Thursday, September 02, 2004
There is something deeply vile about Zell Miller. I don't simply say this as a Democrat who dislikes turncoat Democrats - my anger at onetime defectors like Richard Shelby and Benedict Nighthorse Campbell doesn't really compare to what I feel about Zell Miller.
Due to the fact I don't presently have any TV reception, I didn't watch Miller's speech, but it sounds like it was the most deeply obscene address at an RNC since Pat Buchanan's in 1992. As quoted at Slate, Miller said:
As Will Saletan at Slate points out, all of these charges are false. The bottom line is that Miller isn't happy just to leave his party, but wants to take the lead in demonizing it, in caricaturing it to cater to the basic GOP stereotype of unbound 60s radicalism. The image of self-hating lefties that he promulgates doesn't describe the Democratic Party that gave Bush authority to act in Iraq. Actually, it doesn't describe any Democratic Party of recent memory. As a longtime member of that party, Miller should know better than to prostitute himself so basely.
Worse even is Miller's reductionism: criticism of a failing national security strategy is unpatriotic. This nation has a vital history of debating issues of national security at times of crisis. Miller is verbally destroying the line that separates these debates from treasonous conduct. Electorally speaking, you're either with Bush or you're against America. Shame on him.
I've been spared this RNC due to choice and the absence of cable, but I feel some regret at not seeing it. Back in 1992, I can remember watching Pat Buchanan's address, seeing how angry and extreme it was, and sensing that he was doing real damage to the Republican Party. Perhaps the same is occurring now at what sounds to be a deeply self-righteous event.
Due to the fact I don't presently have any TV reception, I didn't watch Miller's speech, but it sounds like it was the most deeply obscene address at an RNC since Pat Buchanan's in 1992. As quoted at Slate, Miller said:
- While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
In [Democratic leaders'] warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself.
Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.
As Will Saletan at Slate points out, all of these charges are false. The bottom line is that Miller isn't happy just to leave his party, but wants to take the lead in demonizing it, in caricaturing it to cater to the basic GOP stereotype of unbound 60s radicalism. The image of self-hating lefties that he promulgates doesn't describe the Democratic Party that gave Bush authority to act in Iraq. Actually, it doesn't describe any Democratic Party of recent memory. As a longtime member of that party, Miller should know better than to prostitute himself so basely.
Worse even is Miller's reductionism: criticism of a failing national security strategy is unpatriotic. This nation has a vital history of debating issues of national security at times of crisis. Miller is verbally destroying the line that separates these debates from treasonous conduct. Electorally speaking, you're either with Bush or you're against America. Shame on him.
I've been spared this RNC due to choice and the absence of cable, but I feel some regret at not seeing it. Back in 1992, I can remember watching Pat Buchanan's address, seeing how angry and extreme it was, and sensing that he was doing real damage to the Republican Party. Perhaps the same is occurring now at what sounds to be a deeply self-righteous event.
