Wow, that was quick.

Poll: Zell Miller is

(a) the reincarnation of Andrew Jackson come to rain fire and brimstone on Democrats disrespecting his legacy;

(b) a hate-spewing traitor to the Democratic Party;

(c) a Republican; or

(d) a man who feels betrayed by the party to which he dedicated his life, and who (before last night) was in dire need of a cathartic speech.

I vote (d). The speech, demagoguery though it was, rocked. I identify to a certain degree with his position -- I've never voted for a Republican, and don't feel good about starting now. I don't like watching the Republican convention and thinking that I agree more with those speakers than with those at the DNC. But I like John Kerry even less.

Giuliani and the Governator were also great. McCain, Cheney, Laura Bush -- eh. One last thing; this has got to be the photo of the convention:

link

We love you, Giant Cheney Head!

I have to go with C as well. Being from West Virginia, I am familiar with southern Democrats who, when you start talking to them about any issue, turn out to actually be Republicans. I seriously think it goes back to the Civil War. Last night on CNN, when Zell Miller was asked, after his speech, "Why are you a Democrat?" his answer was [read in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn]: "I was born a Democrat, and I'll die a Democrat! I'll tell my daddy and momma that I was a Democrat all my life!" (I may be paraphrasing slightly, but not exaggerating.)

As for photos, I think I can do you one better:

Link

I think Zell is an opportunist looking out for Zell's financial future. What platform would he ever get as a Republican to bash Democrats? He's a valuable speaker to Republicans precisely because he retains the Democrat name (DINO?) and bashes Democrats at Repbulican events.

And has anyone ever seen anything more despicable than those purple-heart-decorated bandaids? You just can't get a better example of the Republican idealogue's complete inability to see the world from anyone else's point of view or to appreciate the human aspect of politics. It sickened me.

Miller's Senate staff should resign in disgust at their boss's disingenuous performance last night.

Right-wing, gay, pro-war blogger, Andrew Sullivan, summed it up well: His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric."

His speech did not reflect Democratic values. If anyone is interested in sharing with Senator Miller and his staff, I'm happy to supply contact info below.

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Rep. Alexander's staff had the right idea when their boss switched from D to R right before the filing deadline (thus assuring he would face no significant Democratic challenger) in a cowardly attempt to stay elected. Damn turncoats.

Jeff, no question about it, Miller was a different person then. But, so was Kerry. As I understand Miller's story, 9/11 was the turning point. The speech was unfair, no question about it; hence demagoguery. I don't think that Kerry really wants to outsource our foreign policy to Paris, for example. But it was also a classic stemwinder of a political speech, which we don't see too often, and which the Democrats sure didn't feature at the DNC. It was emotion over reason, heart over brain. And, by most accounts, effective. Not with you all, of course - you're not the target audience.

Red, LOVE that picture. Giant Bush Head is even bigger than Cheney Head. I would kill to play Halo on that screen.

Closet, I agree the band-aids are juvenile. But a "complete inability to see the world from anyone else's point of view or to appreciate the human aspect of politics"? Um, no. Mockery of the other party's guy, yes. God forbid. We surely can't have any mockery of the other party's candidate.

His speech did not reflect Democratic values.

That's the whole point, tiger. Democratic values are skewed right now.

I thought Mr. Bush delivered a flat speech tonight. The delegates were pretty flat as well. The set design, which was a depature from the monster platforms of the past, looked great but didn't do much to enhance the candidate. Bush appeared tiny and all alone in the long camera shots. It took forever for Mr. and Mrs. V.P. and the Bush clan to get out to where the candidate was on the island stage at the end.

I went outside to shout "Fuggetaboutit" when Bush took the stage but didn't hear anyone else in my neighborhood participate in "The Great American Shout Out". Did anyone else participate?

Your thoughts?

I didn't participate in the shout out but almost pooped my pants when the fireworks when off last night to commemorate something with the Hawthorne bridge. Back to RNC chtter-chat; I liked what Evan Manvel had to say (I too enjoyed Dodgeball the movie), but take exception to the proposed dichotomy of the parties being separted into "..the white male party and everyone else." The bi-partisan system, and most electoral government processes are under the aegis of the "white male party". Just because the Democratic party espouses progressive and sometimes populist views (it humores me to see all these millionaires talking about workers rights and social justice)doesn't make them a "white man party".

I'm beginning to like the tone and mantra of "white man party." Let's all say it together! Or say it real fast five times!

Brett,

We surely can't have any mockery of the other party's candidate.

There's a difference between an obscure website and a United States senator addressing the Republican National Convention in a keynote speech televised in prime time.

Normally I wouldn't bother pointing this out, but it's a distinction a lot of conservatives seem to have trouble with these days. As Kevin Drum said: There's a big difference between lunatic rhetoric that has the stamp of approval of a party's leadership (or that comes from the party leadership) and similar rhetoric that comes from private citizens or backbench politicians. The difference is that the latter aren't running the country.