[ER]

Again, I haven't been following the RNC so I didn't see it. I did read the transcript this morning. I have to say that I'm impressed with this guy. While he runs as a Democrat, he acts like the type of politician I can respect -- even if I were to disagree with some of his politics.

Here it is. It's long, but read and re-read it. It's a powerful speech:


Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

[WetShrub]

Sounded kind of warmonger-ish during this part...

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

[luvtolean]

Nice, I heard about it, but didn't see it.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by WetShrub

Sounded kind of warmonger-ish during this part...

Why? Because he wants to see our armed forces armed with the best weapons systems in the world?

[dB]

I saw it...the guy was letting it all hang out. He's old school Democrat. It always amazes me when left-wingers try to compare themselves to Kennedy. If Kerry were anywhere near Kennedy on the political spectrum, he'd be a shoe-in. But the Dem's have taken a huge left turn in the last 20 years.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by dB

I saw it...the guy was letting it all hang out. He's old school Democrat. It always amazes me when left-wingers try to compare themselves to Kennedy. If Kerry were anywhere near Kennedy on the political spectrum, he'd be a shoe-in. But the Dem's have taken a huge left turn in the last 20 years.

John F Kennedy was a lifetime NRA member! I'm pretty sure you'd have your Democrat club card taken away for such a sin now.

[WetShrub]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Why? Because he wants to see our armed forces armed with the best weapons systems in the world?

The way he voiced it just seemed to have a gung ho, let's get'em attitude. But then again just like the DNC, these things are just big d*ck sucking contests anyway. I guess that's what they are designed to do but they aren't nearly as informative as a debate.

[luvtolean]

I actually don't respect debate as much as voting records for a politician. Many (not including Dubya) are masters at acting and double talk.

Like Zell points out, 20 years of public voting will tell a lot about a politician.

[Baketech]

Kerredy has been debating himself for 20 years now, and it really hasn't proven anything....

[ER]

I guess two points I've been trying to hammer home have been aired out here. First, the majority of the current Democratic party is so far Left that they look nothing like the Zell Millers still left. Second, Kerry (or Bush, for that matter) can say whatever he wants to say - it's most likely being said to distract voters from his voting record, which is by far the most Liberal one out there. What you see is not what you'll get.

Honestly, I think the Democratic party of today has moved as far Left as they have because most of their traditional issues have been met. They once fought for feminism, affirmative action, social security, etc, etc. Those things are in today's political world, so they can no longer campaign from them. Since they're going to have to do something to differentiate themselves from the majority of the Republicans who have given in or accepted these issues (and because the lobbies for those issues have become increasingly active), all they can do is shift further to the Left. I doubt the Democrats of the WWII generation would have much in common with Daschle, Kerry, and Ted Kennedy...

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by ER

Honestly, I think the Democratic party of today has moved as far Left as they have because most of their traditional issues have been met. They once fought for feminism, affirmative action, social security, etc, etc. Those things are in today's political world, so they can no longer campaign from them. Since they're going to have to do something to differentiate themselves from the majority of the Republicans who have given in or accepted these issues (and because the lobbies for those issues have become increasingly active), all they can do is shift further to the Left. I doubt the Democrats of the WWII generation would have much in common with Daschle, Kerry, and Ted Kennedy...

Nice post... I agree, particularly with the last line....

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by ER

Honestly, I think the Democratic party of today has moved as far Left as they have because most of their traditional issues have been met. They once fought for feminism, affirmative action, social security, etc, etc. Those things are in today's political world, so they can no longer campaign from them. Since they're going to have to do something to differentiate themselves from the majority of the Republicans who have given in or accepted these issues (and because the lobbies for those issues have become increasingly active), all they can do is shift further to the Left. I doubt the Democrats of the WWII generation would have much in common with Daschle, Kerry, and Ted Kennedy...

Interesting theory, and I think that's part of it, but I think society in general has "liberalized". I think the Republican party is also much more liberal now than say 50 years ago.

[RaggedEdge]

Hmmm, could Zell Miller be positioning himself for a run for President in 2008? This manoeuver could very likely substantially escalate his credibility in the eyes of moderate Republicans or Independants and draw votes to himself in the primaries, and if selected, in the election itself. Any thoughts on this?

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by RaggedEdge

Hmmm, could Zell Miller be positioning himself for a run for President in 2008? This manoeuver could very likely substantially escalate his credibility in the eyes of moderate Republicans or Independants and draw votes to himself in the primaries, and if selected, in the election itself. Any thoughts on this?

No way....he's just selling his book...

[TAZ]

Originally Posted by RaggedEdge

Hmmm, could Zell Miller be positioning himself for a run for President in 2008?

Have you seen Zell? He's already in his early 70's. Too old to think about campaigning four years from now.

Cheney strikes me as a guy who COULD get a nomination if he could just speak with a little emotion. He's so monotone and boring that he wouldn't stand a chance.

[dB]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I think the Republican party is also much more liberal now than say 50 years ago.

I was thinking the same thing while watching Bush's speech last night.

[ER]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Interesting theory, and I think that's part of it, but I think society in general has "liberalized". I think the Republican party is also much more liberal now than say 50 years ago.

Oh absolutely. Our country as a whole is gradually moving to the Left and I don't think it's ever going to stop. Because Republicans have gradually conceeded the majority of the more Liberal issues and have gradually adopted a more and more Liberal stance, many Democrats feel they have to continue to move to the Left in order to differentiate themselves. Hence the Daschles, Kennedys, Hillarys, and Kerrys of Washington.

Honestly, today's politics is more about "winning" particular segments of votes than it is about doing what's best for the country, IMHO. While this doesn't apply to every politician, I feel it does to most. That's why we see so much pandering to special interests and lobbies and so much rhetoric during an election year. It's also why we see class and race warfare. It's all about winning the vote and you have to convince a segment of the population that there's a problem and that you're the cure (i.e. the "rich" getting richer off the backs off the "poor"). People who support the more aggressive issues in society have learned how to lobby and pressure the Government for action. Like I quoted before, a free country under a limited Republic (or Democracy even) will last only as long as it takes for the public to learn how to vote themselves favors from the elected. Once that happens, they'll continue to vote for those who support their agenda the most. That's where we are today!!

[Baketech]

A gradual trend to the left has been the progression of all societies....some make it, some don't....

[figment]

I think it's the other way around. Democratic party used to be conservative and Republicans used to be the "liberals".Thomas Jefferson, in the late 1700's, started the first political party with the conviction that the federal government was assuming too much power over domestic policy and should be stopped.

[ER]

Originally Posted by Baketech

A gradual trend to the left has been the progression of all societies....some make it, some don't....

Which have made it? I'm not the most thorough history buff, but I thought I had remembered reading that the majority of governments (not lost to war or invasion) that collapsed often did so after an excessive tax-base, excessive citizen dependency, etc. In my last East Asian history class I remember the pattern - establish a Government and leave the people be. Government grows. Government taxes people more. Government takes more land. People eventually rise up against the Government. Won't we eventually follow this same pattern?

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by ER

Won't we eventually follow this same pattern?

Yes, I think so. Rome fell due to bureacracy...so will we.

[figment]

How did Rome Fall another view is that they fell due to their inability to support their defences... and their moral decay...