Yeah, why is this guy still a democrat?

shhhh   another of kerry's dirty tricks.  moveon.org put up the money for miller's campaign and now he's got a guy on the inside.  they trust him.  thats all ya need to know for now

king! i should have known...I hope they ain't sending Teresa after me with a sack full of doorknobs now!

a sack full of doorknobs

i heard she only uses sacks full of double eagle gold pieces

Zell Miller was, and still is a Dixie-crat, which were conservative and leaned right, quite the opposite of regular democrat. Just think he never made the cross-over like Strom Thurmond did. Dixie-crats are almost an extinct breed of politician in Congress, though I don't know about in State Congress.
Probably gain some scientific species term once they are extinct.
(Dixus Craticus) something to that nature, heh heh.

Even Strom new the dixiecrats were dinosaurs headed to the tarpit. The difference is that dinosaur had the sense to go where he belonged! Well... that and the dems did bring the Civil Rights Act into law.

I have never understood the whole "dixiecrat" school of thought. My guess is ther origins began during Reconstruction, seeing that the administration was repub at the time.

Now before you Repubs start in on me, i do believe you can be a conservative and still be a dem. Just not like Zell.

You guys can have him!

Then by all means, lets get our party affiliation tatooed on our forehead so that we will be certain to vote correctly on election day as well.

It works both ways. If the Democrats can court moderate Republicans to vote for Kerry, I don't understand why a reasonably conservative Democrat can't choose for himself who the better candidate it.

"I have never understood the whole "dixiecrat" school of thought."

Without conservative people who vote Democrat because of social economic concerns the Democrats would never, ever win. period. It works both ways.

Zell Millers is free to vote however he wants, but why be a Democrat if you vote with republican over 70% of the time. People are trying to show Zell Miller as evidence that democrats are moving towards Bush, but this is really misleading since Zell Miller isn't much of a democrat. He's really just a republican senator from Georgia who supports Bush. I wouldn't be jumping for joy if some Republican who vote with the democrats 75% of the time endorsed Kerry. Zell Miller probably just felt enough loyalty to his party that he didn't want to switch. But politically, he's really more of a Republican.

"I wouldn't be jumping for joy if some Republican who vote with the democrats 75% of the time endorsed Kerry."

Considering all the ads I see the Democratic party and Kerry campaign doesn't agree with you.

I think you guys don't really have a bead on the average "fly-over America" Democrat. You'd be surprised, I think. I know ultra-conservative people, people you would accuse of being neo-cons, that vote Democrat simply because of union affiliation and based upon FDR-era Democratic thought.

Look at his record Baker, He's a repub.

And nobody has said that he cant vote for who he pleases. What upsets dems is that he's introing Bush 2.0 at the RNC convention. Can you imagine the uproar that the repubs would throw if Big John McCain Spoke at the DNC convention?

Also, we (i'm assuming) have a better understanding of the average "fly over America" democrats then folks like you ever will. Why?....... Because were DEMOCRATS!

On a side note, i have always thought Ahhhhhhhhnold was pretty much a dem. I'm still shocked the Kennedy clan didn't make him sign on...

and ultra-conservative= NEO-CON! Duhhhhhh!

" and ultra-conservative= NEO-CON! Duhhhhhh!"

Nope, duuuuhhhh.

Are you that stupid, or did you take a class baker?

seems to me you Dems should be happy to have someone like Zel in your ranks.

Dems are always saying they're more inclusive, but the most conservative members of your party are Liberman and Bill Clinton...not exactly what I'd called convervative.

The Republicans, however, have so much diversity within their party that they are having a hard time finding consensus. Arnold, Giuliani, Pataki, McCain, these guys aren't what you'd call your typical Republicans, but they are still welcomed and promoted.

Why don't the Dems promote a pro-life Dem, or an anti-civil unions candidate? Why? Apparently, because if a Dem comes out and speaks on anything that's not part of their party's official platform they make websites like zellout.com. That's real open and inclusive.

The Republicans, however, have so much diversity within their party that they are having a hard time finding consensus. Arnold, Giuliani, Pataki, McCain, these guys aren't what you'd call your typical Republicans, but they are still welcomed and promoted.

They are welcomed and promoted at the RNC to help bring in the independent vote and undecided. There are, in fact, quite a few "moderate" Republicans out there but most of them aren't in the driver's seat politically. You mention Arnold, Giuliani, Pataki, McCain--none have high-profile positions presently (yes, Arnold is gov. of the most-populous state). When they are in high-profile positions, like Colin Powell, or Tommy Thompson, their views generally do not help guide policy (just ask Christie Todd-Whitman).
I would go so far as to say "moderate" (or "liberal"?) Republicans are in abundance. That's why it's so disappointing to see Bush, Cheney, Delay, and all their cronies hijacking the Republican party. Look at the party platform to be adopted this week--opposition to basic liberties, support for corporate overlords, and embracing military intervention worldwide--it is the most extreme the party has produced. This is, after all, the party of Lincoln. The Republican party is not evil--I am a "bleeding heart Liberal" and there are platforms and policies that I can reach consensus on--but the Republican leadership is pure evil. Put McCain up for president and he wins in a landslide.

Zell Miller has just as much right to call himself a Democrat as Bush does calling himself compassionate and a uniter. The voters of Georgia will decide if Miller is being genuine. But I can understand why Dems are up in arms about Miller's role at the RNC. The Republicans would behave the same way if McCain, Arnold, or Chaffee spoke at the DNC.

Why don't the Dems promote a pro-life Dem, or an anti-civil unions candidate? Why? Apparently, because if a Dem comes out and speaks on anything that's not part of their party's official platform they make websites like zellout.com. That's real open and inclusive.

Because there's not very many of them. Dems used to be 50/50 anti-abortion (or as the right likes to say: pro-life, ha!), but that changed a few decades ago. Those were the so-called "Reagan Democrats" and they all jumped over the the Republican party (and subsequently the party grew in membership and eventually regained control of Congress). I can't think of any anti-civil union Dems (except Zell). I would be interested to find out more if you know of any.

Dems are always saying they're more inclusive

They are considered more inclusive in terms of their electorate. Dems and Repubs. are getting mixed up in semantics. Inclusive to the Repubs means "we have moderates, moderate conservatives, and ultra-conservatives." To Dems, inclusive means "we represent minorities, protected groups (gays, lesbians, transgender), and women, in addition to rich white men "

Thanks for reading.