"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.