Interesting Editorial by Zell Miller

[archer2371]

George Bush vs. the Naive Nine
Why this lifelong Democrat will vote Republican next November.
By Zell Miller
(As Appeared in the Wall Street Journal-November 3, 2003)

If I live and breathe, and if -- as Hank Williams used to say -- the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president.

I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.

Why George Bush? First, the personal; then, the political.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."

I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.

I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact that he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.

That's the personal. Now, the political.

This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.

This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

I have just described George W. Bush.

Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.

I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign -- the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost -- with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign -- watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.

So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier.

Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia and the author of "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," published last month by Stroud & Hall.

This pretty much sums up what I believe about George W. Bush and the opposing nine candidates for the Democratic Presidential Nomination (although I wouldn't consider them all naive). However he does pretty much hit the nail on the head with those nine candidates (in my opinion).


***edit*** I forgot my source! I sorry, here it is. Senator Zell Miller

[Superbelt]

I really don't care what zig zag thinks really, he seems to me to be an opportunist.

But I do wanna say something about the comparisons to McGovern being floated around, mostly about Dean.

If we had elected McGovern, a man of integrity, instead of Nixon....
Damn, well, it's hindsight.
Let's learn from that mistake.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Superbelt
I really don't care what zig zag thinks really, he seems to me to be an opportunist.

Back that one up, what does he gain? He is retiring. If anything this is when he can speak his mind without fear of political fallout.

[Food Eater Lad]

Had we elected McGovern, the cold war might still be going on, with China. Say what you want about Nixon, and most of it is true, the man did a good job with forgien policy.

[twotimesadingo]

I'm not even sure where to begin...

I can understand personally liking the guy. I just read Al Franken's Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and even he agrees that Dubya exudes a tremendous charisma. So on that point, I can understand being swayed by his personal appeal. Though, as a side note, Bush's adherence to the Good Book deserves a large amount of speculation. When interviewed, he couldn't name the passage of the Bible he had read that morning (sadly, the source for this I do not have on hand, though the episode was recalled in the Franken book).

Otherwise, I'd just have to say that Zell Miller doesn't really strike me as an average Democrat. He complains about candidates who will raise taxes (though the primary source of the increased taxes will come from a revived Estate Tax, which Bush destroyed), most of which will not affect the bottom 70% of Americans (if the tax increases prove to be only a revived Estate Tax, an increased Capitol Gains tax, and a reinstatement of previous Income Tax brackets), as proposed by Dean.

Furthermore, it may be a lapse in my CNN.com perusal, but no candidate has said "We need to get out of Iraq!" Some - if not all - have mentioned that the reconstruction process should be multilateral, which certainly bears merit given that the record surplus of three years ago has become a record deficit.

Honestly, it seems to me to be Republican propoganda. If a flawed view of two issues has swayed a "lifetime democrat" to vote for one of the most heinous presidents in recent memory (he's lied as much about his tax reform as Nixon did about his dirty tricks), then he deserves not the seat of a Senator, but rather a shovel to the back of his head.

[archer2371]

I do concede that none of the candidates have cried for a removal of US Forces in Iraq. I just thought it was pretty interesting that someone that voted for Adlai Stevenson back in the day, would sway his vote to Dubya. I'm not trying to start any flame wars here, I just thought I would share something that I discovered that, dealt with politics, with you guys, and just discuss it. The President is very likable, Howard Dean even says that he likes the President (Interview with Time, I don't recall the issue tho). That's mainly why I think quite a few more votes will go to Dubya. Because right now, to Joe Voter (or Jane Voter as the statistics show) the Democrats are seen as guys who are squabbling and just plain doing the classic finger-pointing and name-calling game while Dubya is ignoring it for the most part and getting on with running the country.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by archer2371
I do concede that none of the candidates have cried for a removal of US Forces in Iraq. I just thought it was pretty interesting that someone that voted for Adlai Stevenson back in the day, would sway his vote to Dubya. I'm not trying to start any flame wars here, I just thought I would share something that I discovered that, dealt with politics, with you guys, and just discuss it. The President is very likable, Howard Dean even says that he likes the President (Interview with Time, I don't recall the issue tho). That's mainly why I think quite a few more votes will go to Dubya. Because right now, to Joe Voter (or Jane Voter as the statistics show) the Democrats are seen as guys who are squabbling and just plain doing the classic finger-pointing and name-calling game while Dubya is ignoring it for the most part and getting on with running the country.

GWB is a shoe in for 2004 unless something really nasty happens that he gets blamed for. One theory is that the dems want to keep the slate clean for 2008 so Billary can run, something they couldn't do if a democrat wins in 2004. Also I doubt very much that Hillary would want to go 1-1 vrs Bush right now. So they send out some sacrificial lamb, make sure he can't win, and try again in 2008 for real.

[Sparhawk]

Zell Miller is a one of those "southern guys with confederate decals on his bumper," so this editorial does scare me a bit. If a supposedly well-informed Senator uses two non-truths (taxes and iraq) to justify his vote, how are we going to sway the average joe in those crucial southern states?

-Democrat from the south

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Zell Miller is a one of those "southern guys with confederate decals on his bumper," so this editorial does scare me a bit. If a supposedly well-informed Senator uses two non-truths (taxes and iraq) to justify his vote, how are we going to sway the average joe in those crucial southern states?

Based on Deans statements about the south lately, if he gets the nomination, you might be looking at a landslide of Reagan proportions.

[maximusveritas]

Zell is more conservative than most Republicans. Miller didn't officially support Bush in 2000, but he did his best to avoid publicly supporting Gore.
He's trying to make it sound like he's a real Democrat and that he's supporting Bush because he's just been so damn awesome. This is disingenuous at best.

[Superbelt]

Back that one up, what does he gain? He is retiring. If anything this is when he can speak his mind without fear of political fallout.

An ambassadorship if Bush wins reelection. Consulting jobs with Republican friendly firms. An attempt to see liberals fall.

I'll admit FEL, I have always thought that Nixon was an effective president. He was the best ever at foreign policy, (Clinton is a close second) Still, Nixon was corrupt and evil.

[Superbelt]

Based on Deans statements about the south lately, if he gets the nomination, you might be looking at a landslide of Reagan proportions.

Delusional.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Superbelt
Delusional.

Bet you a dollar

[Superbelt]

Ok.

[empu]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Based on Deans statements about the south lately, if he gets the nomination, you might be looking at a landslide of Reagan proportions.

In the sense of "a landslide of Mondale proportions"?

[Phaenx]

Owned.