Miller Angst: Root Causes
In the aftermath of Sen. Zell Miller's scorching address to the Republican National Convention, Democrats are doing back flips to portray him as an angry, mean-spirited, two-faced attack dog who sold out his party for personal notoriety.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, blogged predictably on the content of the speech, and I shan't bore you with the particulars. But what was interesting was her post immediately before Miller's speech:
What vanden Heuvel fails to mention about that 2001 speech is the exact date: March 1, 2001. Ms. vanden Heuvel would let us believe that Miller's abrupt U-turn has come about as a means of peddling his new book, or that he has become possessed by the Devil, but offers no other reason for his two-faced hypocrisy.
Of course, those of us who know better remember that six months after the Jefferson-Jackson Day speech, America was attacked, and the world changed. In 9/11's aftermath, politicans chose sides. Miller believed that John Kerry, and most of the Democratic establishment, favored the side that Miller believed was weak on terrorism. It is that, and no other reason, why Senator Miller appeared in New York last week.
In this light, digging up the old quote was absurd. The situation is akin to Leslie Nielsen saying something negative about O.J. Simpson tomorrow, and a critic pointing out that they did a movie together, forgetting the fact that in the interim there was a double homicide.
What was it about Kerry's post-9/11 behavior that got Miller so worked up? Mr. Kerry is not Dr. Dean. To the Left, Kerry is hawkish. He supported a war they all despised, and two years later is being chastised for being too soft. This must drive them crazy. They must feel like conservatives do when they hear Bush isn't spending enough federal dollars on education.
Let's take a brief look back at the pickle the Democrats were in two years ago as Congress deliberated on the Iraq War vote. The Democrats had to accomplish four goals:
A tall order, by any standard. Their solution was twofold: First, try to keep the vote as far away from the election as possible, and second, accuse Republicans of politicizing national security. The accusation was that Republicans were trying to put the vote right before the elections, and play upon the fears of the American people, so that Republicans would pick up seats in Congress.
Republicans did indeed want the Iraq vote right before the election, but what Democrats fail to acknowledge is their lack of a principled stance on a matter of war. If they truly supported the President and a strong message on Iraq, they should have voted "Yes". If they thought the Iraq resolution was wrong, they should have voted "No." Voting "Yes" when their consciences (or whatever substitutes these days) told them "No" was politicizing the war. Period. But they voted "Yes" anyway, to get them through the elections, and then immediately backtracked to sound in tune with a true anti-war presidential candidate in Howard Dean.
Last week Sen. Miller accused John Kerry of wanting to "outsource our national security," acting only with United Nations support. Kerry, for his part, said during the Democratic National Convention "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."
But what did Democrats actually advocate before the October 11, 2002 vote? A CNN excerpt from September 2002 spells out exactly what Democrats today are trying to simultaneously tout and make everyone forget:
Right or wrong, the Democrats wanted UN support. Republicans did not believe that the UN would act, and wanted to pass a measure that permitted the U.S. to "go-it-alone" should the U.N. not meet its obligations. Since the invasion, the surfacing of illicit business dealings between Security Council members and Iraq makes it clear that they would never have supported this war, no matter how the issue was couched.
Zell Miller believes that the U.S. should never rest its security at the feet of the United Nations, that the politicking leading up to the Iraq vote was reprehensible, and that the Democrats' unwillingness to put aside politics led to fractured support for the war, which our enemies have exploited.
Of course, vanden Heuvel believes he's just trying to sell a book. She wants to stop, in its tracks, any notion that Democrats are abandoning their party for Bush. In fact, she pushes the opposite view, that Republicans are flocking to Kerry. She highlights Miller's "Democrats for Bush" organization and does her best to discredit it:
The names vanden Heuvel cites in her "Bush Deserters" section:
Of course, the local yokel Democrats who stand with Zell Miller in support of the President
probably aren't the type she'd like to chat with over a double-mocha, and therefore don't count.
In her liberal cocoon, vanden Heuvel can't be blamed for adding up all her anecdotal evidience and concluding the anti-Bush migration, but a new poll takes a swipe at her thesis. The latest Newsweek poll shows that 94% of Republicans "lean towards" Bush, while only 4% "lean towards" Kerry. On the other hand, 14% of Democrats lean towards Bush, while 82% lean towards Kerry. In sum, Democrats for Bush outnumber Republicans for Kerry by a margin of more than three to one.
Should this poll stand up, perhaps Katrina will be immortalized as the next Pauline Kael, and say on November 3, "I can't believe Bush won. I don't know anyone who voted for him." Maybe she'll get out more in 2008.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, blogged predictably on the content of the speech, and I shan't bore you with the particulars. But what was interesting was her post immediately before Miller's speech:
Zell Miller has hypocrite stamped all over his forehead. It's hard to imagine anyone more Janus-faced than the Democratic Senator from Georgia. In 1992, Miller nominated Bill Clinton at the Democratic convention. At a 2001 Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Georgia, Miller described John Kerry as "a good friend,""one of this nation's authentic heroes," and "one of this party's…greatest leaders."
What vanden Heuvel fails to mention about that 2001 speech is the exact date: March 1, 2001. Ms. vanden Heuvel would let us believe that Miller's abrupt U-turn has come about as a means of peddling his new book, or that he has become possessed by the Devil, but offers no other reason for his two-faced hypocrisy.
Of course, those of us who know better remember that six months after the Jefferson-Jackson Day speech, America was attacked, and the world changed. In 9/11's aftermath, politicans chose sides. Miller believed that John Kerry, and most of the Democratic establishment, favored the side that Miller believed was weak on terrorism. It is that, and no other reason, why Senator Miller appeared in New York last week.
In this light, digging up the old quote was absurd. The situation is akin to Leslie Nielsen saying something negative about O.J. Simpson tomorrow, and a critic pointing out that they did a movie together, forgetting the fact that in the interim there was a double homicide.
What was it about Kerry's post-9/11 behavior that got Miller so worked up? Mr. Kerry is not Dr. Dean. To the Left, Kerry is hawkish. He supported a war they all despised, and two years later is being chastised for being too soft. This must drive them crazy. They must feel like conservatives do when they hear Bush isn't spending enough federal dollars on education.
Let's take a brief look back at the pickle the Democrats were in two years ago as Congress deliberated on the Iraq War vote. The Democrats had to accomplish four goals:
- Get re-elected in November. The public was still strongly behind the president and for strong action on Iraq. A vote against the war could have been political suicide.
- Not give Bush any more real or political power. If they supported him, why shouldn't the American public?
- Differentiate themselves, slightly. The Democrats needed to be able to say they took a different position from the President, so that if anything went wrong, they could say "ah-ha!" but still be able to take credit for bipartisanship and being on the right side of history if things went well.
- Not alienate the anti-war base of the Democratic party.
A tall order, by any standard. Their solution was twofold: First, try to keep the vote as far away from the election as possible, and second, accuse Republicans of politicizing national security. The accusation was that Republicans were trying to put the vote right before the elections, and play upon the fears of the American people, so that Republicans would pick up seats in Congress.
Republicans did indeed want the Iraq vote right before the election, but what Democrats fail to acknowledge is their lack of a principled stance on a matter of war. If they truly supported the President and a strong message on Iraq, they should have voted "Yes". If they thought the Iraq resolution was wrong, they should have voted "No." Voting "Yes" when their consciences (or whatever substitutes these days) told them "No" was politicizing the war. Period. But they voted "Yes" anyway, to get them through the elections, and then immediately backtracked to sound in tune with a true anti-war presidential candidate in Howard Dean.
Last week Sen. Miller accused John Kerry of wanting to "outsource our national security," acting only with United Nations support. Kerry, for his part, said during the Democratic National Convention "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."
But what did Democrats actually advocate before the October 11, 2002 vote? A CNN excerpt from September 2002 spells out exactly what Democrats today are trying to simultaneously tout and make everyone forget:
The Democrats say a U.S. "go-it-alone" approach would be counterproductive to efforts to build a broad international coalition against Saddam at the United Nations. Any resolution coming out of Congress, many Democrats say, should put the onus on
the United Nations to threaten Iraq with force if Saddam does not comply with
weapons inspections.
The dividing question in the debate is not do we do something, but whatever we do, do we do it alone?" said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska.
Right or wrong, the Democrats wanted UN support. Republicans did not believe that the UN would act, and wanted to pass a measure that permitted the U.S. to "go-it-alone" should the U.N. not meet its obligations. Since the invasion, the surfacing of illicit business dealings between Security Council members and Iraq makes it clear that they would never have supported this war, no matter how the issue was couched.
Zell Miller believes that the U.S. should never rest its security at the feet of the United Nations, that the politicking leading up to the Iraq vote was reprehensible, and that the Democrats' unwillingness to put aside politics led to fractured support for the war, which our enemies have exploited.
Of course, vanden Heuvel believes he's just trying to sell a book. She wants to stop, in its tracks, any notion that Democrats are abandoning their party for Bush. In fact, she pushes the opposite view, that Republicans are flocking to Kerry. She highlights Miller's "Democrats for Bush" organization and does her best to discredit it:
It's in large part a sham organization. According to the group's web site, the only other truly prominent Democrat in the group is former New York Mayor Ed Koch. The "Democrats for Bush" Steering Committee includes the not exactly household names Paul Berube (a pastor in New Hampshire), and Robert Allen Blankenship, (a retired sheriff in Arkansas.)A pastor in New Hampshire? A retired sheriff? I figured I should check out the rest of the list. In fact, the list included eighteen state representatives, nine mayors, three state senators, a governor, a state Democratic Party chairman, a state supreme court justice, and numerous other county and local officials.
While the press lavishes attention on Miller, a more important story is being ignored; the Republicans who are deserting Bush in droves. US servicemen and women, senior diplomats, libertarians and social moderates are attacking Bush's foreign and domestic agendas.
The names vanden Heuvel cites in her "Bush Deserters" section:
- William Harrop, fmr Ambassador to Israel
- Doug Bereuter, Nebraska Congressman, fmr. Vice Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence
- Pat Buchanan
- Ron Reagan (yes, I'm serious)
- The "Republicans" in the Moveon.org ads.
Of course, the local yokel Democrats who stand with Zell Miller in support of the President
probably aren't the type she'd like to chat with over a double-mocha, and therefore don't count.
In her liberal cocoon, vanden Heuvel can't be blamed for adding up all her anecdotal evidience and concluding the anti-Bush migration, but a new poll takes a swipe at her thesis. The latest Newsweek poll shows that 94% of Republicans "lean towards" Bush, while only 4% "lean towards" Kerry. On the other hand, 14% of Democrats lean towards Bush, while 82% lean towards Kerry. In sum, Democrats for Bush outnumber Republicans for Kerry by a margin of more than three to one.
Should this poll stand up, perhaps Katrina will be immortalized as the next Pauline Kael, and say on November 3, "I can't believe Bush won. I don't know anyone who voted for him." Maybe she'll get out more in 2008.