The Green[e]house Effect: a Weblog

Keep in mind that he's the representative of the state of Georgia (which went for Bush at around a 60% clip), so he's pretty much in line with his constituents.

I like Zell, really. But this is too far. I wonder why he thought Max was better than Saxby? Or were the stakes not so high back in 2002? Obviously this stuff isn't politics.
I get the feeling that some Democratic interest group types really hurt his feelings during his Washington tenure, bad mouthing the South or something. Because if it's policy why not just switch parties like Shelby or a thousand earlier Southern Democrats did? I'll try to find the time to read his new book. Maybe it sheds some light on what got stuck in his craw, but now he seems to be on a mission to destroy the Democrats.

Or maybe Ricky's got it. Maybe he's just a barometer, always trying to be popular in GA.

As Oliver Willis points out, looking up "Democrat in Name Only" in the dictionary gets you pretty close to Mr. Miller…

Ricky:
Sorry, I'm not buying it. He can believe whatever he wants to believe, but I have every right to slam him for it.

Public approval and a buck-fifty will get you a tall caffé americano at Starbucks. What I take exception to is Zell's brazen lack of principle. I can't think of any other way to characterize his endorsement of the leader of the opposing party just months after saying he would refuse to endorse or campaign for the Senate candidate from his own.

I voted for him as a Democrat. I expect him to uphold the party's ideals. People have different visions of what those ideals are; that's fine. But I don't appreciate having sent him to Washington only to see him trash the party before running off to endorse its nemesis.

Forget how that plays with rest of the voters of Georgia; that was an enormous act of disrespect to me, and to every other Democrat who voted for him.

He had disagreements with the party, but he could have chosen legitimate ways and means through which to express them. Instead, this makes him look like a man throwing a public hissy fit. That's a shabby way to end what should have been remembered as a long and honorable career.

Much like a Supreme Court justice might say, I agree with Greg and add my own adjunct opinion (or whatever).

It seems to me that Zell wears his (D) like Maria Shriver is a Kennedy. To Zell, the party means nothing, it's all about looking up to who's in power.

The man comes from a statehouse tradition of executive worship and is just practicing what he did before becoming governor and what he reaped while he was governor.

Even Saxby Chambliss, a (declared) member of Bush's own party, votes against the wishes of the President more than Zell.

I dunno, I may be rambling, but it seems that Miller's very early endorsement of Bush will be the sour cap on an otherwise great career that Greg hints at. If things keep going to shit in Iraq, Miller's brownnosing will be hard to ignore.

If my worst fears are borne out (total US withdrawal from Iraq by a poll driven President desperate to curry favor from voters) I'll practically expect a personal apology from Miller. And lets not forget that Miller's kind of famous for changing his mind. This early endorsement might come back to haunt Miller and Bush next year if things keep progressing the way they are.

One final thing, Bush won Georgia with 55% of the vote, not 60%. It may not seem like a big deal to a lot of people, a win's a win, after all, but I don't think Bush will get 60% or even 55% next year, although I do suspect he'll carry Georgia.

Greg, of COURSE you're free to slam him!

But, having been a GA resident all my life, I can attest that Zell hasn't moved very much from where he was 20 years ago (although, I must admit, what has moved has gone to the right). The man was against tax hikes when he was GOV and pressed for tax cuts then & has done the same ever since.

Some of us registered "repugs" who would crawl across broken glass on our hands & knees to vote for the Democratic Zell Miller were Bush to move to GA & run against him in the senate feel just as Zell does - that party doesn't matter. That's why I support the 3rd party candidates.

You have an excellent point about voting for him "as a Democrat", though. I'd be (truly) interested in your thoughts about Jim Jeffords. After all, Zell turned down offers of power to switch parties, while Jeffords took the brass ring & ran with it to a committee chair.

Zell is (and has been) a conservative Democrat. You may disagree with me (remember, I'm a former Democrat), but the party on a national level has moved to the LEFT. That's why Zell's at odds.

the party on a national level has moved to the LEFT

Uhh, no. The party was dragged to the right by Clinton and the DLC. We are trying to get it back to the left.

Zell has always been conservative, and to the right of many Republicans. He does nobody any favors by remaining a Democrat. Rank and file Democrats dislike him, and most of what he stands for. His pandering to Bush has ruined his name in our party. I damn sure would like to see some protests against him.

Ricky:
Fair point about Jeffords. If anything, though, I have to credit him for having the honesty to at least own up to what he had done by pulling out of the party.* By contrast, Miller somehow keeps managing to stab the national Democrats in the back, while maintaining that he deserves to keep the little 'D' after his name. I've had enough of that charade — not because he has no right to his disagreements, but because of the disruptive and dishonorable way in which he keeps airing them out.

When sweet madame MacDiva threw her tantrum a few weeks ago, you said something that got the measure of how I think pretty well — it was a comment that said something about my being too much the gentleman to start a public brawl. I don't know how right that was, but I respect public servants who conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen.

For Miller to publicly endorse the candidate of the oppositition — before giving his party's candidates a chance, and right after lambasting his party as "a national party no more" — goes so far beyond the realm of constructive criticism that I can't help but call it ungentlemanly. It was self-serving and gratuitous — but definitely not gentlemanly.

[ * It would have been even better for Jeffords to take a leaf from Phil Gramm's book by resigning, then running for his seat as an independent.]

"The party was dragged to the right by Clinton and the DLC."

And what eight year long effect (1992-2000) did that have?

"We are trying to get it back to the left."

And what 12 year long effect (1980-1992) did that have?

If you look at the current candidates, who is doing better in the polls? The Braun/Kucinich end of the Democratic spectrum, or the Clark/Kerry end of the spectrum?

There's a message in there. It's not the one Zell seems to be trying to spread (I don't blame any Democrat for being angry at his latest), but it's an important divide the Democrats must face if they truly hope to beat Bush.

You not only need to get all the proclaimed Democrats on your side, you need some folks who haven't declared themselves Dem or Repub, because they see one as too far left, and one as too far right.

Moving left won't get you those people, i.e., the swing votes that will determine the next President. I think Zell used to sort of represent those swing votes, but he has clearly gone over to the other side. Even as a centrist, it's hard for me to understand how he can be so certain about making that politically odd choice, a full year in advance.

Don't forget that Zell used to be a mountain populist as well, far far to the left of where he is now. I guess the difference is that he and his neighbors used to be dirt poor and Democrats, now that they drive SUV's and vote for Republicans, he is too.

And what eight year long effect (1992-2000) did that have?

Clinton spent 8 years being bitch slapped by the GOP? The GOP moved even furthur right? The Democrats lost all their backbone? The environment has been trashed? Abortion rights have been infringed on? Liberals are made fun of by Democrats? The principle that the Democrats used to stand for have been sold out to corporate whores?

That kind of effect? Help me out here.

If the Democrats run a Bush lite, they get beat. Zell, Lieberman, and all the "D" Senators supporting Bush are not doing us, nor the country, any good. I would rather go down fighting for good causes, than voting for somebody because I believe center can win. I support Dean because I truly believe social liberalism and moderate fiscal policies will make our country a much better place. Swinging left on many issues will get our parties more votes, IMHO.

I fear we've gone far off the topic of Zell, and risk the wrath of the proprietor, but, no worries, I'll just buy him a beer next weekend.

"I would rather go down fighting for good causes, than voting for somebody because I believe center can win"

And there's nothing wrong with that, it's quite admirable. However, it seems most of the Democratic voices I hear say Job One is "Beat Bush." The "good causes" will get zero attention if Bush is re-elected. A moderately positioned Democrat might not be your Dream Candidate, but they would surely address more of those causes than Bush would.

However, this is what the primary race is all about; the fight for control of the party, and shaping the final election run.

But surely you don't believe the Democratic Party would be better off today if Bush Sr. had won in '92?

Uhh, no. The party was dragged to the right by Clinton and the DLC. We are trying to get it back to the left.

Oh, right, gttim. Guess that's what happened to all those pro-life Democrats: they were abandoned by a party that moved to the RIGHT. (they were abandoned along with the Scoop Jackson Democrats).

Puh-leeze. Take some reality pills.

Uhh, no. The party was dragged to the right by Clinton and the DLC. We are trying to get it back to the left

Ever thought about taking a look at what it's gotten you?
Look, I think the dept of education is a complete waste of time, effort and billions of dollars. I'm out of the mainstream of America on this, because anytime someone mentions a decrease in funding that monstrosity, the public goes beserk.
If you're agin' Zell...fine by me. I've voted for him in the past & I've voted against him in the past. But, trying to take the Democratic party FURTHER to the left in today's America.....well, I'll let you think that one over & live with the results.

Zell has always been conservative, and to the right of many Republicans.
?????
Perhaps you're thinking about Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe GOPers....he's definitely NOT to the right of Georgia GOPers (remember, he's representing the state) or southern Republicans. Or, southerners as a whole, where a southern Democrat is more in line with Miller or Breaux than Kennedy or Boxer (something the Democratic party should consider).

I speak not as a partisan, but as a pragmatist on this. I've given up all hope of reform over social security or the education department, because America just won't stand for that. And, they won't stand for someone trying to raise taxes (which is the main thing the Democratic nominees are running on that pissed Zell off).

You gotta consider --- Zell knows how to win in the south, something that hasn't exactly been the forte' of many Democrats.

BTW, Greg, mark me down for buying you one beer, as well, for starting this whole get-together in motion. I want to emphasize "beer" and not "pitcher" or "keg". :)

Zell wins in the south because he appeals to Rupblicans, because he is basically a Republican. Remember he started out as Lester Maddox's chief of staff. He really hasn't travelled that far, has he? Except for the zig-zaging, which is why he is known as Zig Zag Zell.

Somebody like Lieberman, or any Republican lite is not going to beat Bush. A social conservative and fiscal moderate can. And what will that get us? And would Lieberman, or any other conservative Dem, AKA corporate whore, do any better than Bush? I will vote for any Dem, other than Lieberman.

Lordy, I hope that man runs in 2008. He is the dictionary definition of Integrity and Principle.

It doesn't matter whether the Dems moved left or he moved right. He sees what the Dems are doing to try and get back in power and he is disgusted as are many independent voters (like me). That is why your party is in trouble.

Ron C:
Oh, phhhhbt. If he wanted to say he was concerned the party had gone too far to the left, he could have spoken at a DLC conference to say exactly that. If he wanted to pull the party to the right, he could have helped the Georgia Democrats recruit moderate candidates. If he wanted to demonstrate his integrity and principle, he could have at least waited until we had a candidate before announcing his endorsement. If he wanted to tell Democrats how to get back into power, he could have given an interview to The American Prospect.

But what did he do? Write a book that trashed the party, sell it to a conservative imprint, promote it through Sean Hannity, and announce in passing that he'd cast his lot with a GOP president. All while he's insisting he's still a Democrat — just one who happens to disagree with about every other elected Democrat alive.

You can call Zell Miller a paragon of virtue if you want. I call him a human weathervane — he'll spin and shift whenever he feels so much as a slight breeze.

I believe Zell's been telling anyone & everyone that McAullife had taken the party too far to the left for quite some time.

gttim, Zell's been running against Republicans during his entire political career. The Republicans have been voting for the Republican running against him. You're just looking to sling some mud because you're pissed at him....which is fine, but that one made zero sense.

For those upset at Zell, I'm guessing David Worley's piece in the AJC gave you some comfort. That's the point - last time I checked Worley couldn't get elected & led his party to historic losses in the state last year.

And I don't think Zell is virtuous or some "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" model, I just think that the party has moved to the left (and gttim admits that's what has been the goal) & he's representing a state that doesn't feel that way. I don't want a guy representing a party - he's supposed to represent ME, not Terry McAuliffe.

If the voters want a Democrat in that seat to endorse the next DNC candidate, they'll elect one next year. The odds aren't good.

FYI