Dear Zell, from Jimmy

[Tsa`ah]

My brother dropped this in my in box this morning. I haven't researched to see if it's the real thing or not so I'm not stating that this is a letter from Carter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LETTER TO ZELL MILLER: 'You have betrayed our trust'
Jimmy Carter - For the Journal-Constitution
Wednesday, September 8, 2004

To Sen. Zell Miller:

You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor [of Young Harris] and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as state senator, lieutenant governor and governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.

Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge and Sam Nunn, disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican National Convention because of your being a "Democrat," and it's quite possible that your rabid speech damaged our party and paid the GOP some transient dividends.

Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign's personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as "one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders --- and a good friend.)

I, myself, served in the Navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don't believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacifist.

Zell, I have known you for 42 years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral pre-emptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited.

Sincerely, and with deepest regrets,

Jimmy Carter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not a republican nor a democrat, but I have to agree with the sentiment of the letter.

If in fact Zell did refer to Kerry as "one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders --- and a good friend" prior to the GOP convention, it only shows his lack of character to "flip-flop" onto the RNC stage with the speech he gave.

[Edited on 9-10-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Psykos]

Zell was interviewed on NBC and was quoted saying that he apologized for his earlier remarks and was trying to stay faithful to his party. He said he eventually had enough of the party not sticking to its foundations, etc.. and that is why he spoke at the RNC. I think the term "flip-flop" should be reserved for Kerry's voting record in the Senate and not the actions of a man torn from his party for their lack of fortitude.

psykos

[Back]

Originally posted by Psykos
Zell was interviewed on NBC and was quoted saying that he apologized for his earlier remarks and was trying to stay faithful to his party. He said he eventually had enough of the party not sticking to its foundations, etc.. and that is why he spoke at the RNC. I think the term "flip-flop" should be reserved for Kerry's voting record in the Senate and not the actions of a man torn from his party for their lack of fortitude.

psykos

Perhaps you could show an example of how Kerry has “flip-flopped” so that we all can be enlightened instead of just repeating it over and over and over...

I’ll be happy to provide plenty of Republican flip-flops if you want. Many well documented by our very own president.

I didn’t see, hear, or read Zell’s speech. Maybe later today I will. But it really had no bearing as my decision is already made. Nothing I can comment on really.

One thing is certain. If it pissed even Carter off, it must be bad.

[edited for afterthought]

[Edited on 9-10-2004 by Backlash]

[Parkbandit]

Hey, I am a Republican and I also agree with the sentiment of this letter. As I've said before, if I was a Democrat from Georgia.. I would be pissed that he spoke at a Republican Convention.

Carter is a pacifist though.

[Ilvane]

It's the whole "If you say it enough it will become true, even if it isn't."

Of course, that letter from Jimmy Carter was true, it was in the AP news too. They have been friends for many years, and Zell said that half the time Carter writes him, he was giving him hell, and the other half was being friendly.

I won't comment on Zell though, I don't appreciate someone who is Democrat by name, but basically votes Republican everywhere.

-A

[Betheny]

I heard the sound clip on the radio, and it cracked me up. It's still cracking me up. What a turncoat!

[Straight-up]

At least he votes...unlike Kerry.


Straight

[Ilvane]

You know, can't go after Bush's record on votes really, because he never really had that experience.

20 years of votes is a long time to evolve on what you believe. I wonder if many of you older people had the exact same beliefs back then as you do now.

-A

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
You know, can't go after Bush's record on votes really, because he never really had that experience.

20 years of votes is a long time to evolve on what you believe. I wonder if many of you older people had the exact same beliefs back then as you do now.

-A

Actually, for the past 20 years, Kerry has been pretty consistant in his voting record... Extreme Liberalism. It's only since he has won the nomination that he is trying to cover up that voting record to appeal to more moderates and has changed his 20 year stance to do it. His stance didn't change in the 20 years.. it changed in 6 months.

[DeV]

Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.
Yep. What I don't understand is why he would speak at the RNC and still have the audacity to consider himself a Democrat.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Straight-up
At least he votes...unlike Kerry.


Straight

Please give us some facts to back up this statement.

[Psykos]

Example of a flip-flop? Let me maybe mention the Iraq War vote (YES) -- the Funding to fix Iraq (NO).. So lets see, vote yes to fuck em up, no to fix them -- Add some complaining.. Or... Maybe I'm totally wrong, maybe he wasn't even there to vote at all.

The govern of MASS wanted to remove Kerry as a Senator because of his lackluster performace.. FYI. As did the Mayor of Boston.

K, Thanks.

Psykos

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I don't appreciate someone who is Democrat by name, but basically votes Republican everywhere.Please read that again and convince me that it's not saying you're against independent thought.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Psykos
Example of a flip-flop? Let me maybe mention the Iraq War vote (YES)
Psykos From what I remember, only one Senator voted no to going to war with Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong. That would make half the government a flip flopper just on that one issue.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Please read that again and convince me that it's not saying you're against independent thought.

Most people vote for their representatives based on what party they are in. Most people don't have time to investigate every facet of stance a Senator/Congressman has. Because for the most part - people within that party have similar opinions on many topics.

If I voted for Miller because I agreed with more of what the democratic party stands for rather then the republican party - I would, too, be upset. Upset that my representative, who aligns himself with people who share my way of thinking, votes the opposite way on almost every issue.

I haven't checked his voting record, nor do I know where he stands on all issues - so this is just my opinion and why *I* would be upset if this was my representative.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Straight-up
At least he votes...unlike Kerry.


Straight

Please give us some facts to back up this statement.

He missed 38 of 49 intelligence committee meetings. I would consider that not voting.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Psykos
Example of a flip-flop? Let me maybe mention the Iraq War vote (YES) -- the Funding to fix Iraq (NO).. So lets see, vote yes to fuck em up, no to fix them -- Add some complaining.. Or... Maybe I'm totally wrong, maybe he wasn't even there to vote at all.

The govern of MASS wanted to remove Kerry as a Senator because of his lackluster performace.. FYI. As did the Mayor of Boston.

K, Thanks.

Psykos


The governor of Mass is a republican and wanted to replace Kerry's seat with the republican lt. governor. That didn't work. The mayor of Boston got pissed at Kerry for not crossing a picket line to attend an event hosted by the mayor. It's funny how you can pat yourself on the back for finding the name Cohen, which means nothing to me for some strange reason, yet can't look at any news article to find the facts in Mass.

And please read the actual vote. The vote was to give the president the 'authority' to go to war. As for the $87 billion for the body armor:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

"For the record, the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed."

But who needs actual facts when you have GOP talking points?

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Straight-up
At least he votes...unlike Kerry.


Straight

Please give us some facts to back up this statement.

He missed 38 of 49 intelligence committee meetings. I would consider that not voting.

They vote in meetings?

[Hulkein]

That bill also wanted to raise combat pay and health care for the families.. What's the percentage when that is included?

If Kerry said this first - "Kerry: Even more shocking, tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor" Well gee John, lol.

<<They vote in meetings?>>

I would assume they either vote at some point during the meeting or at a later date based on information discussed at it.

[Edited on 9-10-2004 by Hulkein]

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Psykos
Example of a flip-flop? Let me maybe mention the Iraq War vote (YES) -- the Funding to fix Iraq (NO).. So lets see, vote yes to fuck em up, no to fix them -- Add some complaining.. Or... Maybe I'm totally wrong, maybe he wasn't even there to vote at all.



Well .. this shows that the Repub spinmachine has done it's work that's for sure.

If you do any sort of investigation into the facts at all, you'll find that Kerry and several other democrats offered up an alternative ammendment to the funding bill for Iraq that actually had provisions in it to PAY for the $87 Billion. They proposed to temporarily not impose the Bush's tax cut on the top 1%, which would have covered the $87 billion in 2 or 3 years. Of course the Repubs voted this provision down, and the ammendment was passed without any way to fund the bill - which Kerry et. al. voting against it because there was nothing in to the bill to indicate how to pay for it. So .. it just goes on our tab ... yet more deficit spending.

So .. there's your "flip-flop". It's a little less imflaming when you do just the slightest bit of investigation.

-P

[Wezas]

I've been looking for a better breakdown of the 87billion.

specifically:


$65.3 billion for U.S. military expenses in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere,

Elsewhere? Where Elsewhere?


$21.6 billion to rebuild those two nations and aid other countries including Liberia.

Rebuilding is fine, but I'd like to also see where this money has gone.


as well as provisions that ensure that a minimum of $9.3 billion of the money is allowed to be spent at Rumsfield and Bush's personal discretion with no oversight or accounting

errr, what?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Wezas
Most people don't have time to investigate every facet of stance a Senator/Congressman has.People who vote along party lines shouldn't be allowed to vote, plain and simple. If Zell has always been such a cranky old bastard, it shouldn't be that hard to find corroborating information to that extent. I can understand being upset if he made Mother Theresa look like Beelzebub while he was campaigning and started throwing cinder blocks at baby carriages after he was elected, but a Democrat not acting just like all the other Democrats should be commended.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Wezas
Most people don't have time to investigate every facet of stance a Senator/Congressman has.People who vote along party lines shouldn't be allowed to vote, plain and simple. :thumbsdown:

[Ilvane]

I certainly don't mind independant thought, but if I am looking for someone who stands for what I stand for, I would look for Democrats who are more along the line of what I stand for most of the time. This man is voting consistantly with the Republican party, is bashing Democrats, and is campaigning actively for the Republican president..This would lead me to believe that is a Democrat in name only and thus is not a true Democrat anymore.

-A

[Psykos]

Hi,

I'm a democrat, If you post or think anything conservative you've been brainwashed.

Either way -- Kerry will be without a job in 2005.

Thanks.

Psykos.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
:thumbsdown: :no:

There's no way one candidate is more valid than another because of a label.
Originally posted by Ilvane
if I am looking for someone who stands for what I stand for, I would look for Democrats who are more along the line of what I stand for most of the time.That's good. I don't see how you can go from there to disliking a politician who doesn't blindly follow the party, but what you actually do sounds good.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
There's no way one candidate is more valid than another because of a label

Of course there is. It's called truth in advertising. Both pants and skirts are worn on the lower body and provide both protectiona nd concealment. But they are quite different and if you ordered a pair of pants yet got a skirt, you'd be understandably upset.

If someone is calling himself a democrat in what is essentially a two party system, by the very nature of that label he is saying he stands for certain things. He is deliberately, and willingly, defining himself by that label. That's what political parties are for. Otherwise we would just have a ton of independsnts.

Which would probably be a very good thing if it made people actually research issues and think for a change.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Unfortunately, people can't be defined as easily as articles of clothing. Also, I would say a politician identifies himself with a party so he has a chance at being elected, not so he can make it easier for people to identify where he stands. I'd rather a politician stand for what he thinks is right than stand for what the party he ran for has decided to support that week.