Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: LBJer on August 17, 2011, 08:12:01 PM



Title: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: LBJer on August 17, 2011, 08:12:01 PM
Zell Miller delivered a ferocious, fire and brimstone speech against John Kerry at the Republican convention in 2004.  Yet only three years earlier, he gave a very warm speech on Kerry's behalf:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19761/

What happened?  Why did Miller make such a dramatic transformation at the end of his career?


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 19, 2011, 05:05:47 PM
Attention.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Link on August 19, 2011, 05:18:08 PM
Zell Miller delivered a ferocious, fire and brimstone speech against John Kerry at the Republican convention in 2004.  Yet only three years earlier, he gave a very warm speech on Kerry's behalf:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19761/

What happened?  Why did Miller make such a dramatic transformation at the end of his career?

When you're dealing with Palpatine there is no way of knowing what he's planning.

()
()


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 19, 2011, 06:26:15 PM
My only guess is, as Georgia became more conservative, so did he.

"Fiscal responsibility is unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of 'allies' like France is unacceptable …A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator. …When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation – that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years."

Haha, Tea Party Democrat.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on August 19, 2011, 10:12:12 PM
My only guess is, as Georgia became more conservative, so did he.

"Fiscal responsibility is unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of 'allies' like France is unacceptable …A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator. …When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation – that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years."

Haha, Tea Party Democrat.

Miller went from a fairly standard Blue Dog Democrat to Jim Inhofe with a D after his name in the space of about four years. It's very unusual for a man of Miller's age to change his political and social views so drastically. He wasn't running for reelection, so I doubt he was genuinely changing with his state. He did, however, realize that he would get much more attention and sell a lot more books if he became an Iconoclastic Archconservative Democrat, in other words a Democrat who hated Democrats. Had he just switched parties or continued to be a conservative Democrat who didn't actively undermine the party, he would have gotten a lot less attention and made a lot less money.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 19, 2011, 10:40:29 PM
My only guess is, as Georgia became more conservative, so did he.

"Fiscal responsibility is unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of 'allies' like France is unacceptable …A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator. …When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation – that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years."

Haha, Tea Party Democrat.

Miller went from a fairly standard Blue Dog Democrat to Jim Inhofe with a D after his name in the space of about four years. It's very unusual for a man of Miller's age to change his political and social views so drastically. He wasn't running for reelection, so I doubt he was genuinely changing with his state. He did, however, realize that he would get much more attention and sell a lot more books if he became an Iconoclastic Archconservative Democrat, in other words a Democrat who hated Democrats. Had he just switched parties or continued to be a conservative Democrat who didn't actively undermine the party, he would have gotten a lot less attention and made a lot less money.
That's possible.  But who knows?  People change their minds about things all the time.  Maybe he had hung around with Saxby Chambliss for too long.

One thing I never liked about him was how he claimed it's just the Democratic Party that's changed over the years, and not him.  Which is totally incorrect.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 19, 2011, 10:44:50 PM
I think he changed views because of the War in Iraq. Most of his fire and brimstone speech had that as its subject. Just a guess.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 02, 2012, 02:26:35 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Joe Republic on March 02, 2012, 02:38:14 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

1950's Democrats from Georgia are certainly not to be revered in the 21st century.

Also, I take issue with your first sentence.  Compare Miller's keynote speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention with his voting record on economic issues during his partial term in the Senate.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 02, 2012, 02:41:15 AM
The Democrats of that era weren't as conservative on economics as they were on social and foreign issues. His party left him and he did not leave his party. He would be representative of the party until 1980.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Joe Republic on March 02, 2012, 02:49:47 AM
You missed my point.  Read/listen to his 1992 speech - specifically the portions where he praised all the work the previous Democratic presidents had done to build a social safety net - and then look at his series of Senate votes to dismantle it.  Of course he changed.

The social policies of the Dixiecrats are an embarrassment to the modern day party, as they should be, so it's little wonder that they eventually realigned with the Republicans instead.  Miller is simply an anachronism.  But if he had followed everybody else, he wouldn't be notable or have sold so many of his books, so here we are.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Ebowed on March 02, 2012, 03:29:41 AM
The Democrats of that era weren't as conservative on economics as they were on social and foreign issues.

Southern Democrats allied with Republicans in preventing FDR, Truman, and JFK from fully implementing their economic platforms on a wide variety of subjects.  About the only thing keeping those politicians (and the voters who supported them) from joining the Republicans in the first place was the fact that Lincoln freed the slaves.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Miles on March 02, 2012, 03:33:03 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Joe Republic on March 02, 2012, 10:22:38 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Once again, that is not only inaccurate, but also pretty vile.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Napoleon on March 02, 2012, 10:39:55 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Once again, that is not only inaccurate, but also pretty vile.

QFT


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on March 02, 2012, 10:43:41 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Once again, that is not only inaccurate, but also pretty vile.

QFT

Miller's views changed substantially from the early 90s to the mid-2000s. While he was governor of Georgia, he was pretty much a conservative-leaning typical Blue Dog Democrat. Once he got to the Senate, and particularly after the 2000 election, he became Jim Inhofe with a D after his name. 


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 02, 2012, 11:03:07 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Nonsense.

Miller changed after his narrow reelection as Governor in 1994.

Btw, are you saying you're a fan of Jim Crow? Ah, those great 1950s Democrats...


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: I'm JewCon in name only. on March 02, 2012, 02:54:51 PM
Zell Miller is awesome. My favorite Democrat, hands down. I'd easily vote for him in a presidential election or a senate election.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on March 02, 2012, 03:03:04 PM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

You're way to the left of him on economic issues.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 02, 2012, 05:15:26 PM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Nonsense.

Miller changed after his narrow reelection as Governor in 1994.

Btw, are you saying you're a fan of Jim Crow? Ah, those great 1950s Democrats...

Everyone, this ^^ is what liberals do. They take conservatives out of context in order to change the issue to benefit them. This is comparable as well to they way they're trying to change the abortion issue to contraceptives. No one ever said anything about Jim Crow. Stop what you're trying to do because no one on this forum is falling for it.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: tpfkaw on March 02, 2012, 06:58:23 PM
Zell Miller was more of an early 70s southern Democrat than a 50s one.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Pingvin on March 03, 2012, 02:43:19 AM
Zell Miller is awesome. My favorite Democrat, hands down. I'd easily vote for him in a presidential election or a senate election.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 03, 2012, 03:53:25 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Nonsense.

Miller changed after his narrow reelection as Governor in 1994.

Btw, are you saying you're a fan of Jim Crow? Ah, those great 1950s Democrats...

Everyone, this ^^ is what liberals do. They take conservatives out of context in order to change the issue to benefit them. This is comparable as well to they way they're trying to change the abortion issue to contraceptives. No one ever said anything about Jim Crow. Stop what you're trying to do because no one on this forum is falling for it.

You know very well for what the Southern Democrats stood for in 1950s. Maybe you should be little more careful next time by making such declarations.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Mechaman on March 03, 2012, 07:57:13 AM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Nonsense.

Miller changed after his narrow reelection as Governor in 1994.

Btw, are you saying you're a fan of Jim Crow? Ah, those great 1950s Democrats...

Everyone, this ^^ is what liberals do. They take conservatives out of context in order to change the issue to benefit them. This is comparable as well to they way they're trying to change the abortion issue to contraceptives. No one ever said anything about Jim Crow. Stop what you're trying to do because no one on this forum is falling for it.

You know very well for what the Southern Democrats stood for in 1950s. Maybe you should be little more careful next time by making such declarations.

To be fair Kal, he said he stood where the Democrats did in the 50's for the most part.

For the record Zell Miller did in fact campaign in favor of segregation in 1964 and 1966 when he ran for Congress.

But even if we assume he meant he stood exactly where the Democrats did in the 50's..............how the hell would that be possible?  I mean the Democratic Party was exponentially more big tent in the 50's than it is today.  I mean yeah sure, now days you have some blue dogs and moderates but back then the Democratic Party had everybody and their grandmother who for some reason or other didn't like the Republicans.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Tutankhuman Bakari Sellers on May 01, 2012, 05:24:20 PM
He saw that besides Clinton who was the most moderate prez, he saw the modern day democratic party ( AL Gore's defeat in 2000) moving too far to the left even after 911. He mistook that as a sign of weakest after 911 and became a defacto along with Joseph Lieberman member of GOP Party. Along with the Zell Miller seat LA, NC, SC, and FL went GOP in 2004.  You could say that it was a political realignment or being soft on nat'l security.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: hcallega on May 01, 2012, 06:48:29 PM
Miller's record in the Senate was considerably more conservative than his fellow Southern Democrats. While much of this debate has been subjective, there are some fairly objective numbers that can be used to describe his ideology. The best two (in my opinion) are ACU (American Conservative Union) and ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) ratings. These basically paint a general picture on how members voted on the most important votes in any given year.

Here are Miller's ratings (ADA on the left, ACU on the right)
2001: 35/60
2002: 30 /54
2003: 10/75
2004: 15/96

Just from looking at that data, it's clear that Miller was one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate (and one of the most conservative members of both parties in 2004). But let's compare his record to that of another Southern Democrat who retired in 2004, John Breaux. Once again, ADA is on the left, and ACU is on the right.

2001: 55/48
2002: 45/46
2003: 45/40
2004: 80/20

That appears to be pretty much the definition of moderate, minus 2004. Now let's compare Miller to his colleague's from Georgia: Max Cleland (2000-2002) and Saxby Chambliss (2003-2004)

Cleland
2001: 85/36
2002: 65/16

Chambliss
2003: 5/85
2004: 5/96

Comparing Miller to his colleagues, it's clear that he leans much more towards the Republicans than either a very moderate Democrat (Breaux) or a center-left Democrat (Miller). He is far closer to the Republicans on a variety of issues, not just social. But let's go deeper down the rabbit hole. The last three Democrats (besides Miller) to represent Georgia in the United States Senate were Sam Nunn, Max Cleland,  and Wyche Fowler. Let's look at their lifetime ratings to see if Miller was indeed simply a Democrat whose party left him.

Sam Nunn: 45% lifetime rating from the ACU
Max Cleland: 14% lifetime rating from the ACU
Wyche Fowler: 21% lifetime rating from the ACU
Zell Miller: 71% lifetime rating from the ACU

Once again, Miller is far to the right of the average Democrat from Georgia, even going back to the 1970s. Then again, one could argue that none of those three Senators were the sort of "Dixiecrats" whom Miller claimed to be a fan of.  But Herman Talmadge certainly was. He was Governor of Georgia in the 1940s and 1950s, and served the state in the Senate from 1957-1981. He's about as much of a Dixiecrat as you can find. But take a look at his lifetime ACU rating:

Herman Talmadge: 57% lifetime ACU rating

Talmadge is even more liberal than Miller! Based on this data, it's clear that Miller is not a Democrat whose party left him. He was a Democrat who became more conservative following his intense 1994 reelection battle. I would argue that he saw an opportunity to move to the political right as America became more conservative, and thus compromised some of his values. An example of this is how he was once pro-choice, but became pro-life later on in his career and even spoke at the Evangelical "Justice Sunday II." This is not to criticize those who hold socially and economically conservative views. It is simply to say that Miller is incorrect in stating that he did not leave the Democratic Party, but that they left him. One simply has to look at who the Democrat's nominated in 1972, 1984, and 1988 to see that they did not become a liberal party in the 2000s.

The ultimate irony here is that in 1980, then-Lt. Governor Miller ran against Herman Talmadge in the Democratic Primary for the Senate that year, attacking Talmadge from the left and polling his strongest in Atlanta.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: old timey villain on May 02, 2012, 03:08:11 PM
I remember that speech. My grandfather had been a Democrat his whole life, he knew Zell Miller, and he saw that speech at the GOP convention as the ultimate betrayal. Miller at one point was a moderate voice that Georgia could be proud of. After that speech he was an embarrassment.

Early in his term as Governor he tried to change the old state flag from the civil rights movement. He received enough criticism from both sides that he eventually just rolled over and scrapped the plan. Pretty weak if you ask me. Georgia Dems began to see the writing on the wall in the 1990's. Many of them made the politically savvy but morally bankrupt move of switching parties. Others stood by their views and were eventually voted out of office. I have much more respect for the latter group.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Nym90 on May 11, 2012, 10:25:06 PM
He wanted to become the first person ever to make the keynote speech at  the conventions of both major parties?

There's also the fact that his attacks on his fellow Dems would have received far less publicity if he had been a Republican.

But yeah, Miller clearly moved well to the right, though he was always a pretty conservative Democrat. The term "DINO" is thrown around a bit too often for my tastes by some of my progressive brethren, but in this case it's well deserved.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Darius_Addicus_Gaius on July 27, 2012, 01:47:38 AM
Zell Miller delivered a ferocious, fire and brimstone speech against John Kerry at the Republican convention in 2004.  Yet only three years earlier, he gave a very warm speech on Kerry's behalf:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19761/

What happened?  Why did Miller make such a dramatic transformation at the end of his career?

He represented the old southern democrats who were socially conservative and in the middle on economics. Really Miller belonged in the GOP after the Clinton administration if not earlier.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility on September 24, 2012, 10:31:48 PM
Zell Miller was/is the ultimate opportunist, and a bigger flip-flopper than Mitt Romney.  I have little doubt that his shift to a Democrat-hating Democrat is opportunistic and money oriented, generating sales for his books, TV appearances, etc.  I noted that Miller endorsed Bush for President even while Lieberman was still in the Democratic race; he turned his back on even a like-minded Democrat who was a viable Presidential candiate who may well have picked him as a running mate.  That right there tells me that Miller's shift was all about money.

Miller was chief of staff for LESTER MADDOX!!!  He then became Lt. Gov of Georgia and challenged Herman Talmadge in a Democratic primary, posing as the less conservative candidate.  He lost that race, but was elected Governor, and his 1992 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention was one of the best keynotes ever; it unveiled Miller as a potential new Democratic star, and there was little reason to believe that Miller would be a possible contender for a spot on the national ticket in 2000.

In 2002 a funny thing happened.  Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes and Democratic Sen. Max Cleland lost re-election in what were not overly nationalized racea.  This event pretty much convinced Miller that he was not likely to be re-elected in 2004.  How he went about selling himself out is a question I'll allow others to answer, but Miller was always a pragmatist, and he saw (A) no way to be re-elected as a Democrat and (B) no way the Republicans would allow him to be their nominee for any office of note.  So he became a GOP star whose books and speaking engagements are in demand; he's probably made more money out of politics than in it. 

I don't begrudge him any of this, but this line that the Democratic Party left him is rubbish.  Miller knew what the Democratic Party was, and the Democratic Party knew what he was.  Miller was NEVER pressured to be more liberal by the national Democratic Party; they only wished for him to oppose them quietly on legislation when he believed he ought to, and support the national ticket if only by announcing he was voting for them.  Miller left because he didn't want to be voted out by the GOP tide in Georgia, and he did it in a way where there was something in it for him, even if it meant betraying folks who supported and voted for him over a period of decades.  Miller was a pure opportunist in 1970, in 1980, in 1992, and in 2004.  He's Mitt Romney's Southern-Fried Role Model.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Tutankhuman Bakari Sellers on October 10, 2013, 04:02:22 PM
The Dixiecrat party was going through a transforming time with the Barnes changing the confederate flag. People like Hollings and Barnes were on the left and people like Miller were on the right. When the war on terror begin in 2004, he felt siding with Dubya was the right thing to do.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on October 11, 2013, 02:10:24 AM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: barfbag on October 11, 2013, 03:02:31 AM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.

Would you say the same thing about Lincoln Chaffe or Jim Jeffords? Or Miller is an admirable man for sticking to his values and principles instead of blindly following his party? What do you have to say to this?


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 11, 2013, 03:34:06 AM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.

I'll go with the last one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXpuEFansic


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 11, 2013, 03:39:56 AM

What's crazy is that a 96 ACU rating was to the right of most Republicans, including Rick Santorum. Zell Miller went from a pro-choice Democrat to Larry McDonald II.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: barfbag on October 11, 2013, 03:44:01 AM

What's crazy is that a 96 ACU rating was to the right of most Republicans, including Rick Santorum. Zell Miller went from a pro-choice Democrat to Larry McDonald II.

Do you think it's a big deal?


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Link on October 11, 2013, 03:21:21 PM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.

Would you say the same thing about Lincoln Chaffe or Jim Jeffords? Or Miller is an admirable man for sticking to his values and principles instead of blindly following his party? What do you have to say to this?

Did Chaffe have some big conversion?

Quote from: en.wikipedia.org
Chafee's liberal stances as a Republican led to some conservatives to refer to him as a "Republican In Name Only", or RINO. Most notable among these was Human Events magazine, which named Chafee "the No. 1 RINO in the country."

Not sure how you can lump Zell in with a lot of people of both parties who have switched.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: hopper on October 12, 2013, 07:09:32 PM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.

Would you say the same thing about Lincoln Chaffe or Jim Jeffords? Or Miller is an admirable man for sticking to his values and principles instead of blindly following his party? What do you have to say to this?

Did Chaffe have some big conversion?

Quote from: en.wikipedia.org
Chafee's liberal stances as a Republican led to some conservatives to refer to him as a "Republican In Name Only", or RINO. Most notable among these was Human Events magazine, which named Chafee "the No. 1 RINO in the country."

Not sure how you can lump Zell in with a lot of people of both parties who have switched.
No Chafee was liberal for a early to mid 2000's Republican. By the time he took over his father's US Senate Seat the Republicans were pretty much a Southern Party. I think he would have fit in better pre-Gingrich Revolution 1994 with the Party.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on October 12, 2013, 09:23:15 PM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.

Would you say the same thing about Lincoln Chaffe or Jim Jeffords? Or Miller is an admirable man for sticking to his values and principles instead of blindly following his party? What do you have to say to this?
But that's not the issue, nor even what's being discussed in this thread. Compare Zell Miller's keynote address at the 1992 Democratic Convention, in which he praised the social safety net and the Democratic presidents who built it, with his record in the Senate or any speech he gave after 2002 and you'll see the contradiction. It wasn't a matter of the party leaving him or him sticking to the principles. Either something deep within him changed or he was a con-man and an opportunist all along.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility on March 11, 2014, 09:39:22 PM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Sorry, dude, but this dog don't hunt!

The Democratic Party, for the entire length of Miller's political career, was the more liberal party that had a conservative wing to it, comprised mostly of its white Southern members. 

Let's look at Miller's career choices.  He started out on the right, as Lester Maddox's Chief of Staff.  He became Lt. Gov of Georgia in 1974 at a time when Jimmy Carter was starting to run for President, the National Democratic Party was actively seeking a centrist alternative to challenge George Wallace in the South, and the national party was actively (A) trying to bring in line its Southern members by insisting that its committee chairmen in the Congress adhere more closely to the national party line (no more Howard Smiths), while (B) building up Southern Democrats who had moderate voting records, but who were supportive of ending segregation and who would support the party's natonal ticket for President, if only in a lukewarm manner. 

This was Miller's time to bail.  Instead, he challenged Sen. Herman Talmadge in a 1980 Democratic Primary FROM THE LEFT!  (Rep. Dawson Mathis was his conservative challenger.)  Miller supported Mondale, Dukakis, and he gave a speech for Clinton at the 1992 DNC that led me to believe that he would be the Next Big Thing in Democratic politics.  His turn to the right and abandoning the Democratic Party was not something people foresaw in 1999, when he was named to fill the Senate vacancy caused by the death of Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell.

And there's no doubt that Miller, had he chose to, could have endorsed Kerry, however tepidly, and been reelected to the Senate in 2004.  It would have been tough, but I believe he would have prevailed.  He could have easily been a Democrat supporting the Iraq War and prevailed.  Until 2001 or so, his views and votes were within the midrange of the Democratic Party.

What I believe is that Miller sold out.  He needed and wanted money, and he got some.  Without his bailing on the Democrats, who would read his books?  Who would seek his endorsement or his opinions on FOX News?  Who cares about Dale Bumpers these days?  Miller is a bigger star today, and a bigger moneymaker, then Sam Nunn, who had a far more substantive career, and who seemed to hold moderately conservative views without feeling evicted or abandoned by the Democratic Party.  It's all about the Benjamins for Miller; the Benjamins that come from celebrity.  But his assertions that "the Democrats left me", or "the Democrats are no longer a national party" is hogwash for the sake of making a buck.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Indy Texas on March 11, 2014, 10:40:00 PM
The biggest difference between Conservative Southern Democrats and Liberal Northeastern Republicans was that the latter were far more willing to put their own differences with the party aside to do what the leadership wanted, while the former were more likely to raise an active fuss when they didn't get their way and either threaten to run as independents or simply defect to the GOP.

From the end of World War II, when the hardcore Gilded Age-style Republicans who were strongly anti-New Deal had either retired, died or been voted out of office, until the rise of the Reagan Coalition in the late 1970s, the three overarching themes that held the GOP together were:

(i) Being more strongly anti-communist than the Democrats, either in substance or in style/perception.
(ii) A desire for the New Deal, Great Society and other welfare state programs to be run "more efficiently" which could cover anything from modest Dewey/Rockefeller-style tinkering to flirting with wholesale privatization.
(iii) General distance from organized labor, for reasons ranging from a good government desire to avoid corrupt machine politics to a general desire to destroy any bargaining power for workers in order to enrich large corporations.

When push came to shove, all Republicans, from the left to the right, were willing to vote in ways that advanced these three planks.

By comparison, I can't think of a single issue in the post-New Deal era where the entire spectrum of Democrats were willing to present a unified front on anything. And when defections happened, it was inevitably a case of a conservative (usually Southern) Democrat siding with the Republicans on a given issue.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Bojack Horseman on March 12, 2014, 10:39:50 PM
Nathan Deal seems like a clone of Zell Miller, only then-Congressman Deal switched parties in 1995.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: hopper on March 14, 2014, 01:30:49 PM
How can a Democrat get a 95 from ACU? Just can't figure it out. I think he was a Centrist Dem in the 80's and 90's and than as the South/North Political Realignment sorted itself out in the 2000's he sided with the Republicans more and more.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 14, 2014, 08:26:32 PM
I could have sworn that I posted in this thread some months back. Guess not: oh well.

I think he changed views because of the War in Iraq. Most of his fire and brimstone speech had that as its subject. Just a guess.

This is a basic yet sufficient explanation for the final three years or so of his political career. It's as if 9/11 and the war in Iraq broke something inside of him. There is a great two-hour interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSH7I6LWKIE) that he did from 2006 where (towards the end), he kind of explains that religion got to him later in life and made him regret a lot of his past decisions and behavior (to be fair, he compared some of his behavior while in the Senate to this, as well). He waxes about how national security is the number one thing we have to worry about and how the moral fabric of the country is coming undone. If you want to know about where Zell Miller came from, how he made it into politics and most of his story (minus the corrupt parts, of course), then you should check it out.

It should also be noted that Georgians had a certain term for Zell, going back to at least his first term as Governor:

()

Also, maybe this is why. (http://www.bartcop.com/wwn-zell.gif)
 


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Rockefeller GOP on May 10, 2014, 03:00:41 PM
Zell Miller didn't change. His party left him. Miller stands exactly where Democrats did in the 50's as I do myself for the most part.

Then go be a Democrat.  Zell Miller is a hack.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on May 12, 2014, 11:03:07 AM
Zell Miller was more of an early 70s southern Democrat than a 50s one.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility on May 18, 2014, 06:43:00 PM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.

Would you say the same thing about Lincoln Chaffe or Jim Jeffords? Or Miller is an admirable man for sticking to his values and principles instead of blindly following his party? What do you have to say to this?

Chaffee did not switch parties until after his electoral defeat.  As a Senator, he was dovish, but did not volubly oppose the national GOP.  He stated that he would "write in" George H. W. Bush for President in 2004 rather than vote for W., but c'mon now.

Jeffords never became a Democrat, but he became an Independent who caucused with the Democrats solely over a local parochial pork-barrel issue.  Jeffords was a huge supporter of the Northeast Dairy Compact, a subsidy program to dairy farmers that benefitted Vermont's dairy farmers, and Jeffords was it's cheerleader.  In 2001, the Bush Administration decided not to renew this program.  Whatever the flaws of the program, the Bush Administration didn't seem to understand just how important this program was to Jeffords, whose caucus switch shifted control of the Senate from the GOP to the Democrats.  That's the entire reason that Jeffords switched. 

Had the Northeast Dairy Compact been renewed, Jeffords likely would have remained a Republican.  He was never in electoral danger in Vermont; Vermonters saw him as a guy with some clout who wasn't a mossback conservative.  Despite his moderate record, Jeffords was well-regarded by his GOP colleagues, and on good terms with the GOP leadership.  Trent Lott took pains to cultivate Jeffords, knowing that Jeffords was the most liberal member of the GOP caucus, but understanding that he was elected from liberal Vermont.  Despite his status as a Republican, Jeffords was in no danger of being defeated at the polls; he was no less popular than Susan Collins in Maine is now.

Perhaps Jeffords was hanging onto his GOP label solely for its value in fighting for Vermont's Dairy Farmers.  I can understand this, but to shift the balance of the entire Senate to the Democrats over a parochial issue less than a year after being re-elected as a Republican is not exactly keeping faith with the majority of folks that elected you.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 19, 2014, 02:19:50 AM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.

Would you say the same thing about Lincoln Chaffe or Jim Jeffords? Or Miller is an admirable man for sticking to his values and principles instead of blindly following his party? What do you have to say to this?

Chaffee did not switch parties until after his electoral defeat.  As a Senator, he was dovish, but did not volubly oppose the national GOP.  He stated that he would "write in" George H. W. Bush for President in 2004 rather than vote for W., but c'mon now.

Jeffords never became a Democrat, but he became an Independent who caucused with the Democrats solely over a local parochial pork-barrel issue.  Jeffords was a huge supporter of the Northeast Dairy Compact, a subsidy program to dairy farmers that benefitted Vermont's dairy farmers, and Jeffords was it's cheerleader.  In 2001, the Bush Administration decided not to renew this program.  Whatever the flaws of the program, the Bush Administration didn't seem to understand just how important this program was to Jeffords, whose caucus switch shifted control of the Senate from the GOP to the Democrats.  That's the entire reason that Jeffords switched. 

Had the Northeast Dairy Compact been renewed, Jeffords likely would have remained a Republican.  He was never in electoral danger in Vermont; Vermonters saw him as a guy with some clout who wasn't a mossback conservative.  Despite his moderate record, Jeffords was well-regarded by his GOP colleagues, and on good terms with the GOP leadership.  Trent Lott took pains to cultivate Jeffords, knowing that Jeffords was the most liberal member of the GOP caucus, but understanding that he was elected from liberal Vermont.  Despite his status as a Republican, Jeffords was in no danger of being defeated at the polls; he was no less popular than Susan Collins in Maine is now.

Perhaps Jeffords was hanging onto his GOP label solely for its value in fighting for Vermont's Dairy Farmers.  I can understand this, but to shift the balance of the entire Senate to the Democrats over a parochial issue less than a year after being re-elected as a Republican is not exactly keeping faith with the majority of folks that elected you.

Jeffords left because the Republican party had become too right-wing for him.

Of course the Republican party has gone even further to the right since then. Look at who proposed a rule change to prevent Senators from switching parties in 2001 after Jeffords left?

Specter.

Yes, Specter.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility on May 20, 2014, 08:36:01 PM
It's because of politicians like Miller that people hate politics. The man is either an opportunist, a traitor or just simply insane.

Would you say the same thing about Lincoln Chaffe or Jim Jeffords? Or Miller is an admirable man for sticking to his values and principles instead of blindly following his party? What do you have to say to this?

Chaffee did not switch parties until after his electoral defeat.  As a Senator, he was dovish, but did not volubly oppose the national GOP.  He stated that he would "write in" George H. W. Bush for President in 2004 rather than vote for W., but c'mon now.

Jeffords never became a Democrat, but he became an Independent who caucused with the Democrats solely over a local parochial pork-barrel issue.  Jeffords was a huge supporter of the Northeast Dairy Compact, a subsidy program to dairy farmers that benefitted Vermont's dairy farmers, and Jeffords was it's cheerleader.  In 2001, the Bush Administration decided not to renew this program.  Whatever the flaws of the program, the Bush Administration didn't seem to understand just how important this program was to Jeffords, whose caucus switch shifted control of the Senate from the GOP to the Democrats.  That's the entire reason that Jeffords switched. 

Had the Northeast Dairy Compact been renewed, Jeffords likely would have remained a Republican.  He was never in electoral danger in Vermont; Vermonters saw him as a guy with some clout who wasn't a mossback conservative.  Despite his moderate record, Jeffords was well-regarded by his GOP colleagues, and on good terms with the GOP leadership.  Trent Lott took pains to cultivate Jeffords, knowing that Jeffords was the most liberal member of the GOP caucus, but understanding that he was elected from liberal Vermont.  Despite his status as a Republican, Jeffords was in no danger of being defeated at the polls; he was no less popular than Susan Collins in Maine is now.

Perhaps Jeffords was hanging onto his GOP label solely for its value in fighting for Vermont's Dairy Farmers.  I can understand this, but to shift the balance of the entire Senate to the Democrats over a parochial issue less than a year after being re-elected as a Republican is not exactly keeping faith with the majority of folks that elected you.

Jeffords left because the Republican party had become too right-wing for him.

Of course the Republican party has gone even further to the right since then. Look at who proposed a rule change to prevent Senators from switching parties in 2001 after Jeffords left?

Specter.

Yes, Specter.

The GOP has gone way to the right, but Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins never switched while sitting Senators.  Chaffee didn't switch until he was defeated for re-election, when he concluded that a Republican would have a nearly impossible row to hoe in RI and that he may not be able to win future GOP primaries after failing to endorse W in 2004.

Jeffords did this solely because of the Bush 43 Administration cancelling the Northeast Dairy Compact.  It had nothing to do with ideology; that only comes into play when you are in a situation where you are unable to either (A) win your party's nomination or (B) prevail in the General Election over the opposition party.  Jeffords was not in either situation; he had been protected by the GOP leadership over the years, and had been cultivated by Trent Lott who, while far more conservative than Jeffords, recognized his need for Jeffords's vote to organize the Senate.  The Vermont GOP was/is more pragmatic than many; they were not going to jettison a Senator such as Jeffords who was never in a single bit of danger over being defeated at the polls, and Vermont has never dumped a moderate Republican incumbent over mere ideology.

It sounds better for Jeffords for people to say that he left over the lofty principle of the rightward philosophical drift of the national GOP then to say that he shifted the balance of the Senate over a parochial pork-barrel issue, but that's what happened.  I liked Jeffords; he was an independent guy and, given that he was willing to offend others greatly by causing a wholesale shift in the balance of power in the Senate, he's a guy I'd want in my corner when the chips were down.  But if the Northeast Dairy Compact had been renewed in 2001, Jeffords would have remained a Republican, without a lot of fanfare. 


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Beet on January 23, 2015, 11:33:49 PM
It's amazing how as recently as the early 2000s, guys like Max Cleland, Zell Miller, and Roy Barnes strode across Georgia politics like colossi. It must have been multiracial coalitions of whites and blacks that put these men into power. Impossible to imagine today. In many ways, the South has been regressing since the 1990s, similarly to how it regressed during post-Reconstruction in 1873-1908.


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Adam Griffin on January 24, 2015, 12:35:43 AM
It's amazing how as recently as the early 2000s, guys like Max Cleland, Zell Miller, and Roy Barnes strode across Georgia politics like colossi. It must have been multiracial coalitions of whites and blacks that put these men into power. Impossible to imagine today. In many ways, the South has been regressing since the 1990s, similarly to how it regressed during post-Reconstruction in 1873-1908.

Quite remarkable how quickly it all shifted, but it was long overdue, to be fair. Let's take a look at election results and compare them to turnout by race (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164112.msg4428576#msg4428576) in GA over the cycles in order to see the makeup of the coalition.

% of candidate's voters that were white, 1996:
Clinton 56% (lost)
Cleland 59% (won)

% of candidate's voters that were white, 1998:
Barnes: 59% (won)
Coles: 48% (lost)

% of candidate's voters that were white, 2000:
Gore: 49% (lost)
Miller: 62% (won)

% of candidate's voters that were white, 2002:
Barnes: 54% (lost)
Cleland: 53% (lost)

% of candidate's voters that were white, 2004:
Kerry: 45% (lost)
Majette: 39% (lost)



(the blue/pink line roughly indicates what percentage of Democratic candidate's electorate needed to be white in order to win):

()

So basically, from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, the Democratic coalition in Georgia went from 60% white to 45% white. It's now about 35% white and yet pulling roughly the same statewide numbers as when Barnes and Cleland lost in 2002 (which tells you how rapid the demographic shift has been here).


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Beet on January 24, 2015, 12:44:43 AM
It's amazing how as recently as the early 2000s, guys like Max Cleland, Zell Miller, and Roy Barnes strode across Georgia politics like colossi. It must have been multiracial coalitions of whites and blacks that put these men into power. Impossible to imagine today. In many ways, the South has been regressing since the 1990s, similarly to how it regressed during post-Reconstruction in 1873-1908.

Quite remarkable how quickly it all shifted, but it was long overdue, to be fair. Let's take a look at election results and compare them to turnout by race (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164112.msg4428576#msg4428576) in GA over the cycles in order to see the makeup of the coalition.

% of candidate's voters that were white, 1996:
Clinton 56% (lost)
Cleland 59% (won)

% of candidate's voters that were white, 1998:
Barnes: 59% (won)
Coles: 48% (lost)

% of candidate's voters that were white, 2000:
Gore: 49% (lost)
Miller: 62% (won)

% of candidate's voters that were white, 2002:
Barnes: 54% (lost)
Cleland: 53% (lost)

% of candidate's voters that were white, 2004:
Kerry: 45% (lost)
Majette: 39% (lost)



(the blue/pink line roughly indicates what percentage of Democratic candidate's electorate needed to be white in order to win):

()

So basically, from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, the Democratic coalition in Georgia went from 60% white to 45% white. It's now about 35% white and yet pulling roughly the same statewide numbers as when Barnes and Cleland lost in 2002 (which tells you how rapid the demographic shift has been here).

Excellent info, Adam! It really shows that until 2004, literally every Democrat had a within 60-40 racial balance in his coalition. An ideal image of what a post-racist political coalition in a place like the South should look like-- if anything, it would have been even more so if it were blacks jumping to the GOP. I don't understand why people say the breakdown of that system is "long overdue" though-- the re-racialization of party politics seems like a regression. We're back to the days of Jim Crow where the region is dominated by race-based voting blocs, and while blacks are technically enfranchised by the Voting Rights Act, in practice they will never be a part of the winning coalition so long as such blocs are in place. :-/


Title: Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation?
Post by: Adam Griffin on January 24, 2015, 01:04:40 AM
Excellent info, Adam! It really shows that until 2004, literally every Democrat had a within 60-40 racial balance in his coalition. An ideal image of what a post-racist political coalition in a place like the South should look like-- if anything, it would have been even more so if it were blacks jumping to the GOP. I don't understand why people say the breakdown of that system is "long overdue" though-- the re-racialization of party politics seems like a regression. We're back to the days of Jim Crow where the region is dominated by race-based voting blocs, and while blacks are technically enfranchised by the Voting Rights Act, in practice they will never be a part of the winning coalition so long as such blocs are in place. :-/

Well I obviously don't mean "overdue" in the sense that it's a good thing. I mean more from the perspective of the realignment of the national brands, and later, the state brand. Statewide Democrats and those elected to the Senate in particular were governing as liberals throughout the entirety of the 1990s (though maybe not as liberal as counterparts in other regions, liberal nonetheless for Georgia). By the time we got to Barnes - who arguably knocked five years off Georgia Democrats' dominance by himself - it was a relatively modern, national Democratic state government. That combined with the consistent losses in identification with the national brand finally pushed it over. I'm just amazed that it didn't happen before the General Assembly, Governor, Senators et al really began shifting leftward. Even old coots like Zell seem to forget how he zigged and zagged, finding his way to the left in a 1990s Georgia more often than he takes credit for today.