thatoneguyinslc: Why are you calling me stupid? Neo-conservative is not the same thing as ultra-conservative. Before you start saying "duuuuuh" and calling people stupid, maybe you should get your definitions right.

Zell Miller was the keynote speaker for President Clinton in the 90s as well.

Agreed Baker. I was just pointing out that a conservative is a conservative. The stupid thing was a joke gone bad....sorry!

Just goes to show how far left the Democrats have moved over the years.  Ever read his book? A National Party No More.  Recommended reading.

Well, after that speech I know why you Dems hate him...he's so right.

I could see somebody being a Democrat despite disagreeing with them on the majority of issues. After all, some people will vote for a certain candidate simply because of their view concerning abortion or some other hot topic.

I do understand why the Democrats are upset with him though. Dissent can't be fun in what many consider to be the ultimate election between good and evil.

Zell rocked, imho. Best speech thus far.

Dems hating him? They just do not recognize him any longer after all he is a traitor to the DEM Party. I am a proud Independent myself. I would not mind him saying things he is seeing it any of it were true. I love how the GOP embraces Abraham Lincoln. He was basically how the DEMS are now, the GOP are how the former DEMS used to be.

DEMS moved left and GOP went far right. Someone tell me where the conservative is in the appointed President we have?? He has spent more then any Left winger, ran up the debt higher then anyone in history, brought us into war with someone who had nothing to do with 911, caused the entire world to look at us in a bad light, lost more jobs then any president since Hover. How about LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND? He left over 2.6 million of them behind due to not funding it. How about the enviromental laws? He rolled back all of them in favor of profit instead of saving the planet for our children. He has cut the military, not giving them the equipment they need and then turns around and blames Kerry. He is the first sitting president in history to begin his campaign with negative ads. Why, because he has nothing to run on, not one thing. Where is Osama and the other Taliban leader? How about the increase in Al-Queda recruitment using the Iraq war to get 10 times the people to join against the west.

Am I the only one who sees things as they really are here? John McCain would have been a great President, what happened? They discredited him big time. This is not about what is good for the country, this is about electing a GOP at any cost no matter what. Let us not forget the wonderful Caryle Group who old man Bush was CEO up until a few months ago. Becoming the 4th Bush to profit off the war. (280 billion about was made by the way off both wars.) If you look at the history books every single war there was a Bush family member profiting from it.

Not to mention this same company along with many Saudi investors made big money off the attack by shorting stock that they new would fall. Playing the down side predicting a stock will fail. I wonder how they all knew this and I also wonder why no one really showed this on the news??

I am not a DEM supporter but I sure am a realistic person. There is nothing good about Bush and his war hawk buddies. Kerry does have a vision and he certainly is not like the picture that is being painted about him. Do some research you to will find the facts about him. Same with Bush do some research find out the truth, I did. I said my 2 cents and change for this thread.

he's so right

except when those voices he hears delude him into blurting out this kinda fantasy: "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending"  

"DEMS moved left and GOP went far right.

I don't think you can look at the lineup of this convention, and look at the numerous people of different opinion that call themselves Republican, and say that. The problem is, opponents of the Republican party have shifted far enough to the left that even center looks right...

""Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending" "

If we rely upon UN Security Council approval to decide what to do militarily, then France's veto is a deciding factor. Oddly, though, Kerry wasn't in favor of the first Gulf War, even after we had a "coalition" and UN approval, as Senator Miller pointed out.

I hate to break this to you, Desert Fox, but Republicans aren't as simple-minded as you seem to think. For example, you said

He is the first sitting president in history to begin his campaign with negative ads.

Well, I'm sure all the Dems who read that thought, "Oh, really! What a jerk! I hate Bush even more." I'm sure it doesn't even cross many people's mind to research and see if that's true. (I know people take what they heard and assume it's true..if they didn't Moore would have been debunked a long time ago.)
Anyway, I didn't think you were correct, and instead of calling you a liar, I thought I'd verify my assertion before I said something (you taking notes, Desert?) This is a Link to Bush's first television ad. It's not negative at all...it's exceedingly positive.

In your defense, I think you made a simple mistake. There was one side of this campaign which started out negative. It wasn't the Dems, it was their 507 moveon.org who held their "who can make the best commercial bashing Bush" contest late 2003 (remember, they wanted the winner to air on the Super Bowl?).

I am just really curious how the Democrats from Georgia that put Miller in office are feeling about him....wonder when he is up for relection. Hope they are looking for a true Democrat that can take his place.

Here I will utter forth more truth, or at least my honest truth, than has every been said about political parties, conservatism, and liberalism.

Zel Miller is a Dixiecrat, through and through, he still holds the ideals of Democrats before this HUGE left shift. The Democratic party was not always so left and liberal, I remember dis-liking some Democratic candidates because they were to freakin' conservative. Their party has become so one sided that no longer do they even accept or like anyone but those who are exceedingly left, this problem seems to stem from the fact of their loss of many seats of power in Congress and states, after Clinton was elected the first time. They decided that instead of being a party that would have many people standing different ways that they needed to have one view and one agenda, and that became a liberal view, which has become ever more liberal as you, which the Republicans on the flipside have the same problem with going too far right. The Democratic party used to be a National and inclusive party, the party that Zel Miller belong to, didn't matter whether you were conservative or liberal, or even a moderate, just as long as you were a Democrat and not a Republican, now there was some views that were party held, but for the most part each person of the party had their own differing views on their own political policies. I do not know whether it was their huge loss of power in the 90s, or Clinton, or others, but some personal views which were exceedingly liberal of a few people became the party views, so much now that you must obey all party views ARE YOU ARE NOT A DEMOCRAT. That is what Zel Miller is trying to make as a statement, the Democratic Party has gone from inclusive to exclusive, and until they realize this and get more Democrats speaking out against their party coming up with a set of complete views that leave no room for anybody else's opinion, than they will sink deeper, don't be suprised if some flee the party, because rats do flee a sinking ship.

For Republicans this was there problem during Bush Sr.'s era, they had become to exclusive to the nation, which is why the Neo-Republicans swept into Congress and states. Republicans have become more diverse with prime examples of McCain, Gulliani, and Arnold, etc. being the evidence to back up this claim, even though Bush and Cheney are extreme conservatives they do not oust or bash on those who not conservatives like them, in fact Cheney and Bush have differing opinions, which they do state. Kerry and Edwards must be of one mind and view like the current Democrat Party dictates, there is nowhere near the amount of lenancy in the Democratic party for differing opinions as there is in the Republican Party, because of that dictating view of their Party.

I noticed that Gore had different views than Clinton during his first term, but during the second he was the one view guy, and only in his election run did he differ his views only for the sake that some political campaign advisor said that it would benefit his race.

I will be playing close attention to Bush Jr.'s speech tonight to look if he gives specfics on his plans for the U.S., Kerry did not really give hard specfics on his plans, more like glittering generalites, just like he says he has a plan for Iraq that he would have acted differently with Iraq than Bush, but doesn't say how, maybe because some of the difference in plan stims from the fact that Hindsight is always 20/20.

With this much typed I am done for the time being, and I will respond, after all this is the nature of debate, to have differing opinions.

Well... that and the dems did bring the Civil Rights Act into law.

Uhh, sorry, thatoneguy...but that's quite revisionist...actually, the dems OPPOSED most civil rights legislation.

Uhh, sorry, thatoneguy...but that's quite revisionist...actually, the dems OPPOSED most civil rights legislation.

That's true reading a history book about it, read that Strom Thurmond, at the time a Democrat, filibustered the bill for something like twenty-four hours, shocked the hell out of me, that is one hell of long talking time even if you use Roll calls, and bathroom breaks.