[deedar]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That makes as much sense and is as tolerant as some Republicans who don't consider the Log Cabin Republicans to be Republicans, or who don't consider other Republican dissidents like McCain to be Republicans.

They insultingly call those people RINOs -- Republican in Name Only. I guess you would call Miller a DINO -- Democrat in Name Only. Either way, it is an intolerant attitude and politically dumb. Neither party can command a majority by alienating people with different views. You have to reach out and build coalitions.

Don't think so. Miller acts like a Republican, talks like one and probably walks like one. He has a home - the Republiucan party. Log Cabin Republicans, on the other hand, apparently hold "Republican values and views", they just happen to be gay. Because of their views, they aren't Democrats, but apparently aren't real welcome in the Republican party. Hence, the parallel you try to draw draw doesn't exist.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deedar:
Don't think so. Miller acts like a Republican, talks like one and probably walks like one. He has a home - the Republiucan party. Log Cabin Republicans, on the other hand, apparently hold "Republican values and views", they just happen to be gay. Because of their views, they aren't Democrats, but apparently aren't real welcome in the Republican party. Hence, the parallel you try to draw draw doesn't exist.

The parallel is actually very close. Log Cabins, by and large, have significant libertarian leanings that puts them at odds with social conservatives on more issues than just gay rights. Social conservatives, on the other hand, tend to define what it is to be a conservative on precisely those issues. To a social conservative, a Log Cabin Republican, or for that matter, any libertarian Republican isn't a real Republican no matter what other issues they have in common. That is why so many are uncomfortable with McCain and Giuliani. They call them RINOs too.

The Democrats have their own set of issues that they use to force out Democrats who are dissidents. It's not just a matter of voting, it is a matter of litmus test issues. For example, being pro-choice, pro-business, or unabashedly in favor of a muscular national defense are serious handicaps. Look at Joe Lieberman, for example. Democrats used to be able to hold those issues and still be in the party the same way it used not to be a handicap as a Republican to be pro-choice Those litmus test issues are what force people out of the party. That is great for party purity, but not a good idea for building a majority. As much as ideological zealots hate it, you have to have a big tent to be a majority. The polar extremes won't take either party over the top, especially not if you force people out over litmus test issues when they are trying to support you. All you do then is create enemies out of friends. Log Cabin declined to endorse Bush, and Miller is campaigning against Kerry. That's not a good thing for either candidate.

[vmarks]

http://aei.org/news/newsID.21087,fil...ews_detail.asp

David Frum on Giuliani.

quote:

Nobody has ever doubted Rudy Giuliani's ability and willingness to stand up for what he believes in. Now he must prove that he can understand and work with fellow Republicans who believe differently about one of the party's sharpest lines of division--without scolding, recrimination, or unnecessary division. That will take a gentle touch.


Approaching the issue from the other side, then-Governor Bush handled the topic note-perfectly at Philadelphia in the summer of 2000: "Good people can disagree on this issue, but surely we can agree on ways to value life by promoting adoption, parental notification."


How could a candidate Giuliani emulate George W. Bush's deftness from the opposite side? Maybe with a three point message similar to this:

"Members of our party hold many different views on abortion. Yet whether we call ourselves pro-life or pro-choice, we all know that abortion is a sadness, and we can all be glad that abortion is becoming steadily more rare in the United States.

"For 30 years, members of our party have worked for greater respect for innocent life in this country: for the unborn, for the disabled, for victims of crime, for the elderly, for victims of terror. And that work goes on. Today our challenge is to use the achievements of science and medicine to serve humanity--and never allowing science to treat some human beings as mere tools for the use of others.

"The Republican party came into being to protest a Supreme Court decision that denied the rights and citizenship of African-Americans: the Dred Scott decision. In the 21st century as in the 19th, it is essential that we appoint judges who honor the limits of their office and the original intentions of the Framers of the Constitution."

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The polar extremes won't take either party over the top, especially not if you force people out over litmus test issues when they are trying to support you. All you do then is create enemies out of friends. Log Cabin declined to endorse Bush, and Miller is campaigning against Kerry. That's not a good thing for either candidate.

I guess this is where I'm lost, how is Miller trying to support the Democratic Party? Notice the contrast between he and your other example.

Voting record for Senator Zell Miller (D-GA):
Year, Voting Participation, Party Support, Presidential Support
2003 77% 9% 97%
2002 92% 40% 92%
2001 95% 42% 82%

Voting record for Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT):
Year, Voting Participation, Party Support, Presidential Support
2003 46% 95% 32%
2002 98% 85% 77%
2001 98% 93% 69%

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
[B]I guess this is where I'm lost, how is Miller trying to support the Democratic Party? Notice the contrast between he and your other example.

Because you have a top-down party loyalty model of how a political party is organized. That's the same model the religious right uses with dissident Republicans. The party (meaning activists) tells you what the party believes, and then it is love it or leave it.

So in that view, Log Cabin has no place in the Republican Party, because the religious right has decided they are outside the tent and that being out of the tent, their proper place is with the Democratic Party. You want to do the same thing to conservative Democrats. You want to be the one to tell Miller that he isn't a Democrat unless he votes against his conscience. But what if he just has a different idea of what the Democratic Party should stand for from you?

Your top-down model is not traditionally how parties have been structured in this country. People are free to call themselves by whatever party label they want, and to try to influence the direction of their party. Moreover, we don't have the same degree of party unity as, for example, exists in the UK. Individual Senators and Congressmen are supposed to vote their individual consciences. Each one is responsible to their electorates, and only to their electorates. The whip system is much weaker, and, as a consequence, we have a much stronger tradition of bipartisanship.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The parallel is actually very close. Log Cabins, by and large, have significant libertarian leanings that puts them at odds with social conservatives on more issues than just gay rights. Social conservatives, on the other hand, tend to define what it is to be a conservative on precisely those issues. To a social conservative, a Log Cabin Republican, or for that matter, any libertarian Republican isn't a real Republican no matter what other issues they have in common. That is why so many are uncomfortable with McCain and Giuliani. They call them RINOs too.

I identify more with the Log Cabin Republicans than with the Christian Coalition Republicans. Except that whole thing about me not being gay.

Honestly, the parties have to be big tents or a party in the middle should accept those kicked out of the tent, IMHO.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So in that view, Log Cabin has no place in the Republican Party, because the religious right has decided they are outside the tent and that being out of the tent, their proper place is with the Democratic Party. You want to do the same thing to conservative Democrats. You want to be the one to tell Miller that he isn't a Democrat unless he votes against his conscience. But what if he just has a different idea of what the Democratic Party should stand for from you?

Actually I don't have the same view of conservative Democrats, just Zell Miller. What's his view of what the Democratic Party should stand for? It seems like his view is that the Democratic Party should be the Republican Party. I have no problem with someone self-associating as a Democrat even if they disagree with a lot of the Democratic platform, but he doesn't seem to agree with ANY of the Democratic platform... what reason does he have to be a Democrat? Heredity? Please.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I identify more with the Log Cabin Republicans than with the Christian Coalition Republicans. Except that whole thing about me not being gay.

Honestly, the parties have to be big tents or a party in the middle should accept those kicked out of the tent, IMHO.

I'm the same way, I'd join the LCRs if I were gay. Hmmm, maybe I can join them anyway, my "spouses" are gay (bi). Is that close enough?

[Zimphire]

Stein you are still young though.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually I don't have the same view of conservative Democrats, just Zell Miller. What's his view of what the Democratic Party should stand for? It seems like his view is that the Democratic Party should be the Republican Party. I have no problem with someone self-associating as a Democrat even if they disagree with a lot of the Democratic platform, but he doesn't seem to agree with ANY of the Democratic platform... what reason does he have to be a Democrat? Heredity? Please.

It just sounds like to me that you aren't very familar with southern democrats. In south, it's actually difficult to tell the difference (locally I mean), as both support gun rights, favor a strong military, are pro-life, pro-family, and pro working class (farmers, construction, etc). NRA actually endorsed just as many DEMs as they did REPs in our last major local elections here in TN.

The liberal left of the democratic party actually only represents a small percentage of actual democrats.

I for one would vote democrat more often, if the party weren't being held hostage by the extreme left.

[itai195]

Originally posted by greenamp:
It just sounds like to me that you aren't very familar with southern democrats. In south, it's actually difficult to tell the difference (locally I mean), as both support gun rights, favor a strong military, are pro-life, pro-family, and pro working class (farmers, construction, etc). NRA actually endorsed just as many DEMs as they did REPs in our last major local elections here in TN.

And out here, most Republicans are pro-life, pro gun control, etc. The difference is that they actually support their own party and endorse Republican candidates. How does Miller speaking at the RNC demonstrate support for his party?

BTW, if you want an example of the Republicans' 'big tent,' check out how they treat former CA gov. Pete Wilson. His name is mud, even though he won four statewide elections and he's no more moderate than McCain, without the bad 2000 Republican primary aftertaste.

[daimoni]

.

[boots]

Originally posted by greenamp:
It just sounds like to me that you aren't very familar with southern democrats. In south, it's actually difficult to tell the difference (locally I mean), as both support gun rights, favor a strong military, are pro-life, pro-family, and pro working class (farmers, construction, etc). NRA actually endorsed just as many DEMs as they did REPs in our last major local elections here in TN.

The liberal left of the democratic party actually only represents a small percentage of actual democrats.

I for one would vote democrat more often, if the party weren't being held hostage by the extreme left.

Funny, I say the same thing about the republicans. And it bothers me a lot about the democrats. Party lines suck unless one party gives you money to run.

simey: First, I understand you arguments, and in general I agree about the "In Name Only" thing. But Miller (and some of the other Southern Dems) really is different. He really does line up more under the republican platform than the democratic platform. He'll even tell you that. He's just of a generation of politicians that stays with the party they were born in. For him, that's Democrat. As the Republicans' agenda has shifted to encompass where Miller stands on most issues, he has stayed consistent in his record when considering his stance on issues. But it seems that he has defected when taken only in terms of party-line voting record.. That's really all it comes down to.

Others (like St. Paul's Mayor Kelly) are still predominantly in line with the Democratic platform, but have broken ranks for this particular leadership issue. If we called him an all out defector, it would be more in line with what you describe in your analogy to the Log Cabin Republicans.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I'm the same way, I'd join the LCRs if I were gay. Hmmm, maybe I can join them anyway, my "spouses" are gay (bi). Is that close enough?

Spouses plural?

I don't know if LCR is bi folks as well, don't know much about the membership requirements.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by boots:
Funny, I say the same thing about the republicans. And it bothers me a lot about the democrats. Party lines suck unless one party gives you money to run.

simey: First, I understand you arguments, and in general I agree about the "In Name Only" thing. But Miller (and some of the other Southern Dems) really is different. He really does line up more under the republican platform than the democratic platform. He'll even tell you that. He's just of a generation of politicians that stays with the party they were born in. For him, that's Democrat. As the Republicans' agenda has shifted to encompass where Miller stands on most issues, he has stayed consistent in his record when considering his stance on issues. But it seems that he has defected when taken only in terms of party-line voting record.. That's really all it comes down to.

Others (like St. Paul's Mayor Kelly) are still predominantly in line with the Democratic platform, but have broken ranks for this particular leadership issue. If we called him an all out defector, it would be more in line with what you describe in your analogy to the Log Cabin Republicans.

The thing about whether someone lines up with the platform or not is that very top-down model that I find inconsistent with how U.S. political parties operate. U.S. political parties are bottom-up loose coalitions, not top-down rigid ones. The national platform has very little to do with what individual members believe. Both parties platforms are more extreme and inflexible than a great many, probably most, of the parties' supporters. That's a good thing, imho.

Miller has every right to stake out his position as a self-described Democrat. It doesn't matter one whit how many other self-described Democrats join him in those positions. But if they do, that is the mechanisms through which both parties have evolved. In the Republican Party, for example, Goldwater and later Reagan came in Republicans from outside the mainstream of the Republican platform at that time. They staked out their position, and persuaded from within their party. Hopefully libertarian-leaning Republicans can do the same thing today. At least I hope they don't stop trying, and don't let intolerant zealots force them out. Likewise, conservative Democrats shouldn't give up their fight for their party either.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Miller has every right to stake out his position as a self-described Democrat. It doesn't matter one whit how many other self-described Democrats join him in those positions. But if they do, that is the mechanisms through which both parties have evolved. In the Republican Party, for example, Goldwater and later Reagan came in Republicans from outside the mainstream of the Republican platform at that time. They staked out their position, and persuaded from within their party. Hopefully libertarian-leaning Republicans can do the same thing today. At least I hope they don't stop trying, and don't let intolerant zealots force them out. Likewise, conservative Democrats shouldn't give up their fight for their party either.

Emphasis added

One might note that he also no longer meets with the Democratic senate caucus.

[boots]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The thing about whether someone lines up with the platform or not is that very top-down model that I find inconsistent with how U.S. political parties operate. U.S. political parties are bottom-up loose coalitions, not top-down rigid ones. The national platform has very little to do with what individual members believe. Both parties platforms are more extreme and inflexible than a great many, probably most, of the parties' supporters. That's a good thing, imho.

Again, I agree with the general argument. My point was that while Miller has remained pretty consistent when his record is examined by issue, is has "shifted" when compared to the "party-line." You know me well enough to realize I despise any kind of "party-line" attitude, so I don't make my comments out of disgust for Miller. I'm simply saying that if a young Zel Miller were just now getting into politics, he'd be a republican. But because of the particular social structure in which he was raised, he's a "loyal" democrat who will try to keep his party where he thinks it should be. I guess that's where the two of us are cross-talking.

Miller has every right to stake out his position as a self-described Democrat. It doesn't matter one whit how many other self-described Democrats join him in those positions. But if they do, that is the mechanisms through which both parties have evolved. In the Republican Party, for example, Goldwater and later Reagan came in Republicans from outside the mainstream of the Republican platform at that time. They staked out their position, and persuaded from within their party. Hopefully libertarian-leaning Republicans can do the same thing today. At least I hope they don't stop trying, and don't let intolerant zealots force them out. Likewise, conservative Democrats shouldn't give up their fight for their party either.

Absolutely. While I disagree with Miller on a lot of things, I don't lose sleep over his affiliation. Welcome aboard and enjoy the show, I say. He's doing what he thinks is best for the party in which he grew up, and I respect him for that. I simply wanted to provide a little more context. The fact that Miller is supporting Bush should not be a surprise to anyone who has ever lived in Georgia. The fact that he supported Clinton should. He's not all-of-a-sudden "jumping party lines" like a lot of the people here are suggesting. He's always been there. If either of his speeches were out of character it's the 2001 Kerry speech that some in this thread are citing.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Please show me where I have said that. I said USUALLY.

You use the word "usually" as a subjective modifier and it makes your argument look childish. I guess that makes it impossible to challenge, right?

Can you prove that public pressure made him change his mind?

[Zimphire]100% silliness.[/Zimphire]

That was him caving into pressure from the DEMOCRATS. BTW that above again isn't the same.

I don't even know what that means. So what if it was pressure from the Democrats? He changed his mind.

When was Homeland Security ever popular?

When was it NOT? When have you ever heard anyone besides the administration resist the formation of a Homeland Security Dept.?

Bush isn't the President of the World. I think he has made the US a safer place.

If you think the US is safer now than before the invasion of Iraq, hey...have a field day. Sleep well.

This tired old argument again. I don't think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 either. And let me repeat this for the 100th time for those who still haven't got it. Or refuse to.

THIS WASN'T JUST A WAR ON 9/11. THIS WAS A WAR ON ALL TERRORISTS AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT THEM.

Got it? Somehow I am betting I'll see he same tired argument coming from you again in here for some reason.

Oh excuse me. I THOUGHT IT WAS A WAR ON THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND WE WERE IN "IMMINENT DANGER" FROM SADDAM AND HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THAT SADDAM WAS IN CAHOOTS WITH AL QUEDA. (You mean THAT "tired old argument"?)

Got it? This is what I meant in another thread when I said that the administration was lying in plain sight. Once the original objective is debunked, they simply REDEFINE what the objective was. And the party faithful hold their collective noses and fall in line.

From now on when a lefty makes comments about how we shouldn't have went after Saddam because he had no part in 9/11 I am just going to point and laugh. [/B]

And no doubt you will wear it well.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Stein you are still young though.

older than you.

[stevesnj]

ABC is also saying that all the planes, missle system, etc..Kerry opposed was also opposed by Cheney!!! Zell was more gas than go it seems

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Spouses plural?

I don't know if LCR is bi folks as well, don't know much about the membership requirements.

Just 2, but they're small.

I'll have to send off for the membership brochure.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
Emphasis added

One might note that he also no longer meets with the Democratic senate caucus.

The Democratic Senate caucus is another one of those top-down party discipline mechanisms that you seem to love. He's still a Democrat representing Georgia, no matter who he chooses to caucus with.

Originally posted by boots:
The fact that Miller is supporting Bush should not be a surprise to anyone who has ever lived in Georgia.

I agree. The problem is that many Democrats seem to have come to identify their party exclusively with the eastern and western coastal urban Democratic Party, and reject any other tradition. Of course, many Repulicans have the same but opposite tendency. It's part of why there is developing a real communications problem in this country. Not only do people not want to associate with people from the other party, but we are splitting up by region even within parties. That's not healthy.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Looked borderline psychotic, I'd say.

Yup.

Sorry, I just had to.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I haven't seen Miller's speech, thanks to a late Labor Law class. I'll listen to it once iTMS posts it, and reserve judgment until then. But I think he clearly has the right to be upset at his party, and I think a lot of the anger that has been directed at him over the last few years comes from the fact that the Democrats still haven't come to terms with the split between its dovish wing, and what used to be called Scoop Jackson Democrats -- a group that has been eclipsed in the organized Democratic Party, but which is still quite prevalent among ordinary Democrats.

And that, by the way, was Sullivan's most glaring idiocy: calling Miller a Dixiecrat, when he is really is just a conservative Democrat. Sullivan has a tendency to reflexively reflect the urban values of both Democrats and liberal urban Republicans. While I like quite a lot of what he has written over the years, he still doesn't quite understand a huge chunk of what makes this country tick. I think it has a lot to do with his admission that he doesn't drive a car. The guy needs to get out of Dupont Circle more often, and that doesn't mean just going to P'Town.

I would suggest watching the speech, then it might be easier for you to understand why people like Sullivan and Gergen (and myself) were offended. Surely the party can do better, as it had the previous two nights.

You might be right about Sullivan's perspective, although I don't see it as too far afield to associate Miller, a Southern Democrat who worked for Lester Maddox, among other things, with the Dixiecrat tradition. And as Gergen remarked, the tone of the speech was reminiscent of that era: fire and brimstone. But I think one can disregard all that and still understand why the speech left a bad taste.

It's hardball politics, red meat, preaching to the choir, etc., so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I was disappointed that this was how the party wanted to be represented in a keynote address. I bought into the predictions that the convention was geared towards putting a moderate face on things; if Miller was any indication, I was mistaken.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So why wasn't it empty rhetoric when he was saying nice things about Kerry, but is emply rhetoric when he later changes his mind?

I'm quite sure that a lot of it was empty rhetoric when he praised Kerry and Clinton and denounced Bush Sr. Taken together, it all serves to make him look ridiculous and insincere. He could've made an impassioned and reasoned speech in support of Bush and critical of the Democrats, but this was just foaming-at-the-mouth stuff. I don't think anyone would mistake Miller for Joe Lieberman or Scoop Jackson.

[BlackGriffen]

cf: Zell Miller (may need to paste that into RealPlayer)
to:
Barack Obama

Considering the keynotes of the different parties, which one would you say is the party of hatred and negativity?


BG

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Considering the keynotes of the different parties, which one would you say is the party of hatred and negativity?


BG

The one that is causing the most hatred and negativity on the streets. You know, the ones making asses out of themselves and getting arrested.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by itai195:
And out here, most Republicans are pro-life, pro gun control, etc. The difference is that they actually support their own party and endorse Republican candidates. How does Miller speaking at the RNC demonstrate support for his party?

BTW, if you want an example of the Republicans' 'big tent,' check out how they treat former CA gov. Pete Wilson. His name is mud, even though he won four statewide elections and he's no more moderate than McCain, without the bad 2000 Republican primary aftertaste.

I have a feeling you're stretching the truth a bit. I have lots of friends in northern cali, and have spent lots of time there. I have to say, I have never once met a republican who supported gun control the way the far left does.

And as for abortion, that just isn't a clearly partisan issue.

[itai195]

Originally posted by greenamp:
I have a feeling you're stretching the truth a bit. I have lots of friends in northern cali, and have spent lots of time there. I have to say, I have never once met a republican who supported gun control the way the far left does.

I was referring to politicians, and it doesn't matter to what extent they support it, you get the picture. The left's stance on gun control isn't homogenous either. But I'll tell you, my parents and brother are Republicans and they support gun control the way the far left does

[greenamp]

Originally posted by itai195:
I was referring to politicians, and it doesn't matter to what extent they support it, you get the picture. The left's stance on gun control isn't homogenous either. But I'll tell you, my parents and brother are Republicans and they support gun control the way the far left does

You republican brother and parents support the total confiscation of all self defense weapons?

How odd.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I would suggest watching the speech, then it might be easier for you to understand why people like Sullivan and Gergen (and myself) were offended.

I will, once iTMS posts it. I'm begining to wonder if they will ever do so. As far as I can tell, they haven't addeed any of the speeches from the last two days.

[vmarks]

If they don't get it today, I will rip the audio from the CSPAN stream and make it available.

I also have Ron Silver and Zainab Al-Suwaij's speeches already. They're very very good.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmarks:
If they don't get it today, I will rip the audio from the CSPAN stream and make it available.

That would be great. I'd also like to hear the Veep's and Bush's. Hopefully, they will post them.

[vmarks]

What am I, a request line?

Yes, I'll get those too.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmarks:
What am I, a request line?

Yes, I'll get those too.

No, I meant iTMS. "Hopefully they will post them."

But if you are offering . . .

[vmarks]

Hear Ye!

I have posted the following:

Ron Silver
Zainab Al-Suwaij (American Islamic Congress)
Zell Miller

in .m4a (aac with audible style bookmarking)

at http://mail.victormarks.com/2004RNC/

Option-click or conrtol-click and save file. Play with iTunes or other AAC compatible player.

Go ahead and enjoy. I'm uploading Cheney and Bush's speeches as soon as I finish ripping them.

[vmarks]

-bump-

Cheney's speech has been posted at the link in the post above.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmarks:
-bump-

Cheney's speech has been posted at the link in the post above.

Thanks for doing this.

[vmarks]

-bump-

Tommy Franks is up.

Next, Pataki and Bush.

I'll go back and get Mel Martinez after Bush.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmarks:
-bump-

Tommy Franks is up.

Next, Pataki and Bush.

Do you want Mel Martinez or should I pass?

I probably won't listen to Martinez. But thanks.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I probably won't listen to Martinez. But thanks.

Pataki was really good, and someone else PM'd me asking for Martinez, so he'll be there too.

Collect them all!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Pataki was really good, and someone else PM'd me asking for Martinez, so he'll be there too.

Collect them all!

yeah, they'll be historically significant. A lot of campaign buttons for losing parties end up on ebay.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yeah, they'll be historically significant. A lot of campaign buttons for losing parties end up on ebay.

Great Speeches of the Twentieth Century

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
A lot of campaign buttons for losing parties end up on ebay.

I wonder what Kerry's will go for.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Great Speeches of the Twentieth Century

I sincerely hope you're not comparing the speeches yesterday to winston churchill or martin luther king?
The art of oration has all but disappeared in political life over the last few decades, reduced to ridiculous non-sequitor soundbites and appeals to the lowest motivations -- bigotry, anger, ridicule, swaggering and outright misrepresentations.

gone are the days when a speech roused in the listeners a call to their best inner selves, a challenge to become heroes on their own. Instead, we have trash talk and implicit permission to hate with intensity, wedge issues having nothing to do with the candidate's jurisdiction are continually slammed to a populace with cultivated attention deficit disorder en masse.

go ahead and keep those speeches....I'm sure in twenty years they'll have no meaning.

[vmarks]

-bump-

George Pataki's speech is now up.

http://mail.victormarks.com/2004RNC/

Bush speaks for one hour and four minutes. So look for it in about that length of time.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
gone are the days when a speech roused in the listeners a call to their best inner selves, a challenge to become heroes on their own. I

I would say Bush's speech did just that. But I don't expect you to understand. Not because you aren't able. But because you don't want to.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I sincerely hope you're not comparing the speeches yesterday to winston churchill or martin luther king?
The art of oration has all but disappeared in political life over the last few decades, reduced to ridiculous non-sequitor soundbites and appeals to the lowest motivations -- bigotry, anger, ridicule, swaggering and outright misrepresentations.

gone are the days when a speech roused in the listeners a call to their best inner selves, a challenge to become heroes on their own. Instead, we have trash talk and implicit permission to hate with intensity, wedge issues having nothing to do with the candidate's jurisdiction are continually slammed to a populace with cultivated attention deficit disorder en masse.

go ahead and keep those speeches....I'm sure in twenty years they'll have no meaning.

If you had heard Zell Miller's speech, he decries the same lack of statesmen that you comment on above.

However, I own that set. I have listened to it, and heard great similarities between the speeches of yesteryear and those of yesterday. I did not hear such clarity from some of the speeches at the Democrat convention, but I did hear the hatred you speak of.

I also have heard some wonderful speeches from the Senate and House floor. These are the places speeches are made, not in interviews to the mainstream media. Conventions and legislatures are the one place politicians don't have to soundbite, and you do hear meaningful speeches.

I highly suggest you listen to Zainab Al-Suwaij's speech and tell me again about soundbites. Instead, listen to the heartfelt sentiment. Listen to Rod Paige addressing issues within his jurisdiction. Listen to Governor Pataki thanking Oregon and Pennsylvania for coming to the aid of New York and rising to the best within them.

Our speech patterns have changed over the last century. It doesn't mean that the call to Americans to pursue their own dreams has been left by the wayside.

[Lerkfish]

I thought this was amusing....



If Zell's speech was so amazing, why are the GOP attempting to distance themselves from him today?

face it, Zell was there because you repugs felt it was a "coup" to get a democrat believing the same hogswallow you guys believe in....

But I could do the same thing with Buchanan, who despises the neocons more than I do.

[Zimphire]

No, he was just speaking his mind about how the liberals have taken over the Democrats.

Much like the rant you made about the neo-cons taking over the Republicans.

I guess it's ok if you do it, but when one of your OWN does it, he is just spewing "hogswallow"

Nice spin there Lerk.

Sorry, I am not buying it.