Zell Miller

[Fritz]

I heard that Zell is going to speak at the GOP convention.  Anyone know about this?

I'm also wondering- Democratic members of Congress are automatically delegates to the Democratic Convention.  Will Zell be exercising his delegate vote at the convention?

[Josh/Devilman88]

Zell is the man!!!! Go Zell... Zell for 2008!!!!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What would the Zell of 1992 make of the Zell of 2004?

[MarkDel]

What would the Zell of 1992 make of the Zell of 2004?

The Zell of 1992? You mean the one who was moderate on social issues, slightly right of center on economic issues, and a Hawk on foreign policy? That Zell Miller? I think he's still sitting in the U.S. Senate and has not changed ONE IOTA

It is the Democratic Party of 2004 that is entirely different than the Democratic Party in 1992. And any minor changes in Zell came with that big wakeup call known as 9/11.

[MHS2002]

I read somewhere that Zell spoke at the GA GOP Convention, calling Kerry an "Ultraliberal from Taxachusetts."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-15-miller-kerry_x.htm

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"I've not changed. It's the Party that's changed. Not me. Oh, no, no, no..."

-Just about every politician who's ratted on his party-

Remember the SDP...

[MarkDel]

Al,

But please tell me one issue where Zell Miller's positions have changed relative to policy?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al,

But please tell me one issue where Zell Miller's positions have changed relative to policy?

Look up his voting record in the Senate.

[MarkDel]

Al,

But please tell me one issue where Zell Miller's positions have changed relative to policy?

Look up his voting record in the Senate.

That's OK Al, I'm sure that if the difference in his policy views were that extensive, then you could cite me at least one example of an issue in which he moved dramatically to the right. I mean, you can cite me one example and save me all that research, right?

[12th Doctor]

What would the Zell of 1992 make of the Zell of 2004?

What is this about "the Zell of before"?  Have you acctually read his book?  He still supports Clinton and Carter.  He is still the same person he was before.  His party left him, just like it has left millions of other people.

I know for a fact that if my 87 year old Great-grand mother who is a life-long Democrat, acctually bother to pick-up a newspaper, she would be voting for Bush this year.  But she thinks that the Democrats are still they were 50-60 years ago.  If only she knew.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plenty of people change their minds, plenty of people get more right wing as they get older. I've no problem with this.
I just wish that when it happens to politicians they don't trot out the old "the party has changed" line.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plenty of people change their minds, plenty of people get more right wing as they get older. I've no problem with this.
I just wish that when it happens to politicians they don't trot out the old "the party has changed" line.

Or the possible and also most likely explanation is that the nature of the legislation being presented has changed.  The only issue Zell has changed on is abortion and he admits as much in his book.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senate votes is not a good measure of where someone acctually stands on issues, not because people are liars, but because if you don't vote for that bill, then you get no bill.  Lieberman, for instance, recieved a 20 from the ACU in 2002.  Now is Lieberman really that liberal?  No, not at all, but you are only given two choices when voting, yes or no.  

[JohnFKennedy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senate votes is not a good measure of where someone acctually stands on issues, not because people are liars, but because if you don't vote for that bill, then you get no bill.  Lieberman, for instance, recieved a 20 from the ACU in 2002.  Now is Lieberman really that liberal?  No, not at all, but you are only given two choices when voting, yes or no.  

Are you not allowed to abstain in the Senate?

[Fritz]

I appreciate all of this debate about Zell Miller, but I actually did have some questions in my first post.  

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senate votes is not a good measure of where someone acctually stands on issues, not because people are liars, but because if you don't vote for that bill, then you get no bill.  Lieberman, for instance, recieved a 20 from the ACU in 2002.  Now is Lieberman really that liberal?  No, not at all, but you are only given two choices when voting, yes or no.  

Are you not allowed to abstain in the Senate?

Yes, but it is just another way of voting no.

[WalterMitty]

i remember the reelection campaign for governor in 1994.  miller ran against a right winger, guy millner.   i remember zell being quite a bit to the left of millner.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's tough to compare a governor's record to a senate one, but Zell got a 75 from the ACU last year. And remember that the ACU opposed the Medicare bill and double-weighted it, so that means he got an 85 for voting with the Republicans. Conversely, John Breaux got a 35, which is a 45 if you count his vote for the Medicare.

None of this "my party left me" nonsense, Zell Miller is now voting EXACTLY like a Republican and very different from a moderate Democrat like Breaux.

Would the Democratic party of 1992 support repealing the 17th Amendment, speak out in support of Roy Moore, and want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marraiges (the single stupidest thing any conservative has ever proposed)? Give me a break.

[Kodratos]

Would the Democratic party of 1992 support repealing the 17th Amendment, speak out in support of Roy Moore, and want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marraiges (the single stupidest thing any conservative has ever proposed)? Give me a break.

Southern Democrats of 1992 would. While Breaux is socially a Republican, he is an economic Democrat. Miller moved from being the same thing to being conservative on both ends. While his policy on social issues hasn't changed, Zell Miller's economic outlook has.

BTW, the senate voted to raise the fines on people who use obscenities on television. The only senator who voted against it was John Breaux. I heard that on Jimmy Kimmel Live the other night. I thought that was very odd.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Would the Democratic party of 1992 support repealing the 17th Amendment, speak out in support of Roy Moore, and want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marraiges (the single stupidest thing any conservative has ever proposed)? Give me a break.

Southern Democrats of 1992 would. While Breaux is socially a Republican, he is an economic Democrat. Miller moved from being the same thing to being conservative on both ends. While his policy on social issues hasn't changed, Zell Miller's economic outlook has.

BTW, the senate voted to raise the fines on people who use obscenities on television. The only senator who voted against it was John Breaux. I heard that on Jimmy Kimmel Live the other night. I thought that was very odd.

good for Breaux! I like him a lot more now. I wonder if he would've had he not been retiring though.

as for Miller, the point is that the party didn't abandon him like he's claiming, because the fact is the mainstream of the Democratic party (not southern DINOs like him) would never take the nutty views he is now. I mean let's look at what I listed:

repeal the 17th amendment - this basically is to the right of every other Senator. the only others I can see supporting this are ones that will likely have to fight to win reelection but have a solid state legislature in their favor.

support Roy Moore - this puts him to the right of John Ashcroft, who said he would take action against and prosecute Moore if it became neccesary. As it is Moore was prosecuted by Alabama AG Bill Pryor, who is basically a full fledged right wing idealogue. The Democrats filibustered Bush's nomination of him to a federal court, but Bush bypassed this with a recess appointment. Miller is running to both the right of Ashcroft and Moore here.

Gay Marriage Amendment - This is to the right of Tom DeLay, Bob Barr, many more ultra-right wing Senators and Reps, and even old Roy Moore himself!

The fact is, Zell's current positions were never in the Democratic mainstream.

and supersoulty, the Democrats were much more leftwing 50-60 years ago. FDR was a socialist, you even admitted it yourself.

[opebo]

Would the Democratic party of 1992 support repealing the 17th Amendment, speak out in support of Roy Moore, and want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marraiges (the single stupidest thing any conservative has ever proposed)? Give me a break.

Southern Democrats of 1992 would. While Breaux is socially a Republican, he is an economic Democrat. Miller moved from being the same thing to being conservative on both ends. While his policy on social issues hasn't changed, Zell Miller's economic outlook has.

BTW, the senate voted to raise the fines on people who use obscenities on television. The only senator who voted against it was John Breaux. I heard that on Jimmy Kimmel Live the other night. I thought that was very odd.

Good for Breaux!  I'd like to know why he voted that way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

by the way, if you want any specific votes, here's one. It was on a plan to extend child care funds to welfare receipients and other low income families:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00064

Even a majority of Senate Republicans voted for this. Zell Miller was the only "Democrat" to vote against it.

Zell Miller hasn't changed one iota? Don't make me laugh.

[TeePee4Prez]

Zell Miller is a Southern DINO.  Needs to join the Republicans because his views fit them.  

[Keystone Phil]

Since it seems like Zell hasn't a single supporter in the Democratic party, I wonder what the Dems would do if there was a Zell Miller (D) vs. Rick Santorum (R) Presidential election.