Why the Zell Miller transformation?

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

[Stranger in a strange land]

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. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.