Tom Bevan has some comments on Zell Miller’s speech last night. Miller was angry, but not mean, Bevan argues. Yet the Demos will be playing on the anger, "which in addition to being the smart thing to do may be the ONLY thing they can do to try and fend off Miller’s devastating assault last night. Jay Carson, a Democratic spokesman, is quoted in today’s NY Times saying of Miller, ’This angry old man is scaring the children.’" Also this:
"The Dems will get an assist from some members of the mainstream media, many of whom I’m sure were shocked - shocked! -and appalled by what they saw and heard from Miller last night. (Incidentally, Ann Curry from the Today show just reported in her news wrap that Miller suggested John Kerry wanted to arm US soldiers with spit balls and Campbell Brown said Miller called Kerry ’unpatriotic.’ Is that really what he did, ladies?)"
Here is Rich Lowry’s opinion at The Corner: "I could be wrong, but I think the whole thing was too hot. Now it may be that people find that refreshing and that it plays as plain-spoken authenticity (I know most conservatives will find it that way, but I’m thinking of “puruadables”). McCain’s anger for a long time worked to his advantage in 2000 for exaclty this reason. Its just seems a risk for Zell to have taken this route. Why risk having him seem a bit unhinged, and why focus exclusively on national security, when presumably he could have turned on the Southern charm to explain how his party has left him on everything important--foreign policy, taxes, and social issues--by moving too far left? Wouldn’t this have been a better pitch for independents and moderate Democrats, when you have the wonderful opportunity of having a Democrat willing to make your case for you? On the other hand, this was an all-out bid to make Kerry radioactive on national security, and if it has any success at all, it might be worth it. In any case, for better or worse, this will be a long-remembered speech."
Michael Barone’s first paragraph: "Until Wednesday night, I was under the impression that Andrew Jackson had died in 1845. But on Wednesday night he appeared at the podium of the Republican National Convention under the guise of Georgia Senator and former Governor Zell Miller. In the accents of the mountain South, with a directness that left his sentiments unmistakable, with a hatred for what he considers betrayal of America and out of a fierce love of family and country Miller delivered the keynote for this Republican convention in the same place as he had delivered one of the keynotes for Bill Clinton’s convention in New York 12 years before."
I love the comparison to the colorful Jackson - truly a tough, nineteenth-century man’s man.
I disagree that Miller should have gotten up there and talked about how Republicans care about the environment and Medicare. The central issue at both conventions and in the campaign is about foreign policy and war. He had a right focus. Each side is rightly hammering away at the other party on defense. And, I think that a lot more swing voters will be driven into the arms of Republicans but the defense issue than anything else. And, Kerry set himself up as a hawk on national defense and is a legitimate target on this regarding his ability to be commander-in-chief. One can recognize his Senate record and past protests as being unworthy of becoming commander-in-chief without accusing him of being unpatriotic (we’ll save that discussion for his war crimes accusations and meeting with the enemy). So, Miller was dead on target in my book. It wasn’t a Dean wrestlemania explosion but rather an impassioned reasoning of his support for Bush and why we should all support him.
Lowry sounds like a New York Republican. Oh wait....
Yes, each side is rightly hammering away at the other party....but in this case, Miller is hammering away at his own party.....just more proof that it is near impossible to be a conservative democrat or a liberal republican.