Interesting Editorial by Zell Miller
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :(

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

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.

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.

Delusional.

Bet you a dollar :D

Ok.

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

Owned.