perfidy

If he's happy being the furry mascot for the GOP, bully for him, but I'm getting tired of his whole "the party left ME!" schtick.

Everyone line up behind the racist Dixiecrat!

Oh, please. Racist Dixiecrat? Isn't that a bit over the top?

Somebody picked up talking points from Ken Payne and Andrew Sullivan. Nice to hear from the Party of Open Minds....

Well, if you want to talk about 1968, then NDR is right on... Zell was a racist Dixiecrat.

In the present, he's just coming across to me as an angry old coot selling half-baked ugliness. Once again, the GOP shows their class. (and don't tell me ZM is a Dem.)

I mean, I'm not really feeling the urge to do a takedown of the dude, but Slate has a taste of his volte-face here:
[url=http://slate.msn.com/id/2106118/]http://slate.msn.com/id/2106118/[/url]

Mmmm... I smell waffles!

I watched for a few minutes, and heard the "John Kerry would let Paris decide blah blah blah," and thought "Huh. Glenn Reynolds looks older on television." Then I finished watching the Tribe drop one to the Yankees.

Racist dixiecrat seems a little strong - is anyone from the soutb wbo disagrees with you racist?

While I was obviously more or less pleased with the content of the speech, to me he came off as what he is, one of the last of the blue dog democrats. Hawkish, patriotic and not northeastern urban metrosexual.

And he is far from the only democrat who has claimed that party left him. A dear friend of mine, a professor at Kenyon college, has been a democrat since the fifties. He feels much as Miller does - his beliefs have not changed, but the nature of the democratic party has. He still can't bring himself to register Republican, even though he hasn't voted for a dem for president in twelve years.

Regarding the slate piece, I just saw him interviewed by Alan Colmes, and he said he was going by the bio Kerry's handlers gave him so he could introduce Kerry for a speech. He said, "I was wrong, I hadn't done my research. Of course, pundits never do that."

I will be interested to see what kind of bounce Bush gets after teh speech tonight. The R convention seems much more politically savvy than the D. They've defined Kerry as a Senator, not a war hero, and I think a lot of it will stick. And here in Virginia, the swiftboat ad that plays the tape of Kerry's 71 congressional testimony (and doesn't say a thing about his medals) is getting played 24/7. I wonder if the Kerry campaign has not made a serious miscalculation. They ran their convention like an incumbant - nice, milquetoast, talk about happy stuff, war records, blah blah blah. The R. convention is more like a challenger - aggressive, sharp, blah blah, blah.

My take on Miller's speech is somewhat impaired - I didn't see it or hear it, I read it.

And I didn't see anything indefensible in what he said. Perhaps more importantly, I didn't see anything in it that had a thing to do with the Dixiecrats (a movement that started and ended before he was 25 years old), or race. He didn't question anyone's patriotism (the current whining point on the left), he explicitly questioned the judgment of the leadership of his party. That's fair game, if you ask me.

Result? Aside from the fact that I must have missed some fire and brimstone by not "experiencing" the speech, all attacks on the man that have even a hint of "racist" or "Dixiecrat" are pure ad hominem, and beneath response or consideration.

If you want to attack the man's speech, in other words, attack the speech, not his (admitted) moment of political weakness back in 1968. And if you want to attack his moment of weakness in 1968, leave the speech out of it.

Or so I'm thinking...

Patton, your objection is well taken. "Dixiecrat" is a bit of (bit of??) a smear, but then again I'm not above a good smear. I do just wish that everyone from John Kerry to W and Zell Miller would leave 1968 out of it and fight a fight on the current issues. But then, I suppose that's asking too much from career politicians.

Buckethead, I think you have hit on a central insight into the campaign. The Republican party is on top for the first time in a long while and they have not yet gotten quite used to the feeling. While on one hand they are using their clout to successfully advance a relatively incoherent agenda of fiscal profligacy and moral stickintheassitude, they are still strategising like an insurgent movement-- like it was still 1994. This serves them well. The Democrats on the other hand, have fallen prey to the third classic blunder. Right behind land wars in Asia and not going in against a Sicilan when death is on the line (ha ha!) is this: don't get soft when you're on top. I continue to be disappointed with the minority party's flailing; a strong Republicanism kept the Democrats lean through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even early 90s. But somewhere in there the party lost its way, and forgot how to take the fight to their opponents.

Kerry might get smacked around come November. I would regret that outcome (cuz it maybe could be a little obvious I don't have much love for the current clownshow), but if nothing else a beating might force a rethinking of what's really important within the Democratic party. This country runs best when, like Charles Atlas, the two big parties exist in a state of dynamic tension. Dare I hope that the party finds some fiscally moderate/socially liberal ground to stand on? Dare I hope the blue dogs have their day?!?

FYI, I haven't seen ONE swiftboat ad here in Massachusetts. For that matter, I've barely seen one political ad of any kind. Sometimes it's good to live where I do.

As Michael Totten put it, "I''m a swing voter, so I know both parties are trying to pitch to me right now. And I am not going to let myself get huckstered by either one of them. The Democrats pretended to be Republicans at their convention and swaggered more than generals at a Latin American military junta's parade. And now the Republicans are pretending to be big-government bleeding hearts. Gimme a break, people. If you want my vote, don't insult my intelligence. Seriously."

Seriously.

J:

Seriously, indeed.

As to the relative strengths of the parties, I long for the days when the Democrats presented credible opposition. That day will come again soon, but it's not here now. And the Republicans, however sloppily, appear to be the ones expressing ideas. In between campaigning, that is.

Apropos Kerry getting smacked around in November, and its result: I know of a guy, a staunch-but-reasonable conservative, who thinks the only thing that will save the Republicans in the future is a loss this year. Of course, it would be followed by the requisite navel gazing and a rethink of what they stand for. And, for the first time, I think I've properly thought his reasoning through: If the Dems win this year, with the lame-ass understanding they appear to have about what's important, the Repubs could reshape themselves in time to regain a mandate in 2008. I disagree with his conclusion, but I understand it. For me, it's cause and effect - the Republicans, nay, Bush himself, will stop doing silly shit when he's forced to do so by credible alternatives.

I, being simple minded on even a good day, just wish the two of the parties could be a little less lame and a lot more coherent. I'd also like them to differ by some measurable degree, and this 10% isn't cutting it for me. But the 10% difference will likely be enough to get my vote, since I have no alternatives.

Oh, and we here in Texas have been mercifully spared any of the more inane television spectacle, too. I hear that in Florida you can see nasty ads at a rate of 20/hour. Poor bastards. At least the latest hurricane might slow down the advertising binge.