Posted on 09/01/2004 9:47:39 PM PDT by Pikamax
THE MILLER MOMENT: 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.
THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following: 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. That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.
OPPONENTS OR ENEMIES?: Here's another slur: 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. Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear. Miller has absolutely every right to lambaste John Kerry's record on defense in the Senate. It's ripe for criticism, and, for my part, I disagree with almost all of it (and as a pro-Reagan, pro-Contra, pro-SDI, pro-Gulf War conservative, I find Kerry's record deeply troubling). But that doesn't mean he's a traitor or hates America's troops or believes that the U.S. is responsible for global terror. And the attempt to say so is a despicable attempt to smear someone's very patriotism.
THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country. Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals. 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.
- 2:21:48 AM
Good observation.
Sullivan gives a whole other meaning to the word "spitball".
Kerry is blaming our policies for terror. You have to accept responsibility for your words, JFK. End of story.
Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada....Andrew, just drink the damn Kool-Aid and be done with it!!!
Precisely.
"Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game"
Democrats have placed their party's thirst for power over the safety of this county. You smeared the President in war time - called him a liar on the world stage, for pure political reasons. Your candidate is weak and indecisive - he can't even handle 250 Swift Boat Vets. And yes, you and your kind would supplicate our security to the United Nations, to the diplomatic "good will" of weasels like France, and despots like Libya.
And its "fair game", not because its a smear, but because its an obvious truth that more and more Americans are beginning to realize.
Move to France, weasel.
GASP!!! Zell is a veteran. The democrats just can't let them live in peace, can they? Now, they're trying to silence another one!
Will someone tell me why the mewlings of a girly man is constantly posted on FR?
So....how do we get Google to go to johnkerry.com by typing in "spitballs", anyone know??
What more need be said?
Anyway, what little Andy thinks is irrelevant. The speech was aimed at swing voters, not professional snob pundits, and with those voters it worked like a charm. MSNBC had a focus group of undecided Ohio voters tonight, and of the 17 people there (two of which were obvious Democrat plants posing as swing voters), 11 of them said tonight's speeches by Zell Miller and Dick Cheney have made them more likely to vote for Bush in November.
Go cry in your Cheerios, Andy. Convervatives aren't buying your "I'm one of you" shtick any more.
I think Andrew has forgotten about the millions of dollars spent on personal attacks aimed at the President by the librat 527`s. Zell Miller was definitely angry and who could blame him. As a former Marine, Miller remembers America being united against the enemy in past conflicts and standing with the POTUS. Read his speech Andrew. Read his words. After all, this was a speech about the future security of America and who is the best man to be President during this most difficult period in US history. America is at war and John Kerry would make a lousy CIC! According to Miller, Bush deserves reelection. I agree!
Yeah, don't you remember when Michael Moore tried to sit next to Jimmy Carter (you know, the last Democratic President but one) at the DNC and Carter called security and had him thrown out?
No, come to think of it, I don't remember that either.
Andrew Sullivan = 9/10/01.
If the Dems' big talking point is now going to be that John Kerry is not either a Commie-loving cretin who would seek permission from the UN in order for the US to defend itself, this election is over.
I once thought of Mr. Sullivan as a reasonable voice, but now it appears that he's subject to the same fits of hyperbole and misdirection of which that he accuses Zell Miller.
He's kinda got himself into a quagmire, hasn't he?
I've just about stopped reading Sullivan especially after he called the Swift Vets For Truth ads "smears". If he doesn't realize the importance of Kerry NOT being President, he doesn't know anything.
Perhaps America could survive a Kerry Presidency, but I have great fears about that.
First we must win the Islamic war on Western civilization, then we can talk and work on the other issues.
New book by the Swifties: "Unspit to Command"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.