Why is it that if Miller so strongly disagrees with what has become of his party then all the sudden he is disloyal??  This is a man who for the last 50 years has voted for Democrats, who was anti-Reagan, and Bush Sr, and who voted for both Gore and Clinton.
Now he strongly disbelieves in the direction of the Democratic party and its candidate so he is disloyal.  
  Why isn't he just a patriotic American who was willing to break ranks with his party because his loyalty to this nation superceded his loyalty to his party?? It seems very honorable to break with your party on behalf of a greater good.  
  Personally I don't agree with him supporting Bush because Bush is a incompetent and worthless puppet.  But, why is Miller accused of being "disloyal.?"  
  What an unAmerican thing to call a senator disloyal solely because he breaks party ranks!!  This from the democratic party which always whines about freedom of speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

There is no disloyalty in Zell Miller.  He speaks out of conviction, and that is sometimes hard to Democrats to understand.

Hmm.  Was he arrested for his disloyalty?  No?  Well then I guess his speech is free.

Is he disloyal?  Yes.  Is he allowed to be so?  Yes.

This group of GOPers with their venal pro business and anti environment stance  are so opposed to traditional Dem values that this claim is not off base.  

Lots of dems vote here and there for GOP bills and ideas- and VV- that is no big deal.  But to bask in the limelight of the opposing party when their far right is in control is to earn any labels thrown.

BTW- I think he is a big boy and can handle a few epithets. He sure tossed a lot of them at his former mates!

-- Modified on 9/9/2004 4:42:20 AM

After all, isn't this the same guy who gets a pass from all of those language police on this Board who attack Bush for saying "nucular."  Jimmy Carter served in the fucking "nucular" Navy, under Adm. Hyman Rickover!

That having been said, a case can be made that Zell should switch parties.  But for the same reason that I condemn Jumpin' Jim Jeffords for doing so, I cannot begrudge Zell for not doing so.

After all, Zell was selected for his seat as a Democrat.  Because this is so, it would break faith with the voters for him to, in the Senate, caucus with the GOP.  While it makes less difference now than it did with Jeffords (where he shifted partisan control, and the not insignificant power to set the agenda, over to the Demoncrats), I still believe that a case can be made that keeping faith with the voters requires that he caucus with the Dems.  That is quite a bit different than endorsing a candidate of the other party for office (any office).

As for the question --- Why is he being accused of being "disloyal"?  Well, who can explain Jimmy Carter?  He was most recently in the news validating the results of a demonstrably corrupt election South America.  I suspect that "disloyal" translates as "insufficiently socialist and appeasing" in the Carter lexicon.

Where's you evidence that the election in Venezuela was corrupt?

Since nobody else has given the link to Carter's statement and I'm not sure everyone seeing the thread has read it, I will post the link. See below.

Thank you Mathesar!

including many Georgians, I think Zell would welcome Carter's condemnation as a badge of honor.

Best line though is:

" [I] as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don't believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacifist."

What the fuck is Carter smoking?  Keep pounding nails Jimmy, your opinion in American Foreign Policy is about as valuable as an old empty can of Billy Beer.

Many people think G.W.Bush is a strong leader, and many think he is a thoughtless reactionary. Big fucking deal. Many of us in Ga  know Miller has lost what little sanity he had. What has suprised me is finding out that you republicans are such a bunch of pussies.     Bob

I wasn't in Caracas.  But neither was Carter everywhere in Venezuela.  Applying the logic of your idiot comment, not being there is sufficient reason to call into question my comment, and since Carter wasn't in every voting booth, I guess that's why he was wrong.

But actually, there has been considerable reporting that Carter's comments --- as usual, in support of a left-winger, since Carter never met a Leftie dictator whose ass he didn't kiss --- were extremely premature, and ignores substantial evidence of fraud.  A simple web search will find thousands of links.

In Carter's defense, he got fucked pretty good by the Powers That Be, but he messed up handling OPEC and Iran. A very difficult Presidency by any stretch of the imagination, but clearly he was overmatched for the job. Not the worst, but probably in the bottom 5-7.

W, on the other hand, came into prosperity and a strong economy, and totally trainwrecked it so his corporate cronies could steal all the money, including the $400B surplus Clinton left him. Frankly, half of his Cabinet should be doing time for the shit they've pulled while in office.

Bob, Jimmah couldn't win a city council race in Georgia, even with your "many" who think Zell's lost his sanity!  Zell would win in a landslide if he was seekiing re-election.  Actually, his not seeking re-election give even more credence to his comments.

And Pussies?  How about forging a letter from a dead guy with 2004 software and dating it 1973?  Now that is pussy for you, and really fucking dumb, about par I would say, Bob.

if anything was a nail in the coffin of the "strong economy" was the fact that his AG took the wood to microsoft, add that to overblown P/E ratios, leveraged debt on extremely overvalued stocks etc..  Do you really think all the shit going on at Enron et al started the day W. took office?? Fuck no! Maybe you should drag up some ghosts when you talk about crooked cabinet members and read about Ron Brown.  So, "trainwrecked it"?? No, pull your head out of your ass.  Carter had a difficult presidency? How about the largest terrorist attack in history happening within your first 9 mos of presidency?