Republican Convention - Day 3
Tonight the Republicans unleashed the dogs of war upon John Kerry. Let's start with Zell Miller.
I will skip Zellotry, Mad as Zell, and other punny introductions. For the moment lets ignore the fact the Zell Miller had flip-flopped on such small issues as...voting rights for blacks, segregation, abortion, and Sen. John Kerry (who in on March 1, 2001 he introduced by saying "My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend...John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.) See Joshua Zeitz' excellent TNR article on this here.
The impression I took away from this speech is how angry Zell Miller seems. He reminded me of a bitter old man in a nursing home, complaining how his children do not come to visit him. His stiff, robotic posture, shrill manner, and obvious lack of respect for any sort of dissent was downright scary to me. I thought I was watching Pat Buchanan scaring off middle America in 1996 with talk of a "religious war."
Miller goes on to say that "our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief." Wow. I find really troubling this whole argument that to question the president is to be anti-American and tear America apart. This is democracy at its finest.
He says Truman "pushed the Red Army out of Iran." I though, maybe if they were still there, we would have someone to negotiate with as opposed to our current strategy about Iran, which is...? Anybody? But of course I'm kidding. Seriously, a "Red Army" reference?
Zell says "Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator." Okay, it is a little ironic to say this when ythe Republican convention is staged just blocks from the Twin Towers in an effort to...play politics with national security. Zell Miller's very existence on that stage is playing politics with national security. So, no debate at all? Or does he mean by "playing politics" actually being willing to sacrafice serious business to merely score cheap political points? We'll see.
"Nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." Ahem. In a poll published 4/28/2004, 71% of Iraqis view the US troops as "occupiers" rather than as "liberators." But, maybe they are just ingrates. Or maybe something got lost in the translation. More recent polling suggests now this number has risen to over 80%. This is a terrible, terrible shame, and may have damaged our reputation in that part of the world beyond repair for a generation.
Our failure to secure the country immediately, our continuing failure to create an atmosphere providing at least basic safety, our shifting dates and plans for handing over of "sovreignty" to (councils? elections? Paul Bremer? Chalabi?) the Iraqis, the Abu Gharib abuses. Many of these problems come from a basic flaw in the Bush team's post-war planning. It seems clear now to all but them that we did not have enough troops to begin with and we placed them in roles for which they are ill-suited. Our troops are trained to be the greatest killing force the world has ever seen. There is frankly, no one that can even play on the same field as us. However, our soldiers, as brave and competent as they are...they are not traffic cops, prison guards, anti-terrorist forces. They are simply not trained and not equipped for these missions. We should not be surprised when problems occur, and when the populace becomes disenchanted. When I think of the brave sacrifice our men and women have made, with 979 dead and 6497 wounded in action, only to get this reaction from an Iraqi "They say they are bringing us freedom, but what they are bringing is even worse" it breaks my heart. What a management screw-up, and our soldiers on the front line are paying the price. Increased hostility towards the US brings increased hatred., which breeds terrorists, which breeds attacks.
Okay, back to Zell- sorry about that. (But it's my soapbox!) He goes on to list a series of actions by our "army of liberators" WWII, Korea, Cold War (no mention of Vietnam, first Gulf War, Bosnia) . Our soldiers have given us "freedom of the press" (not the reporter), "freedom of the press" (not the poet), "freedom to protest" (not the agitator). I guess I see his rhetorical point- freedom must be protected and preserved, but is their not courage in dissent. I remember reading about a time Albert Camus was the editor of Combat, a French resistence newspaper during World War II and was stopped and searched by the Nazis. They told him if they found the evidence he was involved he would be shot. That to me, takes courage. There is as much courage in standing up and saying "Give me liberty or give me death" as there is in fighting for it. I am proud, so proud, of the fact that I can write my opinions down on this blog for the whole world to see. I can do this with no fear of repercussions from my government. I can do this and no one can make me stop. I know damn well why I can- because of the bravery and wisdom of Americans throughout our history who have provided me with the most free and open society in the history of mankind.
Moving on, he accuses the Democratic leaders of "thinking America is the problem, not the solution." Okay, thanks for questioning their patriotism. Let's all get through our heads a simple concept- America is the greatest nation on earth. What it is not a perfect nation, it makes mistakes, and these have consequences. Anyone want to argue for slavery? Internment of the Japanese? Providing Osama bin Laden military training in Afghanistan? I did not think so.
Miller goes on to list a series of programs Kerry "opposed". And it is a huge, and hugely misleading list. I will leave this to Fred Kaplan in Slate, as he has covered this a few times already-see here and here. Reading the George H.W Bush and Dick Cheney quotes are worth it alone. Suffice it to say, these charges are disengenous at best, given that they cherry pick parts of larger bills. Simple example- Sen. Scott Stuart votes against a bill saying 1) fund the military and 2) round up and kill all the dogs in America. He votes nea, but then votes yea on a later bill to fund the military but leave the dogs alone. Miller declares I voted against funding the military and declares rhetorical victory.
Miller says "Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about someone than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric." I agree. Miller keynoted for Clinton in 1992 and said Kerry "strengthed our military" just 3 years ago. So, zig-zag Zell strikes again.
"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. He would let Paris decide when America needs defending." My first thought was, "the United Nations has moved to Paris? I bet New York is pissed! No, whew, okay- close one." Then I thought, if Kerry really thought that he could not have voted for the Iraq resolution, right? This is all based upon what a disgruntled, recently back from Vietnam, 26-year-old Kerry told the Harvard Crimson in 1970. (Unsurprisingly, he has since disavowed this statement- which is good, because it is of course ridiculous. At his convention, Kerry said "I will never give any nation or international instituation a veto over our national security.") In 1970, Zell Miller worked on the staff of Lester Maddox, who CNN described upon his death as "the defiant ax handle-wielding segregationist" (he had attempted to bar blacks from entering his restaurant in1964, the day after the Civil Rights Act was signed with a pistol and ax handles). Charming. Zell's 1970 is a glass house.
The rest of the speech is just vitriol about how the election of John Kerry would endanger the free world, how he would give the terrorists a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush, and how "weak and wobbly" he is. Bush, in contrast, is the whole bestest, with a "spine of tempered steel" (maybe he met Arnold as the Terminator?) and "the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning" (of course, in our fateful year of 1970, George W. Bush was most likely drunk on a Saturday night). But that's beside the point. (Pretty cheap too, so maybe I should take that out. But my co-worker laughed out loud- so in it stays.)
Zell Miller was tonight who he has always been, a man with his finger in the wind waiting for the wind to blow him in a direction. He is a bitter man who spewed his rage all over that convention floor for all to see. If you missed it there, he yelled at Chris Matthews on MSNBC in an agressive, intimidating manner. His challenging Chris to a "duel" only added to the growing theater of the absurd. Let me close with a quote:
"Americans have seen plants shut down, jobs shipped overseas, and our hopes fade away as our economic position collapses right before our very eyes. And George Bush does not get it!"
John Kerry? John Edwards? Sounds like something one might say today, right?
Nope, it's Zell Miller, 1992, speaking to the Democratic National Convention. How times have changed.
I will skip Zellotry, Mad as Zell, and other punny introductions. For the moment lets ignore the fact the Zell Miller had flip-flopped on such small issues as...voting rights for blacks, segregation, abortion, and Sen. John Kerry (who in on March 1, 2001 he introduced by saying "My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend...John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.) See Joshua Zeitz' excellent TNR article on this here.
The impression I took away from this speech is how angry Zell Miller seems. He reminded me of a bitter old man in a nursing home, complaining how his children do not come to visit him. His stiff, robotic posture, shrill manner, and obvious lack of respect for any sort of dissent was downright scary to me. I thought I was watching Pat Buchanan scaring off middle America in 1996 with talk of a "religious war."
Miller goes on to say that "our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief." Wow. I find really troubling this whole argument that to question the president is to be anti-American and tear America apart. This is democracy at its finest.
He says Truman "pushed the Red Army out of Iran." I though, maybe if they were still there, we would have someone to negotiate with as opposed to our current strategy about Iran, which is...? Anybody? But of course I'm kidding. Seriously, a "Red Army" reference?
Zell says "Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator." Okay, it is a little ironic to say this when ythe Republican convention is staged just blocks from the Twin Towers in an effort to...play politics with national security. Zell Miller's very existence on that stage is playing politics with national security. So, no debate at all? Or does he mean by "playing politics" actually being willing to sacrafice serious business to merely score cheap political points? We'll see.
"Nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators." Ahem. In a poll published 4/28/2004, 71% of Iraqis view the US troops as "occupiers" rather than as "liberators." But, maybe they are just ingrates. Or maybe something got lost in the translation. More recent polling suggests now this number has risen to over 80%. This is a terrible, terrible shame, and may have damaged our reputation in that part of the world beyond repair for a generation.
Our failure to secure the country immediately, our continuing failure to create an atmosphere providing at least basic safety, our shifting dates and plans for handing over of "sovreignty" to (councils? elections? Paul Bremer? Chalabi?) the Iraqis, the Abu Gharib abuses. Many of these problems come from a basic flaw in the Bush team's post-war planning. It seems clear now to all but them that we did not have enough troops to begin with and we placed them in roles for which they are ill-suited. Our troops are trained to be the greatest killing force the world has ever seen. There is frankly, no one that can even play on the same field as us. However, our soldiers, as brave and competent as they are...they are not traffic cops, prison guards, anti-terrorist forces. They are simply not trained and not equipped for these missions. We should not be surprised when problems occur, and when the populace becomes disenchanted. When I think of the brave sacrifice our men and women have made, with 979 dead and 6497 wounded in action, only to get this reaction from an Iraqi "They say they are bringing us freedom, but what they are bringing is even worse" it breaks my heart. What a management screw-up, and our soldiers on the front line are paying the price. Increased hostility towards the US brings increased hatred., which breeds terrorists, which breeds attacks.
Okay, back to Zell- sorry about that. (But it's my soapbox!) He goes on to list a series of actions by our "army of liberators" WWII, Korea, Cold War (no mention of Vietnam, first Gulf War, Bosnia) . Our soldiers have given us "freedom of the press" (not the reporter), "freedom of the press" (not the poet), "freedom to protest" (not the agitator). I guess I see his rhetorical point- freedom must be protected and preserved, but is their not courage in dissent. I remember reading about a time Albert Camus was the editor of Combat, a French resistence newspaper during World War II and was stopped and searched by the Nazis. They told him if they found the evidence he was involved he would be shot. That to me, takes courage. There is as much courage in standing up and saying "Give me liberty or give me death" as there is in fighting for it. I am proud, so proud, of the fact that I can write my opinions down on this blog for the whole world to see. I can do this with no fear of repercussions from my government. I can do this and no one can make me stop. I know damn well why I can- because of the bravery and wisdom of Americans throughout our history who have provided me with the most free and open society in the history of mankind.
Moving on, he accuses the Democratic leaders of "thinking America is the problem, not the solution." Okay, thanks for questioning their patriotism. Let's all get through our heads a simple concept- America is the greatest nation on earth. What it is not a perfect nation, it makes mistakes, and these have consequences. Anyone want to argue for slavery? Internment of the Japanese? Providing Osama bin Laden military training in Afghanistan? I did not think so.
Miller goes on to list a series of programs Kerry "opposed". And it is a huge, and hugely misleading list. I will leave this to Fred Kaplan in Slate, as he has covered this a few times already-see here and here. Reading the George H.W Bush and Dick Cheney quotes are worth it alone. Suffice it to say, these charges are disengenous at best, given that they cherry pick parts of larger bills. Simple example- Sen. Scott Stuart votes against a bill saying 1) fund the military and 2) round up and kill all the dogs in America. He votes nea, but then votes yea on a later bill to fund the military but leave the dogs alone. Miller declares I voted against funding the military and declares rhetorical victory.
Miller says "Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about someone than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric." I agree. Miller keynoted for Clinton in 1992 and said Kerry "strengthed our military" just 3 years ago. So, zig-zag Zell strikes again.
"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. He would let Paris decide when America needs defending." My first thought was, "the United Nations has moved to Paris? I bet New York is pissed! No, whew, okay- close one." Then I thought, if Kerry really thought that he could not have voted for the Iraq resolution, right? This is all based upon what a disgruntled, recently back from Vietnam, 26-year-old Kerry told the Harvard Crimson in 1970. (Unsurprisingly, he has since disavowed this statement- which is good, because it is of course ridiculous. At his convention, Kerry said "I will never give any nation or international instituation a veto over our national security.") In 1970, Zell Miller worked on the staff of Lester Maddox, who CNN described upon his death as "the defiant ax handle-wielding segregationist" (he had attempted to bar blacks from entering his restaurant in1964, the day after the Civil Rights Act was signed with a pistol and ax handles). Charming. Zell's 1970 is a glass house.
The rest of the speech is just vitriol about how the election of John Kerry would endanger the free world, how he would give the terrorists a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush, and how "weak and wobbly" he is. Bush, in contrast, is the whole bestest, with a "spine of tempered steel" (maybe he met Arnold as the Terminator?) and "the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning" (of course, in our fateful year of 1970, George W. Bush was most likely drunk on a Saturday night). But that's beside the point. (Pretty cheap too, so maybe I should take that out. But my co-worker laughed out loud- so in it stays.)
Zell Miller was tonight who he has always been, a man with his finger in the wind waiting for the wind to blow him in a direction. He is a bitter man who spewed his rage all over that convention floor for all to see. If you missed it there, he yelled at Chris Matthews on MSNBC in an agressive, intimidating manner. His challenging Chris to a "duel" only added to the growing theater of the absurd. Let me close with a quote:
"Americans have seen plants shut down, jobs shipped overseas, and our hopes fade away as our economic position collapses right before our very eyes. And George Bush does not get it!"
John Kerry? John Edwards? Sounds like something one might say today, right?
Nope, it's Zell Miller, 1992, speaking to the Democratic National Convention. How times have changed.
posted by Scott L. Stuart at
3:08 PM
2 Comments:
Time Poll: If the election was held today:
Bush: 52%
Kery: 41%
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
By
Michael Moore-on, at 4:00 PM
I like Zinzi better- assuming she means me, and not Michael Moore-on. He apparently did not read my earlier post about the value of polls this early. I am not surprised, though- Bush gave the speech of his political life, and I thought was incredibly effective.
By
Scott L. Stuart, at 1:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home