Zell's speech was the single greatest piece of statesmanship I have seen in years. The path that led him to that moment is so clear and common sensical I can see why he is so angry is fellow Dem's just don't get it: We are at war. Win the war first, then let's discuss health care. I guess statesmanship is scary. I guess truth is hateful. Up is down. Black is white. Wait, there is no black and white, just gray... He may have saved the Democratic party (for better or worse :-) in the long term.

Zell Miller's speech was one of the best (outside of Churchill...who I wish was around to give his take on this whole "thing") I have ever heard or heard of. Some people can't take the truth and they can't take a man acting like a grown up, a solid citizen, a realist....a true patriot. You can't yell at kids in school...but they can tell any authority figure off...no consequences. It seems to be the same way all the way up the food chain. The Democrats are whining adolescents through and through. That's why they're stuck in the Vietnam era...that's when they were young and dammit, they're sticking with it.
I would vote for Zell Miller for President in a heartbeat. If Bush had been as tough at the start of this war, it would probably be a done deal by now....

Outline: "the evolving class struggle"

The restaurant system.
Poor people are fat and unhealthy.
The illusion of compassionate conservatism.
Do a stat breakdown of incomes and jobs—shifts from blue collar to service, job security, health care, real wages, savings. Emphasize issues of stratification.
Nutrition – food becoming less nutritious
Diabetes
Heart disease
Car commuting
Physical inactivity
Public schools

Bush report card:
Economic
Domestic
Education
Crime
Pollution
Poverty
Health care
Civil liberties

You know, it's fascinating to me that Mitch would actually publish a post that has as its central theme that Zell Miller didn't get full props because of a vast left-wing media conspiracy. And what do his commenters follow up with? "I guess truth is hateful."

No content of any kind. Just an unsupported opinion, followed up by some self-satisfied affirmation.

Curious.

Heh. Oops.

Sorry about that stuff up top. Those're notes I was tapping out for an argument I was having with a friend of mine in e-mail while I was doing other stuff. I hit ctrl-a to copy and forgot those were hidden away at the top of the page.

The Left are saying that Zell's speech is a hate speech. They will not tell us how Zell's speech is wrong, because they know that they will never win the argument if it comes down to JF Kerry's record.

Yes, Joshua - the nerve of me, putting an opinion on - and this is important - *my* blog.

How dare I.

Hey, look-- irony! How clever. Here, let me try...

*ahem*

"Yes, Mitch - that's exactly what I was getting at, that you shouldn't express any of your opinions on *your* blog."

How was that? Pretty ironic, wasn't it?

/irony

My point, Mitch, was that I don't really see why you'd bother publishing an unsupported opinion about a malicious liberal media conspiracy (which you also refer to elsewhere as a "monopoly"-- a turn of phrase I found curious for a lot of reasons) within the media on your blog. Or, more specifically, it's not really clear to me why anyone would bother reading it. I mean, I know why *I'm* reading it. I like to see what various right-wing bloggers in my approximate link circle are up to from time to time. See what issues they think are important and how they're coming at them. What I'm less clear on is why anyone *else* would read it. I mean, this post doesn't really contain any new information. It doesn't discuss any old information in a new way. It's kind of like if you posted an entry that said, "I think Nazis are really bad." And then a bunch of people commented to say, "Yes, I too think Nazis are bad. Bad Nazis. Bad, bad!"

And that's cute and everything, but I don't really see the utility or the attraction of it.

And, just so we're clear, you'll notice I'm not, at the moment, arguing with you about content. I'm just genuinely curious what your goal is: why did you feel like this was something you wanted to publish? Why do your commenters feel the need to publish their agreement?

I mean, like you said-- it's *your* blog. So if this is just a big mutual stroke-fest and that's what you want to do on your blog, you can obviously do that. I was just wondering if you had another rationale.

I think Joshua's just pinin' for a reacharound. I would be, too, if I was a Dem right about now.

I'm not sure, Joshua - was that "irony", or was it "Sarcasm?"

I'm not sure why people read my blog, Joshua. Sometimes I do serious reporting, sometimes I do heavy-duty analysis, sometimes I bitch about things, and sometimes I crow about my kids. I'm a regular schmuck, and I never claimed to be anything but. So I don't know why people read - but 1,400 of them a day do; up from 20 a day two years ago, and maybe 400 last year. And I'm thankful for each one.

Beyond that - what's to support? I *think* the media had the adjectives for the convention picked out months ago; it's pretty much a meme among lefty pundits big and small that Republicans are choked with hatred; count the ratio of stories to those which mention anger, white and male.

Stroke-fest? Now *there's* irony.

Where to begin? Senator Miller is an "old school" Democrat that believes once hostilities start, you rally around the flag and the President because he is the CIC. He believes, as I do, that when you weaken the President at home with regards to the war effort, you necessarily strengthen the resolve of our enemies and place doubts about our resolve in the minds of our allies.

What he saw from his Demcratic colleagues at the national level were politics of bad faith on their part. He saw them move the goal posts on WMD, lie about Iraqi efforts to secure uranium in Africa, attack GWB's TANG service, and compare U.S. soldiers to Saddam's butchers when speaking about the Abu Gharib prisons abuses. None of these controversies were raised because of policy. All these things were raised by the Democrats in order to lower GWB's approval ratings for this year's election. Nothing more.

For Senator Miller, it was just too much. The yelps from the Left shows just how much they don't get it.

Zell is lucky he's retiring from public life soon after that fiery speech. Check out what I wrote on the variety in the Republican Party Friday on my blog: http://truthprobe.blogspot.com

Tom P.