We Thought We'd Heard Them All
John Bolton, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Richard Lugar...Zell Miller.
As of now, these are some of the people that have been endorsed as possible ambassadors to the UN. Three of the above are considered diplomatic in nature, four are registered Republicans, five have been accused of serving as lackeys for the Bush administration, and one is a certified lunatic. (For the individual's endorsement please visit Modern America)
The language is harsh, and this blog doesn't pretend to diagnose medical conditions. However, Zell Miller's performance at the Republican National Convention, where he went on a rant that gave him a stronger resemblence to a Star Wars senator than a U.S senator suggests some kind of condition that certainly disqualifies him from the post of United Nations ambassador. I understand the idea of "reform", but sending a man that the other delegates would certainly perceive as insane does not show diplomacy, it shows disrespect.
However, Brandon Brewster, the head of a staunchly Democratic, and bitterly partisan (no offense Brandon) blog, writes that if he were president, he would probably appoint Zell Miller because he's a sensible and down-to-earth individual. We thought we'd heard them all. However, this does not mean we don't look forward to Brandon's defense, and explanation, that may perhaps allow us to see the sane bit of Miller's brain that we don't usually.
A common misperception among Democrats and Republicans a like is that Miller is moderate. Many believe that many of his core beliefs are aligned with the Democratic Party but that he happens to be a maverick in an increasingly partisan senate. This is not the case. Miller went through a political transformation while he was in the senate, becoming increasingly conservative and eventually becoming only a nominal Democrat. Since 2001 he caucaused with the GOP and voted the Republican Party line. In his last year of service in the senate, he received a 96% rating from the American Conservative Union.
posted by Jack @ 6:25 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Like Zell Miller, I am a Conservative Democrat, I prefer the label "Traditional Democrat" as you know Jack. However, I do not agree with the overblown and yes "insane" rhetoric that Zell Miler used at the Republican National Convention, and my theoretical appointment of Zell Miller as the ambassador of the United States to the United Nations is in no way an endorsement of his views pertaining to John Kerry, the War in Iraq, or the rhetoric he used during the RNC.
I came to the conclusion that he is a down-to-earth man and a sensible person by reading both of his books. He details his love of the Appalachians, his love of the Democratic Party (oddly enough), and his love of the American people in those two books, and I most certainly respect his ideas on a morally aware, yet ethically guided society. If I appointed Zell Miller as ambassador to the United Nations it would be through the understanding that I've gained about his character by reading his speeches and published works. But I do not agree with his betrayal of the Democratic Party. I agree that our party has been polarized to the point where Traditional Democrats are the minority, and I do agree that their must be reform within the Democratic Party, but I do not feel that turning our back on the Democratic Party is the answer.
What Zell Miller did at the RNC was wrong, and I am in no way endorsing or supporting his actions. I am simply stating that I have more respect for Zell Miller through his devotion to God, State and Nation, but I have little respect for him through his support for his Party.
Appointing Zell Miller to be the UN ambassador would court back our blue-collar constituency that largely agreed with his flawed speech at the RNC (open the party up for inclusion), and it would serve a good purpose to have a down-to-Earth individual represent our nation on a international level. Miller would always have his mind on the best interest of the people in my opinion (which reaffirms the Democratic Party's credo as the 'People's Party'), and that's the important thing.
Brandon, the Zell Miller you described above is the governor who started a program that makes college virtually free for B students in Georgia, and the man who spoke at the 1992 Democratic convention.
However, he is no longer associated with the Democrats in any way. Despite his rhetoric about "holding true to traditional Democratic values", if you actually go through his voting record, he spent his last years in the senate as a GOP hack. Go to the American Conservative Union web site and see how many times you agree with his votes. If I understand your positions from your blog, I doubt you will find a lot in common. I find it very hard to believe that his "change" came from his personal ideology rather than a switch of loyalty.
He was a conservative Democrat once. He has become a right wing ideologue. His values have changed, and I am neither supporting or denouncing them.
I'm aware of his voting record. Did you know he actually voted for those tax-cuts that Bush pursued for the rich? In his book(s) he attempts to describe and justify the many flip-flops on this voting record.
He stated that those Bush tax-cuts went to the "working-people." Now any good Democrat would understand that those tax cuts went to the wealthy, but Miller is staunch in his defense that they actually help the middle/working-poor.
He has changed dramatically over time. From his voting record in the United States Senate, to his speech at the RNC, he has apparently lost touch with traditional Democratic values from a broad perspective. However, his books do paint a different man, and based on that man portrayed in those book, he is a sensible and down to Earth person.
I have a couple interesting questions about Zell Miller.
Is he too smart to believe the Republican rhetoric in your opinion Jack? Or is it he is too stupid to realize that he is voting against the fundamental foundation of the Democratic Party?
Both questions pose a real observation of his character. If he is too smart to believe the Republican rhetoric than he understands that voting for these tax-cuts will mainly go to the wealthy, not for the working people, which would indicate a real political and ideological shift on his part.
If he is too stupid to see past the rhetoric does that reaffirm these "insane," "crazy," and "lunatic" labels I've been hearing about him?
Which is it in your opinion?
There are several explanations for Zell Miller's ideological shift.
1. He was snubbed by the Democratic Party in some way. Maybe he wasn't allowed to pursue legislation or have a committee assignment, or maybe something more personal. Maybe Tom Daschle made a joke to Dick Durbin about Georgian Mountain People that got around.
2. He had a specific goal he wanted to achieve and the majority GOP welcomed him if he made some "major concessions". That's a little far fetched.
3. The guy changed his mind. He was tired of voting with tree hugging, welfare giving, peace loving, french appeasing liberals. And he decided never to vote with them again.
4. He went slightly senile and became very hateful. This scenario would have to include one of the above three. Perhaps earlier in his career he would have been more flexible, but something ticked him off and because he was going slightly crazy, it hit him hard.
Sometimes people forget how old some of these senators are. That's an incredibly politically incorrect thing to say, I know, but it's true. Jim Bunning...I can't go into his things.
Post a Comment
<< Home