Boston.com / News / Nation / Miller objects to Hardball questioner I have only seen snippets of Zell Millers psycho outburst on Chris Matthews’ HARDBALL. This needs to be posted as a video clip someplace. The guy has some mental issues. There are serious judgement problems in the Republican party to welcome this raving lunatic into the ranks. It’s a disgrace, seriously.
But yesterday, Miller himself was on the defensive, after telling a TV host to ”get out of my face,” and saying he wished the two lived during a time when they could battle it out in a duel. Miller, 72, calmed down a bit later on, but couldn’t resist making fun of Kerry on a radio show yesterday morning for wearing ”silly little bicycle pants” when the Massachusetts senator went windsurfing.
And what I seriously do not understand is the support this guy is getting from the Republicans.
But if that was all that you watched, you missed Zell at his absolute best when he completely destroyed Chris Matthews, host of SleazeballI mean, Hardball, on MSNBC. It is hard to imagine a SNL sketch of a person would be more charitable than the real life version, but Chris Matthews has managed this feat in his illustrious career of “interviewing” guests by browbeating them. Finally, one of them decided enough was enough.
This site (above) is quite interesting since it is typical of the new Republikan. Snide, condescending, snotty. Zell Miller adds the missing elements to this brew: mean and angry. Whatever warm and fuzzy feeling Laura Bush gave people was more than obliterated by this idiot. Here we are at a point in history where the Republicans have the Presidency, the Senate AND the house. AND they act like they are both holier-than-thou and somehow beleaguered. So now they are mad. Why? What more do these guys want? That’s all there is. Now we have to put up with apparent psychopaths as entertainment and watch as they are cheered on.
Whatever you do, don’t call Zell Miller a hillbilly. He **hates** that with a passion.
You’ve pretty much got Zell’s personality pegged correctly, although I would say that he and Chris Matthews are pretty much a pair of compatible bookends, each pushing from a different direction but both performing exactly the same function.
Chris Matthews is the worst interviewer I have ever seen. In fact, I wouldn’t even classify him as an interviewer. He is incapable of performing an interview.
John, you aren’t looking at it from other perspective. From the conservative’s perspective, the main stream media, and especially Chris Matthews have mercilessly badgered conservative interviewees. Zell Millers outburst was the first time I have heard one of his interviewees tear him a new one. In other words, it was about time.
If you think Zell Miller is psycho then you should see some of Matthews past outbursts.
Isn’t the blogsphere calling you the new psycho as you mentioned that blogs where just passing fads. And now you are blogging. Could we say flip-flop Mr. Kerry.
For the interview, scroll down this page : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/
It might be easier to find with a ctrl+f of the following text: “I just had this incredible moment with Senator Miller,”
Also at MSNBC, “GOP backs away from Millers blast
Democrat speaking for himself, Bush aide says”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897622
It’s interesting to note the different reactions to Miller’s speech and post-speech behavior. Within the Republican party, there are two distinct ones. There are the level-headed ones (as I’ll label them) who know “nutcase” when they see it and are trying to get some space between themselves and Miller. It appears, from the MSNBC article, that there are a number of them in the administration, including the first lady.
And then there are the red-meat eaters. They think Miller performed spectacularly. I haven’t seen any commentary to this point, but I wonder how they feel when the Democrats think Miller looked nuts and were happy to have him at the Convention, and administration officials are now claiming that their keynote speaker was “speaking for himself.”
I wonder if there is any second-guessing about their evaluation of Miller’s performance. Do they think, “well, I liked it, but I understand if it wasn’t effective.” Or do they really believe, as the editorialist above does, that Miller was successful (objectively) on Hardball?
It just seems to me that you couldn’t get a much clearer sign that Miller did a piss-poor job for the Republicans when the administration is running away from him.
The one silly argument that I have seen popping up is that this was all planned and Rove wanted to have a Democrat be their attack dog, and then they would distance themselves from his rhetoric (a typical Bush family strategy).
The problem with this theory is that Miller was the keynote speaker. If this were all part of a well-orchestrated scheme, there would be no need to make him the keynote speaker of the convention.
Moreover, but to a lesser extent, Cheney, immediately after Miller’s speech, said, “I’m glad he’s on our side.” (paraphrase) I think this clearly indicated that at the time Miller was speaking for the Republicans. It was only after the near-universal negative reactions (outside of the red-meat eaters) and Miller’s crazed performances on CNN and MSNBC did the Republicans decide to put some distance between themselves and him.
No matter how bad the Republicans look, the Democrats are still stuck with Kerry. A guy so undecisive, even he doesn’t know who he’ll vote for come November.
Adam,
I suppose that line is considered “bringing the funny” amongst the mouth-breathing right, but in the real world, it’s idiotic. Save it for Free Republic.
And speaking of “undecisive [sic]”, the “Flip-Flopper-In-Chief”, GWB: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
I have to admit that after re-reading the transcript of Miller’s speech a numer of times, I’m not sure why John is pegging him as a psycho. What is in his speech that is so psychotic? Was it just the zeal with which he made speech? Was it the “spitball” comment? Seriously, now. What was it about his speech that was so psychotic?
I marvel at the self-control most politicians are expected to have in the face of attach-dog muck-rakers like Matthews and Bill O’Reilly. Even Tim Russert pisses me off sometimes. All these talk show hosts are trying to get to is the “gotcha”, so they can make news for their program. They hardly thing intelligently about a guest’s answer and twist their words into ridiculous positions, “Oh, so you’re saying you would absolutely never blah, blah, blah. Is that what you’re saying???”
Most normal people would freak out, just like Miller did. All that means is that he’s fed up with the Washington and Political TV dance, and it’s time for him to get out of politics. Which he’s doing right after he finishes sinking his knife into the backs of the Democrats.
Meanwhile, as a Republican I have truly grown tired of the red-meat eating style of discussion that many conservatives consider debate. That’s why I steer clear of cable news and stick with PBS and the main networks. Maybe it’s slick, stylized, and even scripted, but for the most part guests on network shows seem to be making real points and arguments, instead of throwing mud at each other.
Thomas..Iif you read the blog you’ll note that I had good things to say about the Miller speech. It was when he lost it on those simple interview shows that I got the impression he was a nutjob. AND I have seen the speeches not read them. There is a world of difference. He looked as if his head was about to pop off. That said I did think the speech was effective at the time, but in hindsight I can see where this guy is a liability. Bad news in fact. If the Republicans had a clue about this they’d say, “Hell, what can you expect? He’s a Democrat. They are all crazy!” Instead we get, “Go Zell, go!”
Ok, I’ll buy that he got a bit crazy during the interview. Granted, no crazier than people like Matthews have gotten on their own show, but I can see how a moderate would find it a bit loopy. I did watch his speech as well, but didn’t find it any more rah-rah than the rest of either convention which is why I looked to re-reading the content.
I think in the long run he gives the Republicans more of an edge than he costs them. From your assessment, it sounds like his speech will brings some votes and his interview will cost some votes. In other words, his net effect may be a wash. It is hard to say, however using that assumption, his impact will be predicated on the number of viewers that watched his speech vs the interview. I suspect that the former is a larger number.
I marvel at the self-control most politicians are expected to have in the face of attach-dog muck-rakers like Matthews and Bill OReilly. Even Tim Russert pisses me off sometimes. All these talk show hosts are trying to get to is the gotcha”, so they can make news for their program
And yet – politicians keep appearing on these shows. Are they forced at gun-point? Are they expecting “Meet the Press”? 🙁
I have no sympathy for media-whores! If they didn’t agreed to go on these “news” shows, the shows would cease to exist – and the world would be a better place.
Careful, or I’ll tell you how I really feel! 🙂
…but I can see how a moderate would find it a bit loopy.
A moderate, as opposed to what, exactly? Extremist? Liberal? Conservative? “Radical” Liberal/Conservative?
I’m happy to state that I “just don’t get it”. 🙂
>A moderate, as opposed to what, exactly?
>Extremist? Liberal? Conservative?
>Radical Liberal/Conservative?
I think it is clear to everyone but you Mike that a moderate refers to someone politically close to the very middle of liberal and conservative. However, a more exacting interpretation might be persons considering themselves to be swing voters in this election.
I am amazed at the backlash from Zell’s altercation with Chris Matthew’s. I do think the duel comment was a little over the top, but if you see how Matthew’s and other show hosts browbeat and talkover their guests, you feel more of a “way to go” attitude.
I can’t count the number of times one of these interviewers asks a questions, and then starts shouting over the guest after he has said two words – never letting them finish a thought. Unless it is Michael Moore whom they will let sit there and pointificate for ten minutes without interruption. It is about time a guest stood up for themselves and gave them back a a little of their own medicine!
I think it is clear to everyone but you Mike that a moderate refers to someone politically close to the very middle of liberal and conservative.
I didn’t ask what a moderate is! You stated “… but I can see how a moderate would find it a bit loopy”. You thereby imply there is a catagory of person who does not find it “a bit loopy”. How far is that group from the middle, and toward which end of the spectrum? Please elaborate, in simple sentences, as I am so slow-witted. 🙂
I cant count the number of times one of these interviewers asks a questions, and then starts shouting over the guest after he has said two words – never letting them finish a thought
And yet – people continue to appear on these “news” shows, giving them the aura of legitimacy. I have no more sympathy for those “guests”, than I do for someone who agrees to be on Jerry Springer’s show. They know exactly what they are getting into!
Mike, there are *many* people and many categories of people that did not find his comments loopy or psychotic. Conservatives, libertarians, people that hate the media, people that served with Kerry etc.
As long as Zell Miller was loyal to the Democrats, not one word was mentioned about his sanity or past “old” south connections via Lester Maddux. Zell may not be the sharpest knife in the kitchen but, I don’t think his remarks were taken that seriously by most people. I kind of feel for him myself.
BTW, how about a little balance here by mentioning the way Chris Matthews completely insulted and talked down to Michelle Malkin 2 weeks ago. I saw it and Matthews seems to get a free pass for some reason. As someone who used to like Chris Matthews, he seems to have taken a turn to nastiness that has turned more than a few viewers off ( see his ratings ). He never gave Malkin a chance and came across as a pompous child who had met his match. I found him immature and frankly, childish. I won’t even watch him now.
I thought the whole Zell Miller post convention speech cable news tour was kind of surreal. As I clicked the remote, I followed him from CNN to MSNBC. I can’t remember such a stumping by politician immediately after in defense of his speech, it’s like he was issued attack talking points to embolden the base and go on the offensive instead of the defensive.
The printout he carried with him was nothing more than an internet circulated disinformation campaign (as his assertions have been debunked for those objectively reviewing the issue…).
I am not a fan of Matthews and his self appointed bulldog schtick, but Miller became belligerent simply at the questions being asked, which I thought were justified queries, given the vitriol and bitter manner in his speech presentation. Reading a transcript of his appearance doesn’t do it justice, watch the video.
Mike, there are *many* people and many categories of people that did not find his comments loopy or psychotic. Conservatives, libertarians, people that hate the media, …
I used to think that conservatives were to my right, and libertarians to my left – but have since learned that there are some issues that both groups support; and the more-important lesson that there are probably very few people who can be defined by a single label.
…people that served with Kerry etc.
That last part jumped-out at me, since there seem to be two very different groups of people who “served with” John Kerry. 🙂
Zell Miller’s appearance at the Thursday night Republican National Convention was part of an overall presentation designed to send a message…not to the nation, but to a select group of Bush/Cheney insiders. We are in control!
The night focused on Cheney, ex-Halliburton, CEO…and therefore key player in America’s Military Industrialist Complex, which, as you surely recall was behind Iran-Contra andthe CIA’s drugs for weapons to fight unauthorized private wars in Central America. Before that, it was Halliburton’s Kellogg Brown and Root that built the Navy base and Army Depot in Corpus Christi with the help, not of Republican leadership, but Democrat LBJ, to supply Vietnam War. It was in Corpus Christi that LBJ’s Bell Hellicopters were repaired. The old Hueys are now sold to Colombia to help them in the supposed drug eradication program.
Also appearing that night with Cheney and Miller was Corpus Christi Chaplain, Bishop Rene Gracida, a former Navy flier. Jack Kemp former Secretary of HUD was there, front and center, though not part of the program. Kemp’s Undersecretary at HUD, Catherine Austin Fitts, was locked in a qui tam lawsuit which indicated that during Iran-Contra there was a federally back program of narco-dollar laundering through federally backed mortgages.
Zell Miller may have asked that Confederate flag be pulled off the Georgia state flag, but the CIA wasn’t selling drugs in America’s inner city to fund the contras either.
Oliver North’s army was being trained at a 700,000 acre base on land owned by Houston developer Walter Mischer and Coca-Cola Inc. in Belize. The CEO of Coke is an elder at Peachtree Presbyterian Church in Atlanta and Zell Miller has a hall named after him at the Georgia Miliatary Institute in the old Georgia Antebellium ccapital.eBrewton’s THE MAFIA, CIA and GEORGE BUSH)