Senator Zell Miller

 "By now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral pre-emptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth and the political technique of character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause"

- Former President Jimmy Carter

After what President Carter condemned as a "rabid and mean-spirited" speech at the Republican National Convention, many Americans not from Georgia may be questioning who this man is (was). It is a much more difficult question to answer than you would think, since he has been the Grand Master of Flip Flop.

He began his career, as he tells it, in a drunk tank. As the Marine Corps web site puts it:

The change Miller experienced here was much needed. According to his book, "Corps Values," one of the events that helped Miller come to his realization that he needed a change occurred on a warm summer night in August 1953, while he found himself sitting with four other drunks in a dark Georgia jail cell. The young Miller, who was 21 at the time, had been hauled in after a night of drinking and driving. It was this event that prompted him to try another path in life - one that his peers, his family and most importantly, himself, could be proud of.

After three years in the Marine Corps (stateside, no combat), he became a history professor.

Then he became Chief of Staff for Governor Lestor Maddox, a racist segregationist.

As a congressional candidate 40 years ago, Miller argued President Johnson was "a Southerner who sold his birthright for a mess of dark pottage" because of his support for the Civil Rights Act.

Then, a few years later, when seeing the tide changing, he stated he championed desegregation. These changes earned him the nickname "Zig Zag Zell."

George Bush is a timid man who hears only the voices of caution and the status quo. Let's face facts: George Bush just doesn't get it, he doesn't see it, he doesn't feel it, and he's done nothing about it. That's why we cannot afford four more years.

…

I am a Democrat because we are the party of hope. For 12 dark years the Republicans have dealt in cynicism and skepticism. They've mastered the art of division and diversion, and they have robbed us of our hope.

- Zell Miller, 1992 Democratic National Convention

His most recent turn perhaps started with his effort to remove the Confederate flag from the Georgia state banner (the flag had been placed there as an affront to the desegregation movement in the 1950's). The internationally embarrassing backlash seemed to take him by surprise; thereafter, he began softening his position, expressing sympathy with the rural white voters who equated the flag with their heritage. He almost lost his 1994 gubernatorial election over this issue.

His flip flop on the Democratic Party was equaled only by his vicious betrayal of his "friend" Senator John Kerry, a man Miller called a "one of this nation's authentic heroes" at the Georgia Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson Dinner 2001. At that dinner, Miller said of Kerry:

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.

Three years later,

Most recently, he was criticized for equating the opposition to a Republican-nominated federal judge with "lynching." He refused to apologize.

Perhaps the heat was too much; he announced recently his ideological abandonment of the party of civil rights, instead embracing what has recently become a refuge for conservative white males in the South: the Republican Party. In a way, he had come full circle, back to the party of Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott.

 

An Open Letter to Senator Zell Miller:

 

Monday, September 06, 2004

Senator Zell Miller, 257 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3643; Fax: (202) 228-2090

Dear Senator Miller,

Your address at the Republican National Convention last week raised a number of questions that I hoped you would be so kind as to answer.

First, you listed several weapon systems allegedly opposed by Senator Kerry. As you are no doubt aware, Senator Kerry voted for 16 of 19 Pentagon authorization bills over his Senate career. He did oppose the B2 bomber as recently as 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union, but so did President Bush at the time. Some of the other weapons systems were opposed by Kerry in 1984, but your address implied more recent opposition. Please provide supporting evidence, since extant documents and statements don't support your assertions.

I was completely unable to find any reference to "spitballs" in the Congressional Record or in any statements made by Senator Kerry. Since this was a very serious charge - that Senator Kerry would essentially leave our soldiers unarmed - please provide documentation to support your claim.

In mentioning one system, the F15 Eagle, you made a provocative and misleading statement, stating that these planes "flew cover over our Nation's capital and this very city after 9/11." Yet the detailed chronology provided by the 9-11 Commission established there was no such cover. F-15's arrived in New York city almost half an hour after the South Tower had been struck, and much later in Washington, DC. As the 9-11 commission report made clear, they had no effective shootdown authorization, so were not providing "cover" in any meaningful sense of the word. Your comments seemed to imply that Kerry's 1984 opposition to the F15 would jeopardize an air cover that never effectively existed. But perhaps you have information denied the 9-11 commission; would you be so kind as to provide it?

You stated that "Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations." I am completely incapable of finding this statement, or anything like it. What he did say was that he would "never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." I am confident that with so much at stake in this election, you would not have lied about such a critical matter. Please provide evidence supporting your allegation.

You dismissed what you called Kerry's more "sensitive" war on terror. I was unsuccessful finding reference to sensitivity in his plan. What Kerry did say was that he would "never hesitate to use force when it is required," that he will "build a stronger American military," "add 40,000 active duty troops," "double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations," and "provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives - and win the battle." He said his war on terror would be "smarter, more effective", not more sensitive. He talked about preventing nuclear proliferation, insuring a "strong military" and leading "strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win." Not the most sensitive of statements. However, once again, I am confident you would not have made such a misleading and provocative statement that flies in the face of the public record without good documentation; please provide it.

In one of the more bizarre statements of the night, you said it angered you as an "ex-Marine" to hear Americans called occupiers in Iraq. Yet only a few minutes later you had nothing but praise for one of the many men who used this term, President Bush. Please explain how you reconciled your rage toward Bush's comments with your support of him as a President. This was not clear from your remarks.

In one of your most serious charges, you stated that Senator Kerry voted to "deny protective armor" to our troops in Iraq. Last time, I checked, Senators lack a line-item veto, and there was no bill specifically authorizing body armor. Kerry did oppose an $87 billion additional appropriations package when the President refused to finance it with a tax cut roll-back. At the time of this package, our troops were already occupying Iraq. If your allegation is true, then it is also true that the blood of American soldiers is on the President's hands for sending our troops into harm's way with inadequate protection. But once again, you would not make such an inflammatory charge without bulletproof documentation, so please provide this also.

You state that "fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world." Does that mean you would support rolling back the 2 unprecedented tax cuts in this time of war? (Even a partial roll back would finance all the body armor our armed forces could ever need.)

You called President Bush a "straight shooter" but as you are no doubt aware, he has never fired a shot in combat (checking a box on his Texas Air National Guard form requesting not to be sent to Vietnam), whereas Senator Kerry has fired plenty, receiving a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts. Although you also didn't serve in combat (your web site lists only stateside assignments while in the Marines), you can surely appreciate the difference between those who talk about war and those who have fought one. As you said, "deeds mean a lot more than words."

Most troubling, your remarks paint a very disturbing picture of a man you only 3 years ago praised as "one of this nation's authentic heroes" and a friend. If indeed your more recent statement - "twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric" - is true, then were you mistaken to praise him 3 years ago? Since none of the alleged weapons system opposition occurred during the past 3 years (he even voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq), you must have some additional information not in the public record that led you to betray your friend. If he was such a danger to the nation, wanting to replace high tech weapons systems with spitballs, were you not remiss in being so wrong for so long (17 of those past 20 years)? And, more to the point, how do you know you are not wrong now, or that you won't flip flop again tomorrow? Providing the critical pieces of new information that led to your dramatic change of heart would help remove the widespread belief that you are a self-serving, hate-filled opportunist selling out a friend and an American hero for a few minutes of fame.

Mark Vakkur, M.D.