I couldn't believe it when I read the WSJ op-ed piece yesterday from Zell Miller. He said...

So, some issues to debate...

Was Zell Miller wrong to announce who he will be voting for?
Should a politician vote with his/her conscious or with his/her party?
How will this affect the Democratic party and the elections?

I think clearly any time a life long vocal Democrat voices his support for the Republican incumbent, it hurts the Democrats chances.

I think everyone has to weigh the party v. conscious issue carefully when voting. For most citizens, there is no cost in voting for the opposition party. From someone like Miller or Jeffers there can be extreme cost. Jeffers, after jumping ship, is now looked down upon by many members of Congress. Loyalty is a big thing on the Hill as cooperation is what accomplishes goals.

As for the announcement, I think it is clear that Miller feels strongly enough to take the time to have his staff publish an op-ed on his behalf and strongly enough to risk alienation from his party. If he has strong feeling about this race, then shouldn't he try to affect the political process through the normal channels?

What I find interesting about the announcement is that it came 4 days before the publication of his book denouncing the Democratic Party and many of the candidates specifically. Made me wonder if he was just dissing the Dems publicly to drum up interest in his book.

In the past Miller has said that he supported Bush's invasion plans even though his constituents had a LOT of questions he couldn't answer. He was just believing in Bush and to heck with those questions. He's reacted the same way on many votes.

On the other hand, he's right in that the national Dem Party has indeed lost touch with their roots, which is why a candidate like Gov. Dean is doing so well by ignoring the usual Dem Party tactics and biases. He's also right that legislators in Washington have lost touch with whose money they're spending, but that claim can be laid at the doorstep of BOTH parties.

A politician, like any citizen, should vote for the person who best represents his/her interests. In the election booth, party shouldn't matter (although there are some damned lazy people out there who vote straight party lines, regardless of candidate quality).

Anyway, I don't think his announcement will affect the elections one bit, either in Georgia or elsewhere. It's a one-week story, tops.

I'm not so sure about that. I hope you're wrong. Wrong because the strength of our political system lies in opposing points of view. In recent times the democrats have provided less and less of that critical ingredient. The constant 'anyone but Bush' rants are not productive. Give us an alternative!

It's kind of weird and bad (for the Dems) that a democrat is endorsing Bush. It's bad because it shows that the Democrats are somehow failing to positively beat up on Bush and that they can't seem to dent his armor. The economy is improving, so there is little to critisize him there(at least until the job report comes out Friday ) and the only thing they have a chance on is Iraq because of his failed policies and even that is iffy.

Was Zell Miller wrong to announce who he will be voting for?

No, not at all.

Should a politician vote with his/her conscious or with his/her party?

Democrat politicians have been known to be party loyalists to a fault regardless of the issues.
This attitude is troubling to some who would LIKE their elected officials to think outside the box a bit more rather than their party. Something Dems of late are clueless about. Miller voting his conscious is VERY refreshing.

How will this affect the Democratic party and the elections?

Hopefully Miller's outspoken chastisement of his party members will be the start of a new trend. If he gets enough attention away from the slash n burn anti-Bush Democrats (which his interview seems to be doing) it can only be a good thing for the party.

Who cares what somebody named "Zell" thinks about anything?

When Sen. Jim Jeffords left the GOP to go independent Zell Miller took the opportunity to be a de facto Republican. Miller has consistently voted with Bush on key issues and it has long been rumored that he might switch his party affiliation to the GOP.

He's hanging it up in 2004 so who gives a rat's butt if he likes the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates?

Sounds like he just wants to shill for a book that will soon be stacking up in warehouses across America. Oh well, at least he'll get to do the rounds of talking head shows on CNN and Fox News.

Big freakin' deal.

Yeah its not like this guy is a lifelong Democrat and was one of the most popular governors in the nation when he headed Georgia for two terms. (He left office with an 85% approval rating I believe)

After over 40 years of public service in the Democratic party what does he know about being a Democrat anyway?

The Democrats dont need the South to win a national election anyhow...do they?

How dare this so called Democrat attempt to represent his constituents instead of towing the party line as it drifts farther and farther left, weighed down by more and more special interests!

First off, let me say this:

Miller was well within his rights both as far as party loyalty and announcing his vote. It's the idea that this should be surprising to anyone or that it says something significant that's questionable. It may be rare, but politicians do switch parties sometimes when there views are closer to their "rivals". Miller was a solid conservative before this. Partisanship aside, politicians belonging to the party they are ideologically closer to strengthens the "brand name" consistency/reliability of the party system, which democratic theorists identify as a major strength of the party system when voters may have limited info.

I think some of you are being a little silly in trying to stretch this to some national bellwether. I'm getting a little sick of every news story being spun by some to have great portent for all the nation- reality's not that dramatic, every credible poll suggests the nation remains more or less evenly divided politically.

Anyway, I wanted to comment on something SoCaliente_1 posted:


Uh . . .what Democratic party have you been watching? Dems have long been notorious for our lack of party discipline. Depending on who you ask, it's a relic of our large majorities in Congress up until 1994 or the loss of the South over civil rights (for those conservatives who didn't jump ship like Strom). Only recently have Repubs begun to show cracks in their discipline.

Oh, and do the Dems need the South? It depends on whether there's a third party sapping us in the North. Gore only needed 3 electoral votes more, and he did pretty poorly in the South. It'd make things easier, yes, but 2004 could go dem if we win the same states plus any other state in the Union, like New Hampshire.

kind of a cavalier attitude towards the the south. Shouldn't it be of paramount importance for the Democrats to need the south just as they would need every other state in the union rather than suggesting that Dems feel they could get by fine without them?

How do the southerners feel about that?

If the Bush/Cheney team refuses to spend an amount of resources in New Jersey proportional to it's electoral allotment, is that cavalier? How come we don't hear Northern urbanites whining everytime it's suggested Bush will be focusing on the Midwest and the South?

It's disingenuous to twist not "needing", for a national election, a region where registration and voting patterns are against your party, into some kind of cosmic slight. I believe everyone here is probably familiar enough with politics to see a campaign manager would be incredibly negligent to ignore the political inclinations of the different states. I don't think the Republican establishment would have accepted pro-Affirmative action, pro-gay rights, pro-choice Ahnold if he was in Georgia. To the point of the question, we've been losing Zell Miller-type conservatives from the South since the Civil Rights era. We've survived as a party by picking up districts of Northern liberal Republicans, the former "Rockefeller Republicans".

The Democrats do try to appeal to Southern white voters, just as Republicans try to appeal urbanites, minorities, etc. But history suggests that their resources in an important and tight election are better used elsewhere.

First things first: The Answer - amazing surname!

Now to the topic at hand. It does seem like Dems have lost touch with its constituents, and I agreed with Zell about his statements before his book was published, but to whole-heartedly support Bush just before he (Zell) leaves office is a whole different matter. I do not think Republicans are getting the attention of those previously voting Democrat (and don't get me wrong; why should they?) So if Zell had a problem with the party, I believe he should work within the party to address the concerns of those he so zealously believes aren't listened to, not push us into a pool with no water in it. Let's just say the benefits the GA Rep. party will be giving him when he comes back is well worth the statement he makes. According to the Red and Black, we here a UGA are already making a cozy little spot for him.

As for the 85% approval rating, we all know what that is for: and I am grateful for it. Since HOPE (a Georgia scholarship that pays tuition and mandatory fees for ALL college students in GA using the GA lottery) has come into my life, we have been two peas in a pod. But let's not forget: Mr. Miller wasn't nicknamed "Zig Zag Zell" for nothing.

And finally, as for whether someone should vote their heart: of course!

I don't have any problem with Zig Zag Miller, as he is known down here in Georgia, endorsing George W, Bush. We already know how he is and it is no surprise to people in Georgia.

I think he did it to get more sales for his new book. And he probably is looking for a ambassadorship to some little quiet country. He will be retiring shortly and he needs another job. A ambassadorship would be right down his alley. I am sure Bush will have a extra ambassador job for him. The only trouble is Zig Zag might have hitched his wagon up to the wrong horse. That would be a shame,wouldn't it.

Not to twist this topic around to something else, but I think this is the point that Gov. Dean is trying to make that keeps getting twisted around by those who don't appreciate his use of the Confederate Flag symbolism.

Nope.

Hey, he has seen the Light! We all need to vote for President Bush in the coming election. He ought to get a 100% unanimous, behind him all the way, reelection!

Just look at how much better off we are now than before. I don't have the burden of debt (bankruptcy)! And I don't have to worry about health care because I can be a true Republican and take care of myself! Aspirin is a miracle drug, and it's cheap.

We need to stay the course, not change horses midstream. Who knows what miracles this President of ours, a man of God, can work through to 2008? He's just started and we need him to finish what he has started.

Oh, those nasty old Democrats with their partisan ways only want to make him look bad. They don't have any good ideas. We'll clean up Iraq in no time, the troops will come home, and we'll all be singing when Johnny comes marching home, tra la, tra la!

(The homeland security office has again returned this poster to his padded cell. We regret this laps in enforcement.)

Good for Zell Miller. At least he let the country know where he stands in the 2004 Presidential election. If the Democrats are meant to win in 2004, it will just have to be done without him.

No, it wasn't wrong for Zell Miller to declare his intentions, especially since he has the reputation of being a "zig-zag" politician in Georgia.

The South could obviously use more viable Democratic candidates. I don't see how Zell Miller's "defection" will have an impact on that, however.

The Republicans have somehow managed to come out looking like the defenders of traditional American values. The good old boy Democratic political base was starting to erode when Strom Thurmond defected to the Republicans.

It's quite the coup to have new, dynamic politicians who are nonetheless viewed as traditionalists. Senator Edwards is the type. We need more politicians like him swelling the Southern Democratic ranks in order to win more Southern votes.

So what you are saying is that Miller is defecting an eroding party? Sounds about right. The Dems have been showing the signs of fatigue and death.

That's a bit of a stretch from what she said, GoAmerica. All signs point to the country being more or less in equilibrium. What is the obsession of people here in trying to turn molehills into mountains? I'm having trouble granting credibility to posts that make dramatic declarations based on "molehill" evidence. What's your "proof" that the party is truly in deep trouble, and not simply in balance?

A more than normal amount of life long Democrats are becoming Republicans, my grandfather included. The reason is that the Democratic party is no longer what it used to be. It caters to the far left and the majority of people in today's society are slightly right of center. One of the main reasons I see people changing parties is that they have respect for this country and they cannot stand seeing liberals and liberal organizations like the ACLU stick up for the most unmoral and disrespectful people and acts. Old democrats love this country a lot more than the new democrats that try and attack it on all fronts.

In response to one of the posts, the republicans don't appeal to certain ethnic groups, they appeal to anyone with a sense of individual responsibility, great thinkers of all minorites tend to be republicans. While people looking for handouts with no sense of individual responsibility or willpower, white or minority vote democrat because to them the word "Democrat" means "Free Money"

I have a real problem with those characterizations of Democrats. Personally, I am an old school, unreconstructed liberal in the classic sense, getting close to the age that these defectors to the Republican Party are.

I would consider joining the Republicans because I am pro-life and I would like to see more moral restraint than is being exercised in this society. I stay with the Democratic Party because there needs to be someone to object to "Abortion on Demand and Without Apology" and the attitude that people have license to do anything they want to as long as it doesn't cause direct damage to anyone else.

Further, Republicans represent big business, usually businessmen. The ordinary citizens should have the most say in our government, not these lobbies.

I think there must be a way to provide adequate health care to all our citizens, another Democratic idea. If the visits of the uninsureds to emergency rooms are cut down because they receive more preventive care in doctors' offices, that alone would save everybody who ever enters the hospital tons of money.

If Zell Miller is joining the Republicans, great! There is a lot of deadwood in the Democratic party, and it has to be cleared away before the new growth can come in.

Like I said before, the Democrats are not what they used to be. I prefer to call myself a Clintonian . My friends and I were joking the other day, that if you are a Democrat, you are either an athiest, abortionist, or black. Of course this was only a joke and definitely not the rule but I do find things I object to in the Democratic party.

But it's like Warren Beatty said in the movie Bullworth, "What are you gonna do? Vote Republican?" Sometimes, I wish there was a major third party... But as much as I disagree with Democrats sometimes, I seem to disagree with Republicans all the time - especially when they make blanket quotes such as the one by GodBlessAmerica about Democrats being poor freeloaders who won't pull themselves up. If ever there was a phrase to represent why I stay Democrat...

So to some up, Miller was atleast half-right. There needs to be a change, or atleast a return to the populace that Dems once stood for. But to wholeheartedly support Bush? That boy ain't right.

PS: "GoAMerica", "GODBLESSAMERICA", Be America, Free America...kinda makes me wish I was Republican so I could be an American too

Bravo for Zell Miller! I listened to him on Larry King and a few other programs and think he is going to vote with his conscience rather than with his Party. As he implied on Larry King...he is trying to throw his Party a life line in time so they can get back on course toward winning the election. As Miller pointed out, they are campaigning on liar-liar labels and too much negative rhetoric (like the George McGovern and Walter Mondale campaigns that ended up winning in only one state each in their elections) instead of running their campaigns with a positive agenda and telling the people what they intend to do for them (as did Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton). Why doesn't he leave the Party? Well, in his words, "It's like living in a very old, old house. You know you should leave it, but there are just too many memories and too many years that go with it, so you just keep patching it up in hopes that you can spend your final days in the comfort of familiar, old shoe like surroundings."

This group of nominees are good people, but they are so wrapped up in themselves, bashing Bush and each other that most of the time they are way out of line and way off course. Remember, the comments of Detroit's Mayor after their last debate in Detroit? He said, "They were so busy talking about Iraq and Bush that they ran out of time before they could address the concerns and needs of Michigan voters!" For heaven's sake....Michigan is a swing state....are they nuts???? I guess Howard Dean was the only one who called the Mayor after hearing his comments about the debate and told him just what he would do for the Michigan people.

Miller's decision won't hurt the Democrats...he's close to retiring and is just one out of many. I would like to read his book. Much can happen in a political year...it will be interesting to see if Zell keeps his word. If he does change his endorsement to the Democratic nominee (Howard Dean), it would be decent of him to announce it with just as much fanfare, but without having to write another book.

To tell you the truth, I wonder why the guy is still a registered democrat. I understand that every party is a "big tent" in that you have people with their narrow interest that they want carried out by the party. Miller has done nothing but to criticize his own party and he routinely votes with the GOP. Folks like him switched their party affiliation in the 60s and 70s for different reasons, how Zell missed the bus on that one is beyond me. There is more than enough room for conservatives in the democratic party. The Blue Dog Coalition is a sizable group and is very influential, perhaps more so than the Congressional Progressive Caucus. If he thinks he can do better, then perhaps he should run.