle say that.
2) Tony Blankley saying, with a sad smile, that this campaign is going to get so nasty that he really fears independent voters will stay home. That is the strategy, folks, to get disgusting so that turnout goes down. Is there any policy that could be more Evil in a Democracy? Is there a way this can be countered? Increasing Dem turnout is not the snswer, it is not enough.
I wanna go for it. I want to counter evil by calling it by its name, at the top of my lungs. I no longer care If Kerry wins, if the price of winning is the repression of the truth. I no longer fear Kerry losing, if we can so polarize this country that it returns to the internal fratricidal violence that America, as in the 1860's and 1960's, apparently periodically needs to regain its soul.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 2, 2004 1:32:48 PM
I also think that the only intelligible purpose of the trolls on liberal sites is to annoy people, damage morale, and divert discussion from productive channels. Whether it's organized or not, whether they're paid or not, that's what's being done.
Ignoring them doesn't work. Ridiculing them doesn't really work. Deleting their posts works, and banning works, at least for the less IT-adept ones.
--------------------------------------
How many of you liberals agree with this sentiment. Do you wish all conservative voices were banned from this website? Is that the 21st century of liberalism? Far cry from the 1960s.
The problem is the first sentence is directed at CONSERVATIVES, not just true trolls. It has been clear to me the last 2 days that EVERYONE who offers a conservative voice is labelled a troll.
If anyone is so insecure in their belief system, that they cannot help but be annoyed and have their morale hurt because someone offers a conservative point of view, and who can only suggest censorship as an alternative, then I for one truly feel sad for such a one.
I have spent years in friendly debate, both in person and over the net, on a variety of issues. It can be quite a positive experience. Apparently the folks around here are not up for it. I do not troll, or flame, and I can take it. Is the skin that thin around here. It is ridiculous to think that someone is paying conservatives, or that most of us would use IT skill to override some censorship ban.
I came here because apparently Hugh Hewitt thinks this a quality liberal blog, and I assumed part of that was the desire to have a comments section for a little 'back and forth'
Seriously, do the majority of the regulars here agree with the sentiment of this poster's words above?
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 2, 2004 1:49:17 PM
Matt's got it right. The scary thing isn't that Zell's a fascist. The scary thing is that the Republican Party's on board.
Posted by: Kimmitt | Sep 2, 2004 1:49:51 PM
if we can so polarize this country that it returns to the internal fratricidal violence that America, as in the 1860's and 1960's, apparently periodically needs to regain its soul.
To paraphrase the Joker: "What this country needs is an enema."
Posted by: abominous | Sep 2, 2004 1:50:31 PM
You know what? This is an awkward thing to say right now, but I am sick of all the glorifying of the military. I just read Miller's speech and he has it wrong. We do not have our freedoms of speech, religion, pursuits of happiness, because our military fought to give them to us. The fact is, soldiers are trained to fight. They can fight for communism, nazism, fascism just as well as they can fight for democracy. It is the civilians. It is the pamhlet (or blog!) writers, the lawyers, the poets and historians who gave us our democracy. Every society has had its fighter class. There is nothing original in it. What was original at the founding of the US is that, during the period of Enlightenment, we had a group of people who were inspired, intelligent, well read, dreamy enough to believe they could create a new type of government, based partly on some historical precedents ocurring in ancient Athens and Rome. Yes, we have used our military to ensure that we keep what we have created, but they certainly did not give it to us. Like most militaries, ours has a strict hierarchical structure, they depend on members following orders w/out question. Never, never in a million years could they have dreamed up the US system of governance. We should be grateful for the role they play; we should compensate them better than we do; but, we do not owe them for our way of life. Their role is to do what they are told. Our particular system is a civilian creation.
Posted by: pellmellzell | Sep 2, 2004 2:05:18 PM
I'm happy to have a friendly debate:
The president and his team at the Pentagon are incompetent, have bungled the "war on terror," and should be relieved of command.
The way these people handled the war in Iraq has wasted the global support we enjoyed after 9-11. We are losing allies that we need to win, whether Republicans want to admit that or not. At the same time, we are playing into the terrorists' propaganda campaign.
This is not just the position of people opposed to the war. People who supported ousting Saddam's regime also know this to be true.
Without even mentioning the economy, the case against this administration is simple: they are incompetent, by their bungling they have compromised our security and undermined the war against Bin Landen (remember him?) and Al Qaeda, they have no plan for fixing their mistakes, and they should be fired.
Opposing viewpoints welcome. Democrats aren't afrait of terrorists and we especially aren't afraid of the facts.
Posted by: dave | Sep 2, 2004 2:05:43 PM
Uh, yeah. That's "Bin Laden." Stupid no spell check.
Posted by: dave | Sep 2, 2004 2:07:30 PM
I didn't see Zell last night, was practicing guitar instead. Right after his speech, my boss called, "Did you see it? He was great!" Well, I hadn't so I checked with my wife, who had, and she said, "Zell was great." (She's a conservative Jewish Democrat from Baltimore.) So I checked it out on the web, and I have to agree, Zell was great. But I do see how some of you might have taken offense. Now you know how we feel when you accuse President Bush of being a liar or worse.
Oh well, politics is rough business. By the standards of early American politics, this campaign isn't even particularly dirty.
Posted by: DBL | Sep 2, 2004 2:15:57 PM
Dave, no need to correct the typo. The only people who nitpick typos are those with no argument to make in support of their views.
Glad to see you at least do not believe in the need for censorship that some of your fellow-liberals here are promoting.
I would note that I think you are calling "facts" what actually are opinions. Words like bungling and incompetent usually require supportive facts to take them out of the area of simple opinion.
True, not capturing Bin Laden yet is a fact. If he is caught, does that eliminate the bungling, incompetence?
True, France is not an ally in Iraq. Nor is Germany. However, another fact is that we now know about the corruption of the oil for food scandal. Kerry has assured us that he would have their support, but has yet to say what exactly he would do to change their mind.
I appreciate your view that Bush should be fired. As opposed to Kerry being hired. This is quite common today, and one reason why I think Kerry will not win. During the Spring, it looked like 51% of the nation would simply vote 'anyone but Bush'...now it is clear that this number is less than the 51%, and so Kerry will at least have to earn for himself a few votes. Bush job approval up another 2 points, and this before the convention.
Regards.
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 2, 2004 2:17:53 PM
How many of you liberals agree with this sentiment. Do you wish all conservative voices were banned from this website?
Your job -- and the job of all posters, liberal or conservative -- is to provide me with insight and intellectual stimulation. If you can't do that, then your serve to purpose, and might as well have your posts deleted, for all I care. This is a blog, after all, in which Adrian Spindle makes regular appearances in the comments thread. Frankly, it's hard to tell him apart from Al.
Posted by: Constantine | Sep 2, 2004 2:18:20 PM
Perhaps Zellpatine didn't quite cross the line into full-blown fascism, but come one... he certainly came within spitting distance of it.
Me thinks some folks need to brush up their history.
Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, Hitler didn't seize power on August 31, 1939, then roll into Poland the next day and fire up the ovens. The transition was a more than a decade long march (and, to a degree, even longer with the original brownshirts down in Italy).
This is how it starts... extreme nationalism - boiling matters of state into a simple us vs. them dynamic, appealing to fear, to insecurity, and to hatred of "everyone else" and "everyone that thinks differently". Then heap on the lies and and hypocrisy....
Democrats making a partisan issue of national security? Ummm... right, just ignore the whole thrust of my speech, our convention and campaign - and certainly don't remember that the very vote that got us into Iraq was intentionally timed to coincide with the 2002 mid-terms.
Maybe it wasn't quite fascist - but you're blind if you don't think it's heading in that direction spiritually, if not exactly.
The Italians sold their soul to Mussolini for trains that ran on time. The Germans sold theirs for restoration of national pride.
The Republicans generally, and Zell specifically, want to sell us the same, but at a different price - they'll take away the very fear and insecurity that they've worked so hard to instill in us in the first place for our soul.
Posted by: zonk | Sep 2, 2004 2:29:41 PM
Steve- If Bin Laden is caught, that would be a "good thing." Would it have had more of an impact if it had happened at Tora Bora? Would the Bid Laden's capture lessen the impact that failing to win Iraq has had on defeating the terrorists? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I believe that the fact we have to ask them supports the conclusion that our war policy has been less effectual than it should have been at best, and incompetent at worst.
Same thing, unfortunately, with our could-have-been allies. We don't know what Kerry will do to secure contributions from other nations to stabilize Iraq. Maybe it does come down to faith in one candidate or another. But we shouldn't have gotten in this position in the first place. We do need other countries' help to win this fight, and we threw away a claim to world leadership and legitimacy that we may not be able to get back. I don't believe Bush can fix this, and I do believe he will make it worse. I guess the next 8 weeks will tell whether America agrees with me.
Which gets me back to where I started this morning- Kerry's not going to convince anyone to vote for him if he doesn't challenge the offensive drivel being peddled by the Zell Millers of the GOP. This election should be a referendum on whether Bush deserves to keep his job, and it's Kerry's job now to drive home the reasons why America can't afford four more years of hollow leadership.
Posted by: dave | Sep 2, 2004 2:31:55 PM
Zell Miller was off the hook. That speach right there locked in the 10 percent that is undecided, the very 10 percent that is going to decide this election.
Can you smell it, it's not stinky protester underarm its desperation from the Democratic party.
So are most of you moonbats going to slit your wrists when you have to deal with 4 more years.
Posted by: VerukaSalt | Sep 2, 2004 2:37:25 PM
Last night, Zell Miller and Dick Cheney just lost the Republicans every undecided female member of the viewing audience in Maine, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Minnesota.
There is a tradition of political civility in those states that has existed for many decades, one which they treasure and uphold. Michael Moore doesn't go over well there, and neither will Zell. Difference is, Moore is an acknowledged activist/joker/media personality. Zell and Dick were speaking for the party itself. Yes, there are plenty of Americans who will lap up Zell's fire and brimstone... probably a fair number in Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio and Florida. No matter... we'll have to win those people back some other way. But Buchanan really hurt Bush I in 1992, and in a race this close, the Republican party can't afford to similarly alienate such portions of the electorate.
The race isn't Kerry's to lose, but I firmly believe that he will win it.
Posted by: loopster | Sep 2, 2004 3:00:05 PM
Which gets me back to where I started this morning- Kerry's not going to convince anyone to vote for him if he doesn't challenge the offensive drivel being peddled by the Zell Millers of the GOP.
------------------------------------
Dave, I could not agree with you more about this. This is why I will continue to state that Kerry is running the worst Presidential campaign I have ever seen, and I have followed the last six very closely, voting in the last five.
I disagree with the drivel stuff. But otherwise, you are on target. (Maybe he should hire you to run the campaign - seriously).
Kerry refuses to meet with any serious press and take questions. He sends out surrogates, and wasted his one big moment in the spotlight with that 'reporting for duty' salute and nary a word about his Senate career. Leaving him a big blank slate for Miller and Cheney to write all over last night for the undecided Americans who may not be political junkies like many of us.
Do you wish someone besides Kerry was running, now that you have seen him in action for the last few months?
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 2, 2004 3:14:48 PM
A few dozen middle-aged Vietnam veterans tell us what they saw and heard John Kerry do and say in Vietnam.
A Democrat Senator recounts John Kerry's voting record on defense.
If these things create panic among the New Democrats and get ranked among the worst speeches in the English language then Hollow Man has equally hollow minions. Good luck trying to spin Miller's speech. You guys blew your slander ammunition months ago, and that's all you got or ever had. Only leftie shills listen to leftie shills. The great unwashed American public has tuned you out. We probably won't see a Democrat in the White House for generations.
Posted by: Warthog | Sep 2, 2004 3:19:00 PM
Last night, Zell Miller and Dick Cheney just lost the Republicans every undecided female member of the viewing audience in Maine, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Minnesota.
---------------------------------------
Loopster, since I assume neither of us know all of these undecideds, we are both making assumptions.
However, several undecided women in MSNBC Lunz' focus group last night stated they were more likely to vote Bush and approved mightily of Zell's remarks.
Many women took the time to email and phone the Laura Ingram show today to state how much they approved of last night.
To repeat, I don't know what states these women are from. Nor am I aware that undecided women in these few battleground states are different than undecided women in many other states, but my only question is do you have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to support your claim - or is it just an assumption.
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 2, 2004 3:21:20 PM
Miller's psychotic Hardball break is @
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5892840/ - note you have to scroll down almost half way to get to this episode.
Posted by: eo | Sep 2, 2004 3:30:12 PM
"Kerry refuses to meet with any serious press and take questions. "
Steve, I think you mispelled "Bush" in the above remark. (cf. Bush's hissy fit to a reporter from RTE, and his dismally low number of press conferences). Face it, your guy can only look good reading from a script. Which is why the Bush foreign policy veers all over the map [c.f. Iran, North Korea policy] - Bush's opinion is what the last person who gave him a briefing is.
Posted by: Tom | Sep 2, 2004 3:40:58 PM
Don't you think it's a bit tough to take the high ground about demogogic and "disgusting" speech considering the blogads that you regularly run to the right of your commentary?
Posted by: Michael | Sep 2, 2004 3:47:16 PM
So are most of you moonbats going to slit your wrists when you have to deal with 4 more years.
why exactly do we have to *deal with four more years*? are u going to make it so intolerable we wish we were dead? is that how u think governance is abt? the gestapo is not far off, is it?
Posted by: captainblak | Sep 2, 2004 3:50:31 PM
How can anyone support the Republican Party after a speach like that? It was the most manipulative, dishonest piece of crap to come out of a politicians mouth since Joe McCarthy's ticker quit on him in 1957.
If you don't understand why the speach was anti American and Facistic, please read Will Saletan's review here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2106109/
If you care about America please vote Democrat.
If you can't bring yourself to vote Dem then please stay home Nov 4 to show that you do not approve of this kind of Facism.
Posted by: Scott McArthur | Sep 2, 2004 3:53:30 PM
_Do you wish someone besides Kerry was running, now that you have seen him in action for the last few months?_
I think Kerry can (still) be a great candidate, and is fully qualified to be a great president. I don't think any of the other options could have put Bush to the challenge with as much success as Kerry has had.
I'm gambling that Democrats can show the public / the undecideds / Warthog's "great unwashed American public" (nice), just by pointing to the record of the last four years, that the Bush administration is all smoke and mirrors. And it is a gamble, but the odds should be in Kerry's favor and it's time to double down.
Warthog: nobody needs to "spin" Miller's speech, it speaks for itself. Attempting to smear our patriotism for partisan advantage is despicable and Republicans should be ashamed to have that as the keynote of the convention.
Posted by: dave | Sep 2, 2004 4:03:14 PM
You haven't heard a more disgusting speech delivered in the human language? Apparently you haven't been listening to the ludicrous, dangerous rants of Ted Kennedy or Al Gore lately...and perhaps you haven't seen the latest Hamas and Al Qaeda recruiting fantasy film...Fahrenheit 911.
And "Fascist"...hmmm...I do not think that word means what you think it means. Actually, a better example of a "Fascist" technique is to have thugs knock on doors in the dead of night to intimidate voters (oops...I must be wrong...that's what Democrats are doing to Nader supporters in Oregon...); or perhaps threaten television stations with lawsuits to prevent American citizens from exercising their right to free speech (ooops...I must be wrong again...that's what Democrats are doing to the Swiftboat vets...); or maybe threaten bookstores and publishers to prevent American citizens from excercising their right to free speech (dang! I must be wrong again, since Democrats are also attempting to do THAT to the Swiftboat vets...); or maybe trying to prevent military personnel overseas on active duty from casting their votes in Florida (oh shoot. Wrong again. That was Al Gore and the Democrats in the 2000 election). Ah well. I guess I'll just quit. Maybe I'm the one that doesn't know what "Fascist" means...
Posted by: Shawn Patterson | Sep 2, 2004 4:07:39 PM
Kerry refuses to meet with any serious press and take questions. "
Steve, I think you mispelled "Bush" in the above remark
------------------------------------
No Tom, and of course rather than reply (by example stating where Kerry has done a press conference in the last month) you turn it to a Bush attack - this is SOP for the left.
Of course, a few DAYS ago, Bush sat down with Matt Lauer, so why would I have said this about Bush?
Be warned...Hugh Hewitt linked to 2 posts over here, so you will get plenty of center-right hits in the next couple days.
Set your troll lasers to stun. Every conservative visitor is a troll, right?
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 2, 2004 4:31:48 PM
"Of course it didn't come to that." But it will, if that noisome, putrescent, amoral creep gets reelected
Posted by: Jim | Sep 2, 2004 4:41:09 PM
I promised I'd defend my favorite site, Oxblog, against the left, and here's my chance. Take a look at Mr. Adesnik's excellent hard-hitting critique of Mr. Miller's awful speech. Mr. Adesnik is a man of integrity, not a right-wing hack.
Posted by: Arjun | Sep 2, 2004 4:48:18 PM
fascist!!! Give me a break. God, matthew, what a pussy you seem to be.
Posted by: Twindad | Sep 2, 2004 4:55:05 PM
bad jim: Are you stupid or just so partisan that you don't know of John Kerry's reference to us as occupiers and lately, your bud Michael Moore's references.
It does me so good to watch you guys crap your pants over this.
What ever happened to Democrats that were willing to protect this country, rather than just talk about it.
Posted by: twindad | Sep 2, 2004 4:57:44 PM
Um. Why do you think Matt is smart?
Anyway, Matt, buddy, read a history book or three before you fantasize about fascism in America.
Otherwise, go suck your thumb with Al "digital Brownshirt" Gore.
David
Posted by: David | Sep 2, 2004 5:02:02 PM
Kelly Wallace on CNN was just saying how good it was.
It probably reminded her of her grandad George.
A few dozen middle-aged Vietnam veterans tell us what they saw and heard John Kerry do and say in Vietnam.
Or rather, what they saw and heard people say about what John Kerry did and said. Want to find someone who saw and heard what George Bush did at his Alabama National Guard training in 1972, Twathog?
Somewhere in Pakistan, the (un-nameable) Osama is probably getting transcripts of speeches like Zell's and laughing his beard off.
Posted by: ahem | Sep 2, 2004 5:05:32 PM
Of course, It Can't Happen Here.
Posted by: ahem | Sep 2, 2004 5:07:24 PM
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else, but I think Zell Miller took part of his speech from a fair well known poem, without attribution. Every Veteran's Day someone sends me this poem, which some sites say was written by "Father Denis Edward O'Brien, USMC":
"It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us freedom to demonstrate.
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin in draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag."
I don't agree with the ideas proposed in the poem, or in Miller's speech. But I think it's quite odd that Miller would just take part of this text and use it without saying where it's from, especially since it might have been written by a fellow Marine.
Posted by: Mark Golden | Sep 2, 2004 5:08:24 PM
Matthew - you're a dork. You also flatter yourself waaayyyy too much. Nobody knew who the hell you were. If the mean old Republicans didn't physically attack Michael Moore on Monday night, I think they'd leave you alone too.
Grow up ya' big sissy......
Posted by: Whorly | Sep 2, 2004 5:09:26 PM
Are you stupid or just so partisan that you don't know of John Kerry's reference to us as occupiers
Well, twindad, I guess you must be saying Bush is stupid too, since he called our soldiers occupiers...
Posted by: lou | Sep 2, 2004 5:24:22 PM
Did you wet yourself, Matt? Did you have a vision of a drunken Jenna Bush hitting you over the head with her purse while screaming obscenities in German? You'd better get out now -- I've heard from reliable sources that the delegates from Texas plan to kidnap you tonight and behead you before dawn unless Kerry and Edwards shave their heads and have Republican elephants tattooed on them.
Posted by: fman | Sep 2, 2004 5:25:59 PM
You know what? This is an awkward thing to say right now, but I am sick of all the glorifying of the military. I just read Miller's speech and he has it wrong. We do not have our freedoms of speech, religion, pursuits of happiness, because our military fought to give them to us. The fact is, soldiers are trained to fight. They can fight for communism, nazism, fascism just as well as they can fight for democracy. It is the civilians. It is the pamhlet (or blog!) writers, the lawyers, the poets and historians who gave us our democracy.
We do have our freedoms precisely because brave men (and women) were willing to risk sacrifice of their lives. We would not have been granted independence from Britain for at least another hundred years, no matter how many pamphlets were written, no matter how many lawsuits were filed, no matter how many poems were penned.
You are simply deceiving yourself. Military action was a necessary ingredient in your being granted the freedoms you have.
"Common Sense" didn't convince the British we deserved freedom from their empire, it convinced the Amercians at that time to fight. Washingtons's army, or more specifically, American troops pinning Cornwallis against the sea and the French navy gave the poets and the writers the chance to aquire the freedom that was paid for with the blood of Washington's army.
Posted by: tom | Sep 2, 2004 5:36:52 PM
'vision of a drunken Jenna Bush hitting you over the head with her purse while screaming obscenities in German?' - my god, someone's actually managed to make Jenna sound interesting!
Posted by: pb | Sep 2, 2004 5:37:27 PM
There is a tradition of political civility in those states that has existed for many decades, one which they treasure and uphold
This is so tired. There has never been a time when American elections were civil. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson savaged each other through their surrogates in the media at the time. This 'I wish we could be civil like we use to be' stuff is just a substitute for 'ouch, that hurts!'
Amazing, the thin skin you're all displaying. The hate that spews from moveon.org daily, or your own comments about 'facist' and 'nazi' are much worse than anything Zell's thrown at Kerry. Zell attacked KErry's votes and policy (and his anti-war record upon his return from Viet Nam). This is not venom and vitriol. This is Kerry's record. If you guys don't like Kerry's record, you probably should have picked somone else.
If he, and you guys, get this testy over Zell picking on his Senate Votes, what's he going to do if Syria dumps Sarin gas over the border into Iraq?
Even his own staff have said that Kerry needs an 'Adult' to tell him when his own words are getting into trouble.
Posted by: tom | Sep 2, 2004 5:46:56 PM
Who is safer. Matthew the elitist (his word, not mine) in the convention hall surrounded by supporters of Bush?
Or New York cops on the street, surrounded by opponents of Bush?
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 2, 2004 5:56:31 PM
Matt:
To use the label "fascist" with its connotation of Nazi Germany is beyond belief. It belies a willful ignorance of history. Plus, it happens to insult all the true victims of fascism. So you feared for your safety? Don't make me laugh.
Just curious: Do you think any of the delegates could call the protesters that curse at them fascists, if they fear for their safety?
Tim
Posted by: Tim | Sep 2, 2004 6:10:32 PM
Well, I will say that Hewitt fans are less deranged than freepers. That's actually a mildly relevant discovery.
Posted by: John Isbell | Sep 2, 2004 6:19:56 PM
Yes, if Senator Miller had pointed you out you very might have well been accosted by pleasant, friendly folk who might have tried to engage you in conversation as to why they believe your political viewpoint is incorrect. Horrors. Don’t suppose you happened to see what was happening outside the hall? Where people who "look like" Republicans have been screamed at and assaulted? Yeah, those Republicans. Chilling. I salute your internal fortitude in confronting the belly of the beast.
The contempt you have for half of the country, believing we would stand idly by, allowing this country to be transformed into a fascist dictatorship is mind-boggling. I can only assume you display the facade of someone fearing the rise of the American Reich as a political ploy. If, on the other hand, you are serious.....then you are also nuts.
Posted by: buzz | Sep 2, 2004 6:20:19 PM
I liked the speech, a little over-the-top in some parts, but strong and unapologetic overall. I heard it on the radio, only later saw it tivo'ed... have to say that the visuals were negative, Zell is one pissed off Democrat. At any rate, there are a lot of Democrats who are equally unhappy with the party, that's showing in California where Kerry went from a 16 point lead to a 8 point lead polled yesterday.
In reading through the posts here, I'd caution against living in an echo chamber. Believe it or not, there are a good number of the 8%'ers in the middle that will respond to a speech like Miller's. Sure, it pisses off a lot of Democrats, but what do you think the GOP is going to do at their convention... go out of their way to appease you?
Posted by: Tango Mike | Sep 2, 2004 6:47:56 PM
You are hilarious on Hugh Hewitt's show, what an example of a pathological Democrat. How do you stand the thrashing he gives you every time you are on the show? I'd be embarrassed to leave my house and go anywhere other that the Pathologic Democrat Self-Help Encounter Group 12 Step Meetings.
At least Erwin Chemerinsky can back up his stands with fact and logic that once in a while I can be pursuaded to agree with.
You? Nothing of the sort, Kool-Aid Drinker.
I, on the other hand am a compassionate Conservative. My hope for you is that someday you actually critically listen to what the 'other side' has to say rather than rejecting it out of hand. You might be surprized to learn that we are really who we say we are, not what others want us to be.
Posted by: System-Operator | Sep 2, 2004 6:59:40 PM
Steve in Corona sez:
However, several undecided women in MSNBC Lunz' focus group last night stated they were more likely to vote Bush and approved mightily of Zell's remarks.
Many women took the time to email and phone the Laura Ingram show today to state how much they approved of last night.
To repeat, I don't know what states these women are from. Nor am I aware that undecided women in these few battleground states are different than undecided women in many other states, but my only question is do you have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to support your claim - or is it just an assumption.
------------------------------------------------
Corona Steve:
Not afraid to come out and say it: Total assumption. Well, mostly assumption.
My post dealt in generalizations, no question about it. But I think that my characterization of the political culture of those states is valid. During the primaries, much was written about Iowa's disinclination toward angry red-meat rhetoric; it was one of the keys to Dean's poor showing there. I've spent a lot of time in Maine, and the state really does cultivate a tradition of respectful (if often skeptical) political citizenship. Much of the same can be said of the other states I mentioned, MN, WI, NH.
As far as swaying or not swaying women voters, I admit that I'm relying on conventional wisdom, that says that women (as a voting bloc) prefer candidates who speak to domestic concerns, exhibit personal empathy, and whose dominant mode of discourse is not full-throttle attack. Maybe I'm wrong about my reading of the CW, or maybe the CW is itself wrong. But I believe that these factors, combined with the community culture described above, creates a condition where it's very difficult to see many or most women in those states being swayed to the Republican side.
As far as Luntz and Inghram, it's hard for me to accept those sources as credible or representative. Both are acknowledged partisans. Callers to Air America would and should be treated with equal skepticism.
On a personal level, did you feel that Miller presented the Republican point of view in an attractive light?
Posted by: loopster | Sep 2, 2004 7:02:11 PM
Love the Fascist comment, and the fear that you were about to become a human sacrifice to the "Republican". It's all about you, isn't it, Matt?
Orwell said that when A calls B a fascist, about all we can gather from that is that A does not like B. I would add that most of the time we can also deduce that A has a shocking ignorance of history.
Posted by: Brainster | Sep 2, 2004 7:05:11 PM
In its modest way, I find this a useful blog. Since Ford-Carter, I had never voted for anyone but a Democrat in any election. Ever. Until the party turned into moonbats about six years ago. Someday, after the Dems come back to Planet Earth, I will be able to vote Democrat again. But I can see from the juvenile drivel posted here that that day may be a long way off.
Posted by: sauer38 | Sep 2, 2004 7:55:26 PM
Zell has cajones.
Posted by: Mike | Sep 2, 2004 8:03:12 PM
This is a looooong thread, and I read a little bit before I got bored. For those who have no idea how Zell Miller's speech will play in the hustings - undecideds will move away from Kerry and the Democrats. Many non-partisans were turned off by the democrats attempt to overthrow the election in 2000. Shocked? I'm sure you are. It is not much of a stretch to assume that the Dems want US to fail in war on terror, the economy to suck, etc., solely so they can return to power. In other words, Miller's characterization of Democrats rooting against America WILL play well with most everyone except the hard-core Dems.
Posted by: john yuma | Sep 2, 2004 9:04:01 PM
Zell Millers speech was good old fashioned oratory of a kind not seen much anymore. There was a time when political speeches were also entertainment. He used exaggeration and hyperbole to make his points. He did it quite well.
Jeff, the reason you were mistaken for a Republican is that you suggested that, perhaps, the Democrats were not acting correctly, needed to examine their own ideas and change their tactics, to actually, perhaps, try to find out what the great unwashed actually think? That will never do! And please, people, it is speech not speach.
Posted by: allison | Sep 2, 2004 9:32:30 PM
Loopster, I certainly have not lived in those states, and I agree with you about Ingram but are you implying that MSNBC and Lunz packed the house with Bush supporters claiming to be undecideds? That may be a reach.
As to your question, I don't know if I associate attractive to anything in politics. It ain't beanbag, as the saying goes. I think it was VERY effective for the Republicans and expect to hear soundbites of it over and over the next 60 days.
Therefore, if you are right in your assumption. I would assume the best thing Kerry could do is to play it in those swingstates for the next 60 days too. Win all those undecided women voters.
Now, Kerry does internal polling on stuff like this.
Therefore, if he does not run such ads..that would mean either you are very wrong, OR it would mean Kerry is an idiot when it comes to running a campaign.
So I guess we wait and see what ads they run in the next month or so..
Regards...
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | Sep 2, 2004 9:37:34 PM
"It's up to *us* to make sure the speech gets seen the way *we* want it to get seen. It's not necessarily going to be a disaster for the RNC unless we *make* it a disaster for the RNC."
Hurry...must spin like mad...kill the messenger...plant those seeds of doubt...musn't let voters think for themselves...they are sooo stupid, you know...
If Miller's speech was so bad, what the hell are you all so worried about?
Posted by: Trice |