So. Is it just me? Or did anyone else think he sounded just like Billy Graham? Cadence, pitch, timbre...

Zell's a better Republican than most Republicans.

The Republicans can have him.

After all, he fits right in with the hatred and anger, doesn't he?

Too bad he isn't running for re-election, or he'd be a perfect candidate for you guys.

Godless left. As if the right holds a monopolopy on what it means to be Christian-like. If being like Zell is what makes one a Christian, I'll pass.

Patricia, I've never listened to Billy Graham, so I can't compare. I suppose he did sound a bit preacher-like, although the ones we have never get so fired up.

Anne, I know we disagree on almost everything politically and we can argue over e-mail if you really want to, but please note that I did not say the entire Left was Godless. I could have said Godless left and right, I suppose, because obviously there are a lot on both sides. But how was Zell un-Christian?

Anne,
I don't recall seeing any "God loves you even though you're wrong" signs in the hands of leftists protesting the Republican convention. There's plenty of hatred and anger being doled out by both sides, don't you think? And if we were to use simply this thread as a sample, whose comment do you think most stands out for its vitriol?

Anne, precisely what is hateful or un-Christian about detailing Kerry's record in Congress and holding him accountable for it?

Zell Miller had the courage to stand by his principles rather than march in mindless lockstep with his party, which is more than I can say for many professional politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Zell Miller has already said that he will die a Democrat. He came to age as a "Scoop Jackson" Democrat, and he's doing what he can to swing the party back that way. The special interests groups won't give an inch, yet he is trying to be an agent of change within the party (if they'll ever let him back in the room!).

Some of the talking heads on the morning radio said that Miller sounded like Mr. Haney from "Green Acres". Not quite Billy Graham ...

HAVE NEVER HEARD BILLY GRAHAM?! *shrug* It must be a generational thing.

Anyway, if you're interested, there's some audio (Hour of Decision -- well, heck, you don't know what THAT is, either *grin*) here. It is from 1980; the homily still stirs me.

My dad, whose 18th Heaven's Birthday, was a Baptist minister who helped to organize the Billy Graham crusade in Portland, Oregon around 1962. My mother counted his 1948 crusade in Portland as a turning point her life. Yes, it did turn out that I am Roman Catholic; our parish sent a big bus (on which I happily took a ride) to the 1992 Portland crusade.

Billy Graham, BTW, is an astonishingly good man. He has NEVER lived lavishly. His marriage endures. His kids have actually turned out well, maybe the best testimony. Yeah, I'm a fan.

Dang. Link didn't work. Go to: http://www.billygraham.org/HOD_Index.asp

I thought it was an absolutely fantastic speech--one of the best political speeches I have ever heard. I was really fired up afterwards, and then was somewhat disappointed by Cheney.

Patricia, it isn't just a generational thing. I've never been in Baptist sorts of circles where he would be listened to. I was raised in The Worldwide Church of God -- and we had plenty of our own wackos to listen to -- my parents never played their shows let alone anyone elses. And now I'm a member of the Church of Christ and not spending a lot of time listening to anyone's religious shows or speeches.

>>Anne, precisely what is hateful or un-Christian about detailing Kerry's record in Congress and holding him accountable for it?>Zell Miller had the courage to stand by his principles rather than march in mindless lockstep with his party, which is more than I can say for many professional politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Hmph. My responses didn't show up.

Basically I said Zell Miller is a proven liar, but if you're ok with that to get your guy elected, more power to you.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/01/se.03.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=147
http://www.slate.com/id/2106119/

Oh, gosh! Garner Ted! Wow. I'm impressed to "know" someone who did time in that group. :-)

I am afraid I disagree with you, Anne. The websites you pointed out have not proven that anyone lied. Perhaps exaggerated, but not lied.

I snicker when I read in the pages you sight that Kerry proposed cutting spending on the military within a broad-sweeping measure to reduce the deficit (admittedly a great bipartisan concern of the early nineties) and somehow that gets him off the hook. But does it really matter within what group of cuts the military cuts are packaged? I really don't think so.

If the Congress is going to cut spending, then priorities have to be made. Senator Kerry obviously felt that the DOD could be cut in the measure he proposed. Otherwise he would have proposed cutting something else, such as in Commerce or State or Agriculture. Even if the military cuts were only, say, 10% of the total package, they were still part of the package. He prioritized other federal programs outside Defense in order to get that extra 10%. The GOP disagrees with those priorities. There is no lying going on.

And another important point. The Fact Check site says that one year Kerry voted against the DOD appropriations bill and proposed to have a smaller defense budget so that an additional 100K policemen could be obtained for American cities (on top of the 100K cops already approved that year). The fact is asserted as if every person with a brain would agree that Kerry was making a brilliant counter-proposal. Again this is a legitimate argument over priorities. The GOP, or at least some of the Congressmen of the party, disagreed with the Clinton police proposal. They did not believe that federal money should go to local police forces. They didn't like the money allocated for the first 100K police; why would they like Kerry's proposed additional 100K?

Again, it's a legitimate argument over priorities, not a smear job.