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.