The Zellinator on Kerry
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.
He was once a lieutenant governor — but he didn’t stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.
In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.
Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.
John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its “Digital Dozen.”
John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.
John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.
He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.
As many of you know, I have great affection — some might say an obsession — for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know … Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry.
Zell Miller, introducing John Kerry, at the Democratic Party of Georgia’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, March 1, 2001
Categories: Uncategorized dw
What did the Democrats do to make Zell Miller so mad?
I think he told you last night, Luke. You guys could do a lot better attacking Miller’s credibility than digging up a dinner speech. Wasn’t Zell a grand poo-bah of the KKK way back when? Or have I confused him with Democratic Senator Robert Byrd?
Kerry’s digital credentials are suspect too. A story in the Washington Post notes that he seemd to be 5 years behind the curve in understanding the impact of new media. The really ironic part of the story is that while he wants to be all over Bush for miscalculating in Iraq, he doesn’t seem to be above epic miscalculation himself in how he runs his campaign.
Brad, Byrd repudiated the Klan. Have you?
“The day after you stopped beating your wife.” Geez. (rolls eyes, wonders if Mr. Anonymous has any Republican friends.)
OK, here is an opportunity to make an instructional point re Kerry and the Swifties. I’m sure if you asked people who had a sense of the power that Byrd wields in the Senate, they would overwhelmingly tell you that repudiated or not, his KKK activities should disqualify him from holding such a powerful position. It ought to keep him from being in the Senate! He ought to know better or the process should somehow make sure he tops out a little lower. We’re talking about the frigging KKK, not the Boy Scouts!!
The core issue there for the Swifties is Kerry’s Congressional testimony and anti-war activities. They feel that he slandered them and their service and that of most other Vietnam soldiers. They have been willing and able to forgive to a point. Kerry could be a Senator, even run for President in the primaries.. no problem. But there is a threshold that they don’t believe he should be able to cross. And they’ve drawn the line here.
I’m not going to tell you it’s right or wrong — hell, Democrats who know better and haven’t repudiated Robert Byrd could never sympathize with the emotions here — but it’s why the venom against Kerry is so visceral and could very well tank his campaign.
What the hell, Brad?
Zell Miller, a Democrat, makes a speech that Andrew Sullivan can’t stomach, and you feel called on to defend him by saying there’s a Kerry supporter who is a greater sinner? You think that it’s understandable that Swifties for Truth should lie, because Kerry was part of a group that tried to preserve the honor of the country, and incidentally of the US Armed Forces? You’re telling us we should forget the incompetence of the most lazy and/or dishonest head of state since the decadence of European monarchy because Kerry is behind the digital curve? What the hell have you people done with your party? You’ve let it fall into the hands of creeps that would make 1890’s robber barons blush and Joe McCarthy clap his hands, and you feel called on to defend them. I used to vote for Republicans.
Grand Old Party, indeed.
Johne, let’s grant that your characterization of the Bush administration. I think it is total bullshit and bad politics for your side, but let’s grant it anyway. Further, let’s grant that the Swifties lied 100% about their characterizations of Kerry’s actions in theatre. They didn’t make his Congressional testimony up, nor did they misquote him saying he spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia — statements that would implicate many of them in pretty serious war crimes. I think I’d hold a grudge if someone I worked with falsely accused me of war crimes in front of the nation, and used his appearances to launch a political career.
You know what the worst political blunder Kerry made vis a vis the Swifties? It was wrapping himself up in his 4 months in Viet Nam when he knew that his old nemeses were going to attack his accounts. He knew of their plans in May. If he hadn’t saluted and reported for duty a month ago, there would be no contrast in this conflict, and thus, nothing to feed the controversy. Kerry is touting his plan to have eclairs and cafe au lait with Jacques Chirac and call up the Iranians and offer them fuel for their reactors if they promise not to build bombs. No mention of dealing with Sharon, who would unilaterally derail such a plan and cause inordinate chaos in the region in doing so because he felt he had to undo or preempt an American mistake. Look at the bonehead way Kerry is conducting his campaign. He may be the 2nd smartest man in the world, just behind Bill Clinton. He may be the most honorable man ever to wear a uniform, just ahead of John McCain. He may pack more nuance in his little finger than has ever been bred in the state of Texas. But he is blowing his campaign. How can we then expect him to lead the free world?
I think we need to give Brad some slack here, because, on his main point, that Kerry is blowing the campaign, he’s right. Kerry is falling into the Gore-zone, of letting the Other Side set the tone and subject matter of the debate.
Why isn’t Kerry simply (and only) running on the fact that in Bush’s 3.5 years in office, *nothing good has happened*? Bush has pretty much *no record,* and what record he does have (lost jobs, massive deficits, etc.) are nothing to be proud of. Kerry should simply hammer at Bush on his total inefficacy as a leader… Instead, Kerry has let himself get pulled into this Vietnam-era quagmire… Actually, Kerry asked for it by refusing to let what happened 35 years remain in the past, dredging up veterans at every chance he got.
This could very well be another election that the Republicans will not win, but that the Democrat might just lose.
I think it’s silly to say that Kerry asked for it. The swiftvets were going to pound him regardless of what he did. I really hate this blaming the victim stuff.
And it seems like Kerry let the Republicans go as far as he could in dragging him through the mud and started fighting back last night, with two months to go. We’ve seen how low Zell Miller, Rudy Giuliani, and others can sink, now Kerry can fight back with impunity (hopefully). He’s still tied after what was certain to be the worst month of the campaign for him. Between the swiftvets, the RNC, and the fact that they had decided not to spend any money in August, he was all but guaranteed to slip some. Now he has to fight back.
Last night, he said what I’ve been waiting for him to say all along, which is this: “The election comes down to this. If you believe this country is heading in the right direction, you should support George Bush. But if you believe America needs to move in a new direction, join with us.” I think that’s how he has to frame it to win.
Kerry’s slipping in the polls and is currently about 4 points behind the President. If he proposes to move us in a different direction, one of these days it would be nice if was to provide a clue as to what direction that might be.
So far he seems to be proposing to take us back to Vietnam, and that’s not really too exciting to most Americans.
Did you ever see Bill Clinton lose his cool and “fight back”? Just once that I can remember, and it was on video tape. Kerry’s performance last night plays right into Karl Rove’s hand. There is a little scuttlebut going around that Kerry looked and sounded like he’d warmed up with a couple cocktails too. Nothing wrong with that if you can get away with it. And he wasn’t 3 sheets to the wind by any means. But he might lay off the white Zin and keep a couple Red Bulls in the cooler.
Aside from his politics, the connection problem with Kerry that I see is that he doesn’t joke. Or his speechwriters don’t joke. Or whatever. I can’t help but be reminded of my visit two years ago to Nantucket. I spent a week with a friend and his family — his parents have a really nice place on the island. He and his wife have quadruplets. They were 3 years old at the time. They had this special stroller that lined them up four, one in back of the other, so they could be pushed along the fairly narrow sidewalks. Anyway, it was a weekday late evening, and I was walking with my friend’s sister, pushing the kids down to the ferry landing, and we walked past one of the bars that the locals hang out at. As we pass, the whole place is gawking at us because we’re pushing 4 kids, all who look about the same age. And as we get about 50 feet past, some lady yells “try birth control” and then several more “yeah, haven’t you heard of birth control?”. This is apparently funny in Nantucket. Actually, I found it pretty funny just how incredibly stupid their conclusion was that led to that crack.
Your average American who doesn’t have an ideological axe to grind can probably identify more with someone from Hope, AK or Midland, TX than with someone from Nantucket Island. Camelot is kinda over now that our (I’m in SoCal) governator has raided the Kennedy family and taken it’s prettiest woman. Edwards is a nice touch, but Kerry’s introduction last night of “his Daddy worked two jobs so that they could afford padded toilet paper” and “he was the first in his family to go to college and become a lawyer” (thus increasing the Edwards family’s demand for toilet paper)… I dunno, but it sounds like pandering. Did anyone notice that the RNC had several very oblique references to frivolous lawsuit reform? It wasn’t quite on the radar screen, no details, but I bet if you goo-gled the transcripts, you’d find a consistent, short phrase about it. Dollars to Dunkin Donuts that this is telescoping a punch towards Edwards. “OB/GYNs for Truth” or something… Stay tuned.
Attempting to steer the boat back into the river…
The outrage is that Zell Miller was singing Kerry’s praises back in 2001 — after Bush had been elected — and then on Wednesday he’s doing his Evil Emperor from Star Wars impression at Madison Square Garden (check the wire service photos and dKos.)
It’s just, well, back handed and nasty.
If you’re going to fault anyone, fault the Georgia party for not jettisoning Zell earlier. To answer Luke’s original comment, I think Miller was angry at LBJ over the Voting Rights Act.
Bellatrys on Miller and his Sith Master.
Oh, and Brad, sorry about the snark earlier, I didn’t add my info, but that was my snipe and my error. But Robert Byrd’s not running for president. I think he’s the better man for renouncing them, unlike his counterparts who try and fail to hid their current segregationist sympathies, you know, Trent Lott.
Brad, let’s pretend that Bush didn’t lie, or wasn’t lazy enough to accept a bunch of other peoples’ lies, about Iraq, or tax cuts, or Kerry’s medals, or a bunch of other stuff, and suppose that the most dishonest candidate in this race maliciously tried to represent his Cambodia excursions as happening over Christmas, instead of a couple of months later (I’ll assume you misspoke in implying that war crimes didn’t happen in Viet Nam). And forget what is or is not good politics for my side.
My point is that your side is embracing a scorched-earth policy of innuendo, misdirection, exaggeration, threat and menace that is sending us as a people down the path that Latin America trod long ago. We already have the income gap, we now have the rubber-stamp legislators, and we’re getting the corrupted judiciary. The president speaks darkly of political groups that abuse freedom of speech, the speaker of the house makes baseless charges to let everyone know what can happen to serious opposition figures, an ex-candidate of the president’s own party is forced to make light of Kerry’s medals in a way that opens his own up to question — Brad, you have to live here, too!
If this sort of thing takes hold, do you think the Democrats are going to remain unaffected by it? And it will take hold, if we let it. Latin America has been struggling for a generation now, to supplant it. Maybe they’ll be successful, at about the time we reproduce it here.
Oh geez johne… Republicans survived 8 years of Clinton, 9/11 and Clinton’s ineffectiveness with Somalia, lobbing missiles into Afghanistan and aspirin factories not-withstanding. Democrats will survive 8 years of Bush. It’s hysterical when some of you guys spin it that way because you sound just like the disaffected right wing in 1996. I’m just saying… let’s agree to disagree. If you want to be disagreeable though, “our side” plays this game a lot better right now. Michael Moore is peanut league ;-). But I sense that instead of taking your lumps, you and Kerry and the rest want to “fight”. Whatever, it’s entertaining to watch the other side blow up.
Brad,
So why, exactly are you a conservative? What reasons would you give for supporting GWB? It has to be something other than the fact that Kerry’s campaign, in your view, has made mistakes and t
Wow, first I’m asked to renounce my Klan ties, then asked exactly why I am a “conservative”. Bush has a lot of problems on policy so far as I’m concerned. I don’t like the religious overtones, but I don’t see them as dangerous. I wholeheartedly approve of his foreign policy. Think of him impersonating Dr. Dean… First we’re going to Afghanistan, then we’re going to Iraq, then Libya, then Syria and North Korea and … yeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhh!! Vast oceans no longer separate us from the rifraf of the world like the once did. And make no bones about it, if you would fly an airplane into one of our buildings and kill yourself and 3,000 others, you’re rifraf. So are the people and governments that would be remotely connected to your goals. Maybe not France, but they are borderline ;-). Right now, foreign policy is probably a step ahead of laisez-faire economics in importance of issues for me. If Kerry were Harry Browne and running as the wine sipping cheese licker he is in regards to terrorism, he wouldn’t get my vote.
Most of my circle of close friends are partisan Democrats. They spout talking points as well as Paul Begala. Not a day goes by that I don’t hear about how Bush is mentally retarded and Cheney isn’t a shill for Hal-ee-bur-ten. It’s laughable. It reckons back to when now-Republican-hero Ron Silver was at Clinton’s first inauguration and pointed to the planes as his fellow Hollywood libs hissed and bood and said, “wait, those are our planes now”. Go team. I experience this emotion as a die-hard college football fan. My team (Dad’s alma matre) was national co-champ last year. Anyway, I confine those feelings to sports and steer clear of them in my politics. But I find it sooooo entertaining when the “we’re above sports” crowd acts that way in the political sphere.
I don’t expect to convince any of my friends to change their politics, just like I don’t expect to change any of your politics. But I hope to encourage you to make the debate a little more thoughtful and interesting, and less “accident on the freeway rubbernecker” entertaining. Know what I mean?
Republican invocations, of Clinton’s Somalia pullout, the “Cole,” or the African embassy bombings have always puzzled me. The reader is supposed to contrast this with – what? The way Bush handled the pre-9/11 PDB, or his abandonment of Afghanistan to another cycle of warlordism, or a proliferating Al Qaeda franchise leading to a world-wide terrorist toll that steadily increases, in rate as well as numbers? Is the pharmaceutical factory bombing on the grounds of soil geochemistry, or the abortive training camp cruise missile attack supposed to be in contrast to the current administration’s fantasy exercise in detailing Hussein’s poison-gas and WMD programs, or the president’s subsequent decimation of a tottering country whose single laudable trait in recent years seems to have been keeping out Al Qaeda?
Even more puzzling is the allusion to the Republicans’ plight during in the Clinton years. The poor things seem to view the period as a Babylonian exile in which they were the butt of all jokes, victims of a political apartheid subjected to daily humiliation, and most of all the cruel taunts and jibes of Clinton the DLC left-winger, who never missed a chance to rub their collective noses in the fact of their powerlessness. Not to mention a press that ceaselessly lauded the president and denigrated his enemies.
We seem to be addressing slightly different points, Brad. You imply that the current situation is nothing more than the political norm. My fear is that you’re right, or that you soon will be. Krugman says that the current right-wing phenomenon is not the creation of the president, and it won’t disappear when he leaves office. Damn right. Some of us saw it coming with the sort of bootless leftishness that was characteristic of a certain segment of ’60’s American youth, reminiscent of nothing so much as the previous few decades of similar modishness on the part of Latin American young people. The syndrome there would normally play out with the majority rapidly becoming right-wingers with the approach of middle age, and so it has happened here. And now, something new in the modern US, a fair number seem to ardently wish for something like a Latinesque man on horseback, a strong man who will take care of things so that we don’t have to. To the point that even as unlikely a figure as George W. Bush can strut in uniform and receive the adulation of some, to hell with his record.
The Democrats might well blow up. The Republicans did a while ago, and turned into the current mix of theoreticians, cultists, and crazies. (You must be something more Brad — a student of human nature?) The Democrats learn quickly. Part of John Kerry’s campaign is obviously built around the strong man concept.
A long time ago, among the anti-regime graffiti on a wall in Nicaragua, someone had scrawled support of the country’s dictator: “Somoza es Presidente porque es Macho!” – “Somoza is President because he’s a Real Man!” It may have been done by a government stooge, or even casual labor in the employ of some CIA operative, trying to spend down a budget item before the end of the fiscal year. But it did represent the sentiments of a fair number of Nicaraguans. Something like it seems to be in the air in the United States, now. My own prejudices are, that those who formerly lauded Uncle Ho are now ready to accept Big Brother Bush. But life is rarely so neat.
zell miller on kerry
I couldn’t resist posting this, here’s Zell Miller gushing about Kerry. Just in case anyone was wondering if he had…
Toss Zell from the Democratic party
Point by point takedown on Zell Miller’s rabid speech at the RNC – is this guy sane – or was it a carefully crafted attempt to garner sympathy for a bi-polar moment? Also read Jimmy Carter’s letter in response to…
Zig Zag Zel and the GOP convention
However, when someone so clearly goes back and forth in matters like this it is simply appalling. Not to mention in a time when we hear about Kerry’s accused “flip-flopping” I am amazed the Republicans would call on Zel.
Is John Kerry the most
liberal senator?
John F. Kerry is NOT the most
liberal senator.
I repeat:
John Kerry is NOT the most
liberal senator
The most
liberal senator is Mark Dayton, D-Minn.