He says the movie lines because you react to them. Also he has created a lot of catch phrases and should feel free to throw them around.

Don't be a cultural girly man.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I'm not "reacting", I'm just saying if given a choice between movie lines and no movie lines, I would go without them. Second, he didn't create "girly man", Dana Carvey and Kevin Nealon did on SNL.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Ok he inspired girly men. "Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me!" Steve Martin

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

----
I was also a little surprised that he cited nixon as his inspriation toward the Republican party.
----

Is that not obvious? Look at how paranoid, secretive and reactionary the leaders of the GOP are. The Bush administration is frighteningly Nixon-esque.

Nixon built his career on Red-hunting. Bush is building his career on "evil"-hunting. Hyped up simplistic rhetoric to get the masses riled up. McCarthy 2004.

For all the disdain throw at "Hollywood liberals" isn't it funny how politician/actors are generally Republican?

 
Hi sure did inspire Girly men! Did you see Pumping Iron? Bunch of pumped up men all preening, waxed and shaven.

That was one scary movie.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

as a californian, i can say with some authority here is what arnold passionately believes in, according to both words and deeds while in office:

1. balancing the governmental budget
2. removal of economic barriers
3. removal of pork and patronage from the budget
4. elimination of trial lawyer friendly tort law
5. the right to have an abortion
6. the rights of gays and lesbians
7. elimination of an overarching theology or lack thereof controlling the affairs of government (whether christianity or atheism).

i don't yet know what arnold is as regards the environment.

i'd love to join arnold's political party. unfortunately, if you look at the last 25 years in american government, the democrats are the party for points 1,2,5,6,7 and about a third of point 3. the republicans are my party for point 4, and the other two-thirds of point 3.

arnold was right to choose the republican party when he emigrated in 1968. unfortunately, if he wants to know what party most closely conforms to his current views, he just needs to roll over in bed and ask his wife's advice.

or start his own party, because there is no party for arnold in america today.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You are probably completely right about Arnold and his views, but I must say,...I've never heard anyone stablish their authority in politcal matters by stating that they are Californian. ;-)

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"I've never heard anyone stablish their authority in politcal matters by stating that they are Californian. ;-)"

being a californian doesn't make me an authority in political matters, it better positions me as regards arnold's political matters. if that matters :-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

As a non-Californian, I could use your help in answering a question raised by your views on Arnold: If his beliefs seem more aligned with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party, why did he appear at the RNC this week?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

He originally said that he wouldn't do any National campaigning for Bush but he would help in California. Wonder if it has to do with his own re-election?

"I'm not "reacting", I'm just saying if given a choice between movie lines and no movie lines"

I'd like to think he's governinig, not acting, but maybe we're better off if he gives the speeches and someone else does the thinking...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Bunch of pumped up men all preening, waxed and shaven."

There were triathletes in Pumping Iron? (kidding)

So you DON'T shave? Are you subconsciously gay and afraid you might like the feel of your own legs cleanly shaven?

¦:o)/

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

I watched about 1/2 of Arnold's speech, the Bush twins, and part of Laura Bush's speech. The whole thing reminded me of a bad high school pep rally, with one-liners and a bunch of "jokes" that didn't make me laugh.

Is anyone going to give a speech that focuses on the future, i.e. this is what we want to do, and is not mostly a reflection of what happened in the last four years? This is what I want, not two recent college-grads poking fun at their parents and grandparents. Surely there is a plan for the next four years somewhere, not just "stay the course"? I'll be watching again tonight, maybe a little, in between commercial breaks during "Amish in the City" and "The Player".

"why did he appear at the RNC this week?"

why is a democrat the keynote speaker at the RNC tonight? zell miller is a democrat who ought to be a republican. if he had any balls he'd change his affiliation. if the democratic party had any balls it'd ask him to, and run a real democrat against him in his next primary.

arnold is a republican because he's a fan of nixon and reagan, and he can't yet bring himself to change his affiliation. the republican party adopted him and drafted him to run in california. however, for all the balls he tries to convince people he has, REAL balls would cause him to do what mccain does, and criticize what's wrong with his party.

unfortunately, neither party is overly endowed with such people. party loyalty appears to be considered a higher virtue than virtue for its own sake.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Think there's a bit of a double standard there with your treatment of Miller and McCain?

What the hell is McCain doing in the Republican party? Oh, yeah, he's a courageous moderate. . .

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I believe Zell Miller is not running for re-election. Saves the Dems from having to back a Republican or running a "real" Democrat against him.



So you're saying that Arnold is just being yet another politician, instead of something new and different? Sigh.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I don't think McCain is not a Republican: he's pretty conservative. The difference is that he occasionally stands up for what he believes is right and wrong, irrespective of party affiliation. Miller is a conservative, too.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I agree with you that McCain is pretty conservative. In New Jersey.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

If I wasn't such an unshaven homophobe :) I'd move out to California and have slowman adopt me. I agree with him on most of the points he has brought up here. I think that in the 2000 election McCain was the best candidate, although not the candidate with the best chance of winning. I think he is more of a populist than a republican or democrat. He does what is best for the people of Arizona regardless of what his party wants and he does a lot of bipartisan work because that is the best way to get things done. Neither party has a lock on what is best for america and if they were both working on what is best for the american people I wouldn't have to put up with so many stupid commercials during Big Brother (gawd, I can't believe I just admitted to watching that crap better than NFL in August, christ August haven't you already ruined the entire fall and winter)

 
"So you DON'T shave? Are you subconsciously gay and afraid you might like the feel of your own legs cleanly shaven?"
---------------------------------------------------------

Done the shaving thing but I have so little body hair anyway that doesn't make much difference. My calves always have the completely smooth feeling.

Haven't tried waxing and oiling yet. Is that fun? I assume for maximum fun you need 2+ people.

"I assume for maximum fun you need 2+ people."

For MAXIMUM fun you need five people, a pig, and various accessories.

Actually, the pig was Tibbs' idea...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

COME ON ELWOOD! SQUEAL LIKE A PIG!!!!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

So having real balls is allowing someone else to tell you what you are and running to hide in the group that you are told to go too?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

"COME ON ELWOOD! SQUEAL LIKE A PIG!!!!"
- - I'll just play the banjo from behind the set wing wall, if no one objects...

Actually, that reminds me of a fishing trip I took when I was living in Sacramento. Two guys (one from Sacto and one from the quaint little mountain town of Cool) invited me to go on a fishing trip to the mountains, and when we were driving back, we were coming through the little redneck hamlet of Georgetown on Hwy 193 when we had to stop for a farmer who was manuevering a fairly large tractor-like device through an intersection.

The Sacramento guy looked out his window, and saw a young pig, obviously frightened by the large machine, squirming to get back under the fence to safety, it's little pink butt wriggling in the late afternoon sunshine. He says (obviously we'd been away from female companionship for over a week) "that little pink booty reminds me of my next door neighbor. I see her sometimes, working in her garden. Man I wish that was her nekkid butt.

Sophisticate that I am, I offered to improve the fantasy: "As long as we're fantasizing, I'd really like to see Demi Moore's bare bodkin so close at hand, her head and shoulders pinioned under the fence like that..."

The mountain boy from Cool let out a laugh. "Y'all slay me," he said. "Like there's any possibility that Bill's neighbor would be crawling under a fence, buck nekkid, out here in the middle of nowhere, much less a big-time star like Demi Moore. You guys are dorks..."

"You're right, of course," I started to agree, but he wasn't finished...

"Shoot," he continued, "I just wish it was dark."

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Zell Miller has been a lifelong Democrat and is a former Marine. He has been the head of the Georgia Democratic Party and a very successful Governor for, I think, eight years. Your suggestion that he doesn't have any balls is distasteful at best. Hopefully you saw his speech last night, have rethought your opinions and will post the appropriate apology.

He is not running for reelection, and his term expires in January. He is a fine American who has served and fought for his country, and who has every right to be heard respectfully without assaults on his character like yours.

I don't dispute your description of Zell, but tell it like it is - he's enjoying the attention he gets as a "Democrat" in the Rebublican party. If he switched, he'd just part of the crowd (Richard Shelby).

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I turned the tee-vee on last night and there was a religious revival program on. A few minutes into it I realized it was the RNC...

"So having real balls is allowing someone else to tell you what you are and running to hide in the group that you are told to go too?"

what?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Hopefully you saw his speech last night, have rethought your opinions and will post the appropriate apology."

there are a lot of people who have fought for their country. and yes, everybody has every right to be heard. do they need to be heard respectfully? kerry fought for his country. does zell miller need to hear kerry respectfully? is that what miller did last night?

i have equal distaste for both democrats and republicans that are disingenuous, and for whom politics mean more than truth and honor. if miller had a true sense of honor, years ago he'd have shown respect for his party, a party that has stood behind him and helped him fund and work his campaigns, and would've resigned from that party (as i believe Jim Jeffords had the courage to do).

I don't like the democratic party. i don't like the republican party. i really don't like zell miller.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

three years ago, Zell Miller called John Kerry a true American hero. Has that changed because he decided to run for President?

I agree, I don't like the RNC, I don't like the DNC, maybe we need more Perots - just a little less nuts.

and no, this is not an endorsement of LaRouche!

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I believe Kerry has been respectfully heard. Respectfully heard by Miller, and certainly by me. Speaking of either as being without balls says more about the speaker than it does the object of the speaker's wrath.

Miller has essentially resigned from the national Democratic party (not the state or local party) as personified in its current national leaders. He is not seeking reelection and he does not caucus with them any longer since his revultion at their holding the creation of the Homeland Security Department hostage to government union politics. One can disagree with his positions, but it is difficult to argue they are dishonorable.

Until I informed you, apparently you were not aware he finishing out his term in the next several months. Now that you are so informed, perhaps you would like to modify your opinion.

Jim Jeffords switched parties in order to change the party leadership of the Senate in a coup that avoided the formalities of consulting voters. He did so immediately after being elected as a Republican. Courage would be giving up your seat and letting voters decide at the next election as Miller is doing. Courage would be not going against the will of the voters by the balance between the parties without consulting the electorate as Miller is doing. Courage would be articulating your beliefs and not cutting a deal on a committee chairmanship and milk quotas the way Jeffords did.

You have an odd definition of courage. It would include your joining the USAT board on the platform on which you were elected, and then getting on the board and fighting to prevent transparency. You would never behave that way. Why do you suggest those that do are courageous?

Had Miller switched to the Democratic Party prior to January, 2003, he would have done a reverse Jeffords and engaged in a counter coup of moving Senate control back to Republicans without the consent of the voters. That he would never do. Then he would have been like Jeffords. The man you saw last night was no Jim Jeffords.

Yes, Miller and many others have heard Kerry respectfully, and they have opposing opinions on matters of great substance that they have the courage and ability to articulate. Disagree with their substance if you like, but saying that you dislike them is weak. Try addressing their ideas.

I'm not a big fan of anyone who changes party affiliation after getting elected. On the other hand, I don't see Miller being all that, considering he knows he doesn't have to face the electorate. It seems to me that this is just a huge ego boost for him.

I also certainly didn't like it when the Democrats denied Bob Casey (whom I never liked) the ability to address the 92 convention because he disagreed with the party's position on abortion.

Like I said above, I'm not a big fan of either party right now.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Frog, you nailed that one. It is not Miller's fault that the national party is so intolerant that you have to follow the party line on abortion, anti military, pro union, pro affirmative action, pro national healthcare, pro big government, etc., in order to be able to even step up to the microphone.

Not even allowing Casey up to the microphone in 1992 because he is pro life was a total disgrace and a symptom of a party in great need of reform. Somehow, the "intolerant" Republicans have room for Schwartzneggar, Guliani (sp?), Cheney and Bush along with the ability to keep disagreements manageable.

The Democrats have no such problem at the state level. If they lose this election, hopefully they will start looking to Governors like Granholm and Richardson for 2008, rather than the Washington Democrats. It would be nice to have two parties that are more worried about the defense of the nation than the next election cycle again.

"Miller has essentially resigned from the national Democratic party"

no balls = essentially resign
balls = actually resign

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Why would either party send up a dissenting party member to speak during the nominating convention? This is each parties chance to put out its platform for the upcoming election, and to lead up to the nomination acceptance of the candidate who will supposedly campaign on that platform. Why would they put someone in to speak who was going to say something at odds with the platform? Their are plenty of opportunities for that, the convention is not one of them.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, there is more to the Democratic party than the Washington Democrats. There are the Georgia Democrats, like his predecessor Sam Nunn, for example, who agrees with Miller on many defense related issues. Maybe Miller believes that it is the Tom Daschles of Democratic party that need to go, not the Zell Millers. Miller has been a lifelong Democrat in the tradition of FDR, JFK and Truman. Why should he leave the party? Maybe he is trying to save his party.

I realize this explanation doesn't fall into your balls/no balls model, but maybe it is you who needs to give it a little more critical thought.

I can not understand how someone like you, with a successful track record of a lifetime of independent and creative thinking, would cast such simple minded aspersions on men with a lifetime of honor, achievement and service. I guess it is just the product of the politics of division that characterizes the present era.

You are a better person than that. Raise your game.

First the easiest point. No one cares about the platform, other than the platform writers.

Second, they put Miller up there in order to get the speech that he would deliver. No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, the results speak for themselves.

A better question might be why couldn't they get a speech like that from one of their own prominent members, some rising star? Sadly I don't have an answer for that. That they couldn't, or didn't, is not a good thing for the party.

"if he had any balls he'd change his affiliation. if the democratic party had any balls it'd ask him to, and run a real democrat against him in his next primary."

He has balls staying because the party changed not him. He is a freak but he has been with the party for decades. Why should he switch when he is a democrat?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

"(as i believe Jim Jeffords had the courage to do). "



Your mean the Jim Jeffords that changed parties the day after he was swarn in? He used the RNC to fund his campgain then switched. You just gave Miller hell for using the DNC. So does Jeffords have tiny balls?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

-----
He has balls staying because the party changed not him.
-----

He hasn't?

In 2001 he called Kerry a "genuine hero" and a "personal friend".

He changed a lot, for the worse. He can't handle talking with someone who politely disagrees with him in public without going into a towering rage.

Miller should've packed it in around 2002.

Of course Miller is now saying that in 2001 he just read what the party gave him.

That means he lacks integrity and will make any excuse he can to get out of whatever pickle he puts himself into... a perfect Republican.

"Second, they put Miller up there in order to get the speech that he would deliver"

I think that's partially true. I also think they put him up there for the specific effect that they would get from having a Democrat rail against his own party and Sen Kerry in particular. Pres Bush has been taking a lot of hits from the "divider" argument, and I think this, and a lot of the convention (disproportionate numbers of minority Republicans on the podium for instance) is a pretty blatant attempt to paint the RNC as an inclusive and unifying group.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't see the contradiction. Kerry was a fellow Senator. Kerry served his country honorably in battle. That doesn't mean Miller can't be opposed to him as a candidate for president.

Miller is trying to save his party. Leaving, would be like Dan's quiting USAT over the election corruption. Instead, he stayed and tried to change things.

Miller is trying to change the Washington Democrats. I suspect Miller is in touch with Georgia much more than the national Democratic party.

Well, if you were a positive thinker, you might think that it is an attempt by the Republicans to be inclusive and unifying. That may not be cynical enough for you, but you should at least consider the best in people before you assume the worst.

Art,
I have no doubt that there are Republicans who are trying to make their party more inclusive. I don't think that's what this is about though. I think it is politics, and although I think it's kind of transparent, I think it's very possible it will work. I try to always consider botht eh positive and negative sides of what I see before I make a judgement, and in this case, the GOP has decided to put a much larger percentage of minorities on the podium, than is representative of their constituency. They chose to put Arnold in prime time, partially because of his celebrity, but largely because of his appeal to immigrants, generally a more liberal demographic. I'm not saying they shouldn't do this, or even that it won't work for them, but I'm just pointing out a pretty obvious political strategy. Don't jump to conclusions about my motives please.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I draw no conclusions about your motives. I just disagree with your interpretation. The Republican party is trying to be a big tent party. They have and want both prominent prochoice and prolife candidates at the national level. They have and want both white and minority candidates at the national level. They have and want both progun and pro gun control candidates at the national level. They have and want proentitlement and small government advocates as candidates at the national level.

Can the Democrats say the same?

I do not necessarily agree that all of the above are good choices, but the convention is consistent with the above objectives.

What all that seems to say is that the GOP doesn't have a stand on abortion, gun control, or the size of government. I'm not sure that's a good way to have a party, but who knows. You can't really criticize the Democrats for having a consistent view on issues. You may not like their take, but I'm not sure that not taking a stand on those issues is great policy for a political party.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I would tend to agree with that, but the reality is that one can not build a majority party made up of only people that pass a long list of litmus tests. Most of the issues I listed are second tier issues that people can agree to disagree on while still working together on more important issues.

On the other hand, if you want to cut and run from the rest of the world, play defense and hope no one will hate you as a result, you really need to join the other party.

There is a difference between politely disagreeing with Kerry and the tirade Miller delivered to the RNC, a difference as wide as the Grand Canyon. That was nothing more than one overwrought man's polemic against all the little demons dancing around in his head.

Someone trying to "save" their party would not do what Miller did. He would work with the party if he truly cared about helping it.

Take a look at the text of the speech. It is very substantative. Miller said what he believes. Agree or disagree on the substance, but using words like demons and overwrought or polemic doesn't do much to advance dialog.

He has worked within the party. It hasn't worked inside the national party. The local party is a different story.

Doing more and more of the same thing and expecting a different result is my working definition of insanity. He is trying a different course. It may work. Hear him out and spare the character attacks.

For someone to qualify as "substantive" it would have to be a well-formed argument. Miller makes no such attempt, it is nothing but a diatribe that ignores mitigating factors and any kind of context.

For instance, Cheney opposed a lot of the same military initiatives Kerry did that Miller listed. Yet Miller says this administration is great and that Kerry would be disaster. That is not substantive, that is playing the shill.
The same for the whole "Nothing makes this marine angrier than calling troops occupiers" thing, which is something Bush has done many times.

It is substantive in that parts of it are factually correct, but all good propaganda has factually correct elements, it is the tone and arguments derived from the facts that matter, and in those two categories Miller's speech was a massive pile of garbage.

There are reasons to vote against specific military hardware.
There are reasons Kerry voted against the appropriations bill (just like there is a reason the Republicans pulled it out when it didn't say exactly what they wanted).

OK, now you at least take a shot at some substantative arguments.

Yes, Cheney did oppose the Apache helicopter, and I think they were both correct to oppose it. I don't think he opposed any of the other hardware that Miller ticked off, but correct me if I am wrong. The point of Miller's speech was the pattern of Kerry's record. He basically opposed defense at every turn, even after the first WTC bombing. Hey, it is fine to defend those positions and one can make intelligent arguments for them.

Miller's conclusion, and mine, is that Kerry was strategically wrong on the major defense decisions of the 80's and 90's during his time in the Senate. There is a reason Kerry doesn't speak of his Senate tenure, and there is a reason this country rarely elects their presidents out of the Congress. Agree with Miller's conclusions or not, but they are heartfelt, consistent, and persuasively argued.

OK, it is your right not to like the tone, but going from much of it being factually correct to the speech being a massive pile of garbage was quite a stretch for one sentence. I have to hand it to you there.