Zell Miller (D) Georgia endorses Bush in 04

[bfp]

SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA, the nation's most prominent conservative Democrat, said today he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to. Miller said Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern the country.

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."

Miller, who is retiring from the Senate next year, has often expressed his admiration for Bush. He was a co-sponsor of the president's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. The two got to know each other in the 1990s when both were governors.

The senator's endorsement is important for several reasons. With Miller on board, Bush will have a head start on forming a Democrats for Bush group in 2004. Such a group would woo crossover votes from conservative or otherwise disgruntled Democrats next year. In 2000, an effort by the Bush campaign to form a Democrats for Bush organization fizzled.

Since he came to the Senate in 2000, Miller has become increasingly critical of Senate Democrats and the national Democratic party. He recently published a new book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," in which he criticizes the party for being too liberal, too elitist, and subservient to liberal interest groups. In the book, Miller singles out Democratic presidential frontrunner Howard Dean, whom he knew as governor of Vermont, for being shallow

[Adam D]

Just goes to show democrats and republicans are all the same.

Originally posted by bfp
SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA, the nation's most prominent conservative Democrat, said today he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to. Miller said Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern the country.

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."

Miller, who is retiring from the Senate next year, has often expressed his admiration for Bush. He was a co-sponsor of the president's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. The two got to know each other in the 1990s when both were governors.

The senator's endorsement is important for several reasons. With Miller on board, Bush will have a head start on forming a Democrats for Bush group in 2004. Such a group would woo crossover votes from conservative or otherwise disgruntled Democrats next year. In 2000, an effort by the Bush campaign to form a Democrats for Bush organization fizzled.

Since he came to the Senate in 2000, Miller has become increasingly critical of Senate Democrats and the national Democratic party. He recently published a new book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," in which he criticizes the party for being too liberal, too elitist, and subservient to liberal interest groups. In the book, Miller singles out Democratic presidential frontrunner Howard Dean, whom he knew as governor of Vermont, for being shallow

bush better hurry, dean alraedy has a very large republicans for dean team, complete with there own website......


http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/


hey a republicans against bush site......nice

http://world.std.com/~3Diff/rab.html

Originally posted by superkool
bush better hurry, dean alraedy has a very large republicans for dean team, complete with there own website......


http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/


hey a republicans against bush site......nice

http://world.std.com/~3Diff/rab.html

bwaahaaa

Republicans for Dean. That guy is so far left that your Republicans for Dean could hardly have been Republicans.

That's kinda like Democrats for William F. Buckley isn't it?

[Adam D]

Sort of. That's what I mean about the lack of meaning behind republican and democrat.

Dean's campaign is full of a lot of jingo and stances to further his political capital, rather than what he actually stands for (such as his support for homosexuality). He's increasingly been abandoning whatever progressive platform he had to carry a more moderate New Democrat party line, which means he doesn't really stand for much at all. He's stopped talking about pretty much everything progressive (everything at all, really) but for some reason his progressive supporters don't see this. Much of what constitutes his "victories" and "platform" from Vermont were actions he took credit for that the legislature passed (such as the homosexuality issue or the balanced budget issue (the only real platform he's been running on) where he wanted to cut aid to children and the elderly. Some fucking progressive.

He denounced liberals and called himself a moderate, but his campaign website calls him the progressive candidate. He claims to be progressive but then calls himself the new Paul Wellstone (fuck you for that one, Dean).

It's a bunch of shit. But it ought to sound familiar. It's the same campaign strategy used by one William Jefferson Clinton.

Originally posted by Adam D
Sort of. That's what I mean about the lack of meaning behind republican and democrat.

Dean's campaign is full of a lot of jingo and stances to further his political capital, rather than what he actually stands for (such as his support for homosexuality). He's increasingly been abandoning whatever progressive platform he had to carry a more moderate New Democrat party line, which means he doesn't really stand for much at all. He's stopped talking about pretty much everything progressive (everything at all, really) but for some reason his progressive supporters don't see this. Much of what constitutes his "victories" and "platform" from Vermont were actions he took credit for that the legislature passed (such as the homosexuality issue or the balanced budget issue (the only real platform he's been running on) where he wanted to cut aid to children and the elderly. Some fucking progressive.

He denounced liberals and called himself a moderate, but his campaign website calls him the progressive candidate. He claims to be progressive but then calls himself the new Paul Wellstone (fuck you for that one, Dean).

It's a bunch of shit. But it ought to sound familiar. It's the same campaign strategy used by one William Jefferson Clinton.

I agree in great part with your assessment of Dean. The record he points to in Vermont does not impress me.

I came to Dallas via Minneapolis where I spent over 10 years.

While Dean balanced the budget of Vermont (with the population less than that of the Twin Cities) Jesse Ventura was sending out refunds.

As a general proposition, running a state with a population under 610,000 does little to spark confidence that he can be run a country. http://www.50states.com/vermont.htm

I thought Dean said he came from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party or was that Wellstone - regardless - they are/were sign posts of the left.

The principal is true of nomination in either party: run to the extremes to get the nomination and back to the middle to get elected.

as for Party lines and distinctions - they do exist - but there may be a growing group who refuse to define their political thought through the Party line.

I have my pet issues - often they conflict - which sucks - but on whole certain positions frighten me more than others..... primarily federal spending - - and to support you party line blurring point - Bush is spending in a way that I'd have never thought a Democrat could. (Now there are arguments that explain his spending as 1 - revitalizing the armed services that Clinton starved and 2 - when pushing a war agenda the party in power usually gives in to the minority party's domestic agenda - tit for tat...... but it doesn't eliminate the fact that he's spending like a sailor)

[Adam D]

Originally posted by xiannaix
I agree in great part with your assessment of Dean. The record he points to in Vermont does not impress me.

I came to Dallas via Minneapolis where I spent over 10 years.

While Dean balanced the budget of Vermont (with the population less than that of the Twin Cities) Jesse Ventura was sending out refunds.

As a general proposition, running a state with a population under 610,000 does little to spark confidence that he can be run a country. http://www.50states.com/vermont.htm

I agree.

I thought Dean said he came from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party or was that Wellstone - regardless - they are/were sign posts of the left.

He's ripping off the words of Senator Wellstone, less than two years after his death. Was Wellstone proudly progressive? Yes. Dean uses whatever rhetoric available to him to put support behind himself. He's a demogauge, pure and simple.

The principal is true of nomination in either party: run to the extremes to get the nomination and back to the middle to get elected.

Hell, Dean ran from the "extremes" in a matter of weeks into his campaign.

as for Party lines and distinctions - they do exist - but there may be a growing group who refuse to define their political thought through the Party line.

Not really. When you have conservative Democrats and New Democrats (think Republican-lite) filling the key positions in the DLC and top political offices, it's hard to suggest that there is much difference between the two parties. When you look at voting records, there is very little seperation on the issues. Most of the bickering we see is just partison bickering for the sake of party name.

I have my pet issues - often they conflict - which sucks - but on whole certain positions frighten me more than others..... primarily federal spending - - and to support you party line blurring point - Bush is spending in a way that I'd have never thought a Democrat could. (Now there are arguments that explain his spending as 1 - revitalizing the armed services that Clinton starved and 2 - when pushing a war agenda the party in power usually gives in to the minority party's domestic agenda - tit for tat...... but it doesn't eliminate the fact that he's spending like a sailor)

Much the same way Clinton reduced the size of the federal government, passed Republican-approved welfare reform, passed NAFTA, etc.

Much the same way Clinton reduced the size of the federal government, passed Republican-approved welfare reform, passed NAFTA, etc. [/B][/QUOTE]


Ironies do not cease

kinda miss him being Prez (and believe it or not, I'm a bit to the right) he was always up to something I could smirk and laugh about or yell at him about

Bush is a bit more intense - but the world is a different place

Originally posted by WarLord
The world is always different, it is the nature of time.

But, George II is just plain mean.

Intense times or not, he'd be wrapped up as tight as your sphincter when faced with a bull elephant looking for some strange.

That's just the thing with Bush - people who do not like Bush don't just dislike him.

The language used to oppose Bush isn't just the language of politics - people say he's "mean" or "evil"

Clinton was disliked by Republicans and conservatives but he wasn't called mean or evil - perhaps a liar and philanderer - but he proved the validity of both those comments in one act. They are much more objective terms than the subjective terms mean and evil.

[bfp]

the reason people think he is mean, in my analysis of the media, is because they taunt him with far-left leaning, ignorant, common-sense questions, time and time and time again. same stupid questions over and over. and he get's tired of it after a while of course. how are you supposed to come off after being asked baseless questions multiple times? other than arrogant?

[Adam D]

I agree. His inability to answer common sense questions (and thank you for connecting "far-left" and common sense together) proves his arrogance is completely baseless.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
I agree. His inability to answer common sense questions (and thank you for connecting "far-left" and common sense together) proves his arrogance is completely baseless.

nice try.. the leftist media during press conferences asks unbelievable questions, sometimes making sly statements before the question comes into play, even if they(the statements) are false. bush has no problem answering them as i have been covering press conferences that bush attends.

about the common sense issue, the media asks, as if they do not know, when the whole country knows about whats going on w/ any given issue. they constantly try to spin the objective.

[Adam D]

so they can't ask "sly" questions, and they can't ask "common sense" questions...what are they supposed to ask?

[bfp]

so they can't ask "sly" questions, and they can't ask "common sense" questions...what are they supposed to ask?

of course, my point was that they ask the same question's over and over. causing him to become a little arrogant.

for example: a reporter said something as such: "mr president, being that there are millions around the globe protesting the war, claiming its driven by greed and un-controlled anger, dont you think that war would spur more violence in the end?".

you see? that statement is more of a mis-leading propaganda piece, than a formal question, for millions to hear.

comments such as these, which happen all the time, would drive anyone insane.

[Adam D]

all questions asked to all politicians are asked like that.