I tried to tell you . . . (Departing editorial from Zell) :: RunningForums.com

Interesting column from the retiring Zell Miller in today's Atlanta fish wrap.

Quote:

I tried to tell you . . .

Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.

This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.

Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.

A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South.

When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.

The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.

To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity.

When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.

— Zell Miller is Georgia's Democratic U.S. senator.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/opinion/1104/04edmiller.html

Interesting article. I heard Senator Miller talking about this letter yesterday on Sean Hannity's show.

Last edited by Cappy on 11/05/04 - 09:06; edited 1 time in total

Zell Miller is a Democrat in name only.
So of course he would praise Bush.
The South won't vote Democrat because of the Civil Rights Act. Miller and people like him don't believe in equal rights for gays. And they have a host of other issues that I would hate to see taken up by the Democratic party.
Maybe Zell should challenge someone else to a duel.

Wicked Flea wrote:

Maybe Zell should challenge someone else to a duel.

I challenged him. Spitballs at ten paces (now that Kerry won't be outfitting our troops with them there's got to be a surplus, I figure). He hasn't returned my calls. 'Cause he's scared of my deadly paper-loogie accuracy, that's why!! Razz

Seriously though, our nation remains very divided on fundamental issues. Should I compromise my equally strongly held values and kow-tow to Zell's vision of the way things should be? 48% of the electorate certainly doesn't think so.

You guys still don't get it, do you? You can piss and moan in your beer that we are all dumb hicks down here in the South. But this is the fact of the matter:

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.

sonnylax wrote:

You guys still don't get it, do you? You can piss and moan in your beer that we are all dumb hicks down here in the South. But this is the fact of the matter:

[b]Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates. [/b]

Evidence...

RexRacer wrote:

I think the extremes are divided.. and they always will be. Perhaps some the personalities here at rf.com represent some of those extremes on both ends. Reality is though that the country is NOT divided. A close election shows the moderates of both parties are likely pretty near. And I think we see Bush extending an olive branch right now, asking to work together. Kerry said the same thing in that it's time to heal the country. I don't expect the internet bloggers among us to douse their flames, but the moderates of this country can swing more easy than you or I and just my observations, but I think it's going to happen. I think Bush is going to be the President to gap the divide and rally more moderate issues. The extremes of gay marriage bans or socializing healthcare can be put on the shelf for awhile and the real meat of tax reform, social security and deficit cutting are where bi-partisan work will get done. The invitation has been sent, Democrats can either help with progress or try to gridlock. Seems like the choice should be pretty clear.

Quote:

Big fat

jrjo wrote:

The extremes of gay marriage bans or socializing healthcare can be put on the shelf for awhile and the real meat of tax reform, social security and deficit cutting are where bi-partisan work will get done. The invitation has been sent, Democrats can either help with progress or try to gridlock. Seems like the choice should be pretty clear.

Well said jrjo, I couldn't agree more

jrjo wrote:

I think Bush is going to be the President to gap the divide and rally more moderate issues. The extremes of gay marriage bans or socializing healthcare can be put on the shelf for awhile and the real meat of tax reform, social security and deficit cutting are where bi-partisan work will get done. The invitation has been sent, Democrats can either help with progress or try to gridlock. Seems like the choice should be pretty clear.

I hope you are right, that he is sincere in offering this olive branch and putting the divisive issues on the shelf, but I have my doubts. Bush doesn't have to win the nation again in 4 years, so now is the time to push a lot of his very conservative or controversial agendas through when he has a Republican congress. I feel like a lot of this talk right now is only talk, otherwise, why wouldn't it have been used on the campaign to win more democrats and moderates?

cherylpf wrote:

He did use it on the campaign trail, you just weren't listening cheryl. Evidently, he did a pretty good job as he gained what 7 or 8 mil more overall votes then in 2000. He got higher voting percentages from blacks, hispanics, & women then in 2000. (All of which typically vote for the Dems in greater numbers.) He is the first elected POTUS since his father in '92 to earn >50% of the popular vote.

cherylpf wrote:

I agree. The Republican Party used the issue of gay marriage during the campaign to rally the conservative voters, and it worked. Why should we believe that now, when he has no worries about keeping the moderates happy for re-election that he won’t pull even further to the right?

camelia bedelia wrote:

CB you don't really believe this election was won by W based on his opposition to gay marriage do you?

cherylpf wrote:

I feel like a lot of this talk right now is only talk, otherwise, why wouldn't it have been used on the campaign to win more democrats and moderates?

I think we're all guilty of hearing only what we want to hear or blocking out what the opposition says. Bush talked alot about cutting the deficit. He certainly laid out his social security agenda. And he also wants big time tax reform. I've had a few PM conversations with riff-raffers about articles where Bush talked about tossing the tax code (btw, that just makes me giddy to hear such a sweet phrase as tossing the tax code).

Again just my 2-cents, but I think the lessons learned from a good many politicians is to not burn your political momentum on a single or handful of extreme issues right outta the gate. No, I think we'll see some real decent legislation and a lot of what America needs fiscally. Not to sound Dan Ratherish, but if you wanna ride the train, you gotta jump on and these issues are gonna leave the station soon. I really hope dems come to the table with pencils sharpened instead of swords drawn.

robp wrote:

CB you don't really believe this election was won by W based on his opposition to gay marriage do you?

I think having anti-gay marriage issues on the ballots in numerous states was used to get conservatives to the polls, absolutely.

I tried to tell you . . . (Departing editorial from Zell)

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK