DEMOCRATS FOR BUSH?
 |
James Joyner | Monday, November 3, 2003 |
A double Zell day: Zell Miller explains why he’s voting for Bush in today’s WSJ.
His rationale is very, well, Southern:
I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term “hitting behind the runner.”I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.
I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, “Amazing Grace,” “Was blind, but now I see.” I like the fact that he’s the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.
***
This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from “paralysis analysis.” This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, “We’re not leaving.” And you know he means it.
***
I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign–the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost–with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign–watch your wallet, we’re going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Paradox of Choice Paradoxically Untrue
- Private Forecasters Support Claim That Stimulus Worked
- Entertaining Kids During the Holidays
- How Much Will Escalation Cost?
- No Party of No
- Thought of the Day
- Queer International Studies
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- A Question About Bonuses and Bailouts
Good riddance, I say. Don't need democrats in name only.
Dean should probably ditch the south. Miller is dishonest anyway, since this President hasn't raised taxes but has virtually guaranteed that my generation will have to, at some point, to stave off Argentinian-style economic collapse (as Paul Krugman argues). Thanks, buddy. Don't need that kind of macroeconomic planning.
Plus, Dean can win even if he loses all of the south, as long as he picks up AZ and a few other states that are turning Democratic anyway. Heard a guy named Tom Schaller (UMBC) make that point last week.
But Dean cannot govern without the South. Thad Cochran, a great American and senior Senator from Mississippi, will be head of Appropriations in the Senate barring a change-over to a Democratic Senate. Look back to when James Eastland held that post, followed by John C. Stennis. No way on earth will tax cuts be rolled back.
Brett have you been reading the papers?
The economy is roaring back with the biggest growth since Ronald Reagan was in office and we are PLUS job, despite what Terry Mcauliffe keeps telling you.
And you are predicting an "Argentinian-style economic collapse."
The reason democrats keep losing elections is because you all are delusional. Get a grip on reality and come back.
Paul:
Hey, love a good economic spurt for a quarter. Absolutely brilliant! Fantastic news. Cool. Right on!
Doesn't change the fact that Bush's policies aim to deplete the state of resources necessary to keep afloat the long term goals of Social Security, Medicare, and other gov't programs.
The President's own analyses show that the temporary economic gains from the tax cut (if they're from the tac cut) will be just that, temporary. I plan on living here for longer than the next quarter.
Brett,
George Bush inherited an economy in recession from Bill Clinton. Since then we have not had a "single quarter" of growth, we have had 2 solid years of a growing economy. The last quarter it grew faster than anything we knew under Clinton. In spite of 9/11, winning 2 wars and multiple financial scandals.
So have no clue what the economy had done but yet you claim that George Bush's goal is to bankrupt "Social Security, Medicare, and other gov't programs."
No chance you are a conspiratorial whack job huh?
George Bush expand Medicare but adding a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Was that so it would run out of money faster??????
If Bush is so wily, why don't you dems head him off at the pass... Why don't you propose cuts in those programs to keep them solvent!
You could beat George Bush at his own game.
Man you are delusional.
---
Comments are Closed
