Best Political Speech given in decades. Wow.

[Gary Gordon]

Now THIS was a fiery speech!

Demorat Zell Miller's speech to the Republican convention was the best damn speech I have seen in years, maybe decades.


Some highlights...


....

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, 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 Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.

....

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

...

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

...


George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

....

[Bush] is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.




Just devastating, and so much of it is true. And the way he delivered the "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators" and "spit balls" lines.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The "Liberators" line drew the loudest reaction of any convention crowd I can ever remember. Rapture.

Hellfire and Brimstone aint dead yet.

[Gary Gordon]

Interesting story here claiming that the mass media has been playing down and "underreporting" Miller's speech.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9456

[clk]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Interesting story here claiming that the mass media has been playing down and "underreporting" Miller's speech.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9456

Perhaps it's because Miller's speech was full of lies, distortions, and dishonest statements? Have you thought about that?

[Ed]

Maybe, maybe not. He does not have the ratings potential of a Hillary or Bill so some underreporting is not odd.

[Ed]

Originally posted by clk
Perhaps it's because Miller's speech was full of lies, distortions, and dishonest statements? Have you thought about that?

You mean it was political? Sheesh, I wish someone had told me.

OK, repeat after me "When they are not sexually abusing sheep or taking payoffs they lie, all of them, all of the time."

[thaiboxerken]

I guess it does sound like a good speech to a certain type of people. I, personally, am not a redneck, so it didn't appeal to me much.

[toddjh]

Like I've said before, this is all preaching to the choir. It only seems like a scathing attack to people who already agree with it. Kerry supporters are unlikely to believe that Bush is the candidate wiht "the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone" to protect their families. Without that, the rest of it falls apart. The scattering of anti-Kerry exaggerations, which all Democrats know by heart and can refute automatically by now, doesn't help.

Rhetorically, the speech is okay. It alludes to too many things in the past, trying to capitalize on popular former presidents and the speeches they made. Not enough original content.

I give it a C+.

Jeremy

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Just devastating, and so much of it is true.And so much of it not.

[Gary Gordon]

Do you acknowledge the power of the speech? How many here have seen the whole thing on video?

Man, that was passion!

If you haven't, you can watch the whole speech on MSNBC video.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you acknowledge the power of the speech? How many here have seen the whole thing on video?

I saw it live. The power of speech is substantial, if that speech has substance. Zell's speech only impressed the Bubba's of the USA.


Man, that was passion!


Or hate.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Now THIS was a fiery speech!

Demorat Zell Miller's speech to the Republican convention was the best damn speech I have seen in years, maybe decades.

I didn't think much of it. It seemed like a typical democrat speech to me. Reps and Dems generally (yet not always) have fairly distinctive styles when giving a speech. So distinctive in fact that I can pretty much determine philosophical (and therefore party - sometimes) affilliation just by listening to the tenor of it and rhetoric within it.

If you really liked it I'd be surprised you're a democrat yourself. Perhaps you should think about changing party affiliations?

[Gary Gordon]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I didn't think much of it. It seemed like a typical democrat speech to me. Reps and Dems generally (yet not always) have fairly distinctive styles when giving a speech. So distinctive in fact that I can pretty much determine philosophical (and therefore party - sometimes) affilliation just by listening to the tenor of it and rhetoric within it.

If you really liked it I'd be surprised you're a democrat yourself. Perhaps you should think about changing party affiliations?

We're not talking about Al Sharpton. :rolleyes: I'm talking about serious, high-profile public servants like Miller. This speech was much more fiery (can I say "fierier"? :D) than most major national speeches I've seen, from either side of the aisle.

[Kopji]

See, the difference is that the Democrats did not go out and try to destroy this guy after his speech. If he was a Republican doing it at the Democratic convention, we'd be hearing about affairs he'd had as a teenager by now, or accusations of wife beating.
I'm trying to think of a single Republican that's jumped ship that has not endured unfair character assassination. Normal people might even wonder how the white knight Bush managed to surround himself with such devious and evil people.

That's why the Republicans will probably win. They take notes from Machiavelli.

And where is Colin Powell?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
I'm talking about serious, high-profile public servants like Miller.Who's a demonstrable liar. In the speech you praise. Is this too much for you to comprehend?

[clk]

Originally posted by Ed
You mean it was political? Sheesh, I wish someone had told me.

OK, repeat after me "When they are not sexually abusing sheep or taking payoffs they lie, all of them, all of the time."

There's a difference between political speech and political hate speech. Miller's speech was Michael Moore-ish in its level of spin and attack. I didn't watch the Democratic Convention, but if Michael Moore had gotten on stage and spewed hate, would you have been surprised if the media had ignored his speech? (Maybe he did speak at the convention, I don't know, but I would be interested in learning whether the media gave him coverage or ignored him).

[Gary Gordon]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Who's a demonstrable liar. In the speech you praise. Is this too much for you to comprehend?

You must be new to political debates. :rolleyes:

Both sides can always point out semantic differences, especially on voting records. That's the nature of the congressional voting system.

Join the adults here and comment on the speech instead of making these basically worthless, kiddy-level cat-calls.

[Regnad Kcin]

Don't like being challenged, eh? I'm not surprised in the least.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
We're not talking about Al Sharpton. :rolleyes: I'm talking about serious, high-profile public servants like Miller. This speech was much more fiery (can I say "fierier"? :D) than most major national speeches I've seen, from either side of the aisle.

You can say (or write) "fierier" if you like. I'm open to more betterestly made-up words wherever their needed.

Still, a "fierier" speech does not a convincing, logical, honest speech make. It turns me off, personally. Repubs are guilty of this as well but, in my experience, not as often. Maybe that's why I generally vote more republican than democrat.

Perhaps its a left/right brain kinda thing.

Edit to add: I don't mind a "fierier" speech, I just prefer it to be honest and logical as well. Zell's was not, IMO.

[Kopji]

[Bush] is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

How can he claim this? Bush has completely disavowed at least two things he "stood" for: One was his administration's official policy on prisoner treatment, the other was on whether or not the war on terror could be won.

We are nationally engaged in making the same error that cultists do: be blind to their leader's faults while glorifying even their marginal and incomplete successes. Combined with a certain amount of ruthlessness it is a very successful strategy.

[Gary Gordon]

Look Rob, I agree. I don't like fiery speeches in general. I prefer normal, thoughtful speeches. But this one was a hell of a lot fun to watch. :D

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
You must be new to political debates. :rolleyes:

Both sides can always point out semantic differences, especially on voting records. That's the nature of the congressional voting system.

Join the adults here and comment on the speech instead of making these basically worthless, kiddy-level cat-calls.

I'd suggest the adults should do just that. Another adult might start the process by rewriting the entire Zell Miller speech without the rhetoric, innuendo and appeals to emotion so that others might better comment upon its real merit.

Perhaps that adult is you?

Edit to add: If you decide to do so, I but you can do it in less than one-hundred words.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Look Rob, I agree. I don't like fiery speeches in general. I prefer normal, thoughtful speeches. But this one was a hell of a lot fun to watch. :D

I found it disturbing. I'm probably supporting Bush in the upcoming election. I don't much like him but I like him tons more than Kerry. Still, I'd feel better about my decision if he had NOT stooped to putting Miller on the stump.

I'm not sure 'stooped' is the right word, btw, but I find myself unable to invent a better one.

Edit: I found it disturbing because Miller was used to damage Kerry for the sake of damage, not for any real reason. That's an "any-means-to-an-end" tactic, and I don't like it.

[zakur]

Zell Miller's Attack on Kerry: A Little Out Of Date
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252

Zell Miller's speech based on Email hoax
http://martinirepublic.com/item/481

[Skeptic]

I guess it does sound like a good speech to a certain type of people. I, personally, am not a redneck, so it didn't appeal to me much.

The "progressive" ideal in a nutshell. "thaiboxer"'s views are not determined by what is (in his view) correct or incorrect, but by believing what the "nice" people believe, and shunning what those inferior "rednecks" believe.

No wonder it's so hard to get the "progressives" to look at the world straight. Their views are not based on what evidence exists for what claims, but on what is fashionable to believe by what people.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Now THIS was a fiery speech!

Demorat Zell Miller's speech to the Republican convention was the best damn speech I have seen in years, maybe decades.


Some highlights...



Just devastating, and so much of it is true. And the way he delivered the "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators" and "spit balls" lines.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The "Liberators" line drew the loudest reaction of any convention crowd I can ever remember. Rapture.

Hellfire and Brimstone aint dead yet.

Sounds like the Bush's don't agree. Give em hell Zell was removed from his convention seat of honor near the Bushies. I guess even for the Republicans its possible to go too far.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Interesting story here claiming that the mass media has been playing down and "underreporting" Miller's speech.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9456

The corporate media doing the right wing another favor. What else is new?

[Dorian Gray]

All I have to say is:
http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm
Introduction of Senator John Kerry

Democratic Party of Georgia's
Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

March 1, 2001

It is good to be back in Georgia and to be with you. I have been coming to these dinners since the 1950s, and have missed very few.

I'm proud to be Georgia's junior senator and I'm honored to serve with Max Cleland, who is as loved and respected as anyone in that body. One of our very highest priorities must be to make sure this man is re-elected in 2002 so he can continue to serve this state and nation.

I continue to be impressed with all that Governor Barnes and Lieutenant Governor Taylor and the Speaker and the General Assembly are getting done over at the Gold Dome. Georgia is fortunate to have this kind of leadership.

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."

John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.

As many of you know, I have great affection – some might say an obsession – for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know … Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon

Just devastating, and so much of it is true. And the way he delivered the "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators" and "spit balls" lines.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Do you realize that President Bush called the Coalition Forces "occupiers" in April 2004? "They’re not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either"

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Look Rob, I agree. I don't like fiery speeches in general. I prefer normal, thoughtful speeches. But this one was a hell of a lot fun to watch. :D

Er, you started off saying that the Miller speech was the best that you had seen in years (even decades), now you are saying that it was a lot of fun to watch.

So please clarify, was it a great speech because of its political content or because of its entertainment value?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Do you realize that President Bush called the Coalition Forces "occupiers" in April 2004? "They’re not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either"

Yeah, well, that kind of thing has been going on for a long while. Republicans are smart enough to know that most people aren't keeping track of that kind of thing, and the corporate media certainly won't do it for them.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Renfield
Yeah, well, that kind of thing has been going on for a long while. Republicans are smart enough to know that most people aren't keeping track of that kind of thing, and the corporate media certainly won't do it for them.


Another good example would be Mr. Cheney and the Mohammed Atta meeting in Prague.

Whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html)
Cheney speaking with Tim Russert on the Dec. 9, 2001 Meet the Press: "it's been pretty well confirmed that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

Then in a June 17, 2004 interview with CNBC's Gloria Borger:

Borger: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

Cheney: No, I never said that.

Borger: OK.

Cheney: I never said that.

Borger: I think that is...

Cheney: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know.



As for never being able to confirnm or deny the story of a single university student's claim, Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/alqaeda.html) says:
But, by the spring of 2002, the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection was being dismissed in news articles in The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time and The New York Times. The reports quoted administration officials and CIA and FBI analysts--almost all unnamed--who said that on closer scrutiny, "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S. at the time he was supposed to be in Prague." FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III went on the record at a San Francisco meeting in April 2001 [sic] saying the evidence wasn't there: "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts..."

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
We're not talking about Al Sharpton. :rolleyes: I'm talking about serious, high-profile public servants like Miller. This speech was much more fiery (can I say "fierier"? :D) than most major national speeches I've seen, from either side of the aisle.

"Public servant" - now there's a quaint euphemism for you.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I guess it does sound like a good speech to a certain type of people. I, personally, am not a redneck, so it didn't appeal to me much.

You might, however; be a peckerwood. To be safe, take the test. (http://www.peckerwoodamerica.com/test.htm)

:p

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Gary Gordon
Now THIS was a fiery speech!

Demorat Zell Miller's speech to the Republican convention was the best damn speech I have seen in years, maybe decades.

Some highlights...

Just devastating, and so much of it is true. And the way he delivered the "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators" and "spit balls" lines.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The "Liberators" line drew the loudest reaction of any convention crowd I can ever remember. Rapture.

Hellfire and Brimstone aint dead yet.

I think perhaps a lot of forum goers are too young to remember when this is what most Democrats sounded like.

JFK could not get nominated in today's Democrat party.

[Questioninggeller]

"Best speech in decades"

LOL... Sorry, I think a little more critically about misinformation than that.

I think the best speech in decades was George Bush senior saying "I will say no to congress to raise taxes. Read my lips. Read my lips." Then the biggest tax hike ever. That was a good example on how words and promises mean little in politics.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Another good example would be Mr. Cheney and the Mohammed Atta meeting in Prague.Cheney met with Atta? Whoa!

;)

[Bluegill]

fier·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fr, f-r)
adj. fier·i·er, fier·i·est

Consisting of or containing fire.
Burning or glowing.
Using or effected with fire.
Easily ignited; flammable.
Having the color of fire; brightly red: fiery hair; a fiery sunset.

Torridly hot.
Feverishly hot and flushed: fiery cheeks.
Being in an inflamed, usually painful condition: a fiery boil.

Easily excited or emotionally volatile; tempestuous: a fiery temper.
Charged with emotion; spirited: a fiery denunciation.


"Fierier" (http://www.dictionary.com) looks like a perfectly cromulent word to me.

[coalesce]

Not having seen the speech in question, I'm curious: was Mr, Miler's speech from a couple of weeks ago as fiery as the one he delivered to the Democrats in 1992 saying how the country can't have four more years of George Bush, Sr.?

Not that these two positions can be considered a fli-flop, but I'm just curious....

Michael