JimBob2232

Like Jock Chiraq (yes I konw...)

I honestly dont know if it is winnable. But I konw one thing. We must win to save our country. So that is a fight worth fighting

I have no problem with people dissenting against this administration, but seditious acts like these border on treason IMO. I am ashamed to have people like this amungst us.

Thats the thing with Zell. HIS party is "American" not democrat or republican. He could care less what political party has the presidency and the senate. All he cares about is that the best people are in government. Sadly with his retirement one of the best is gone from government. When asked why he didnt switch parties, his response was that its like living in an old house. The plumbings broke and the roof leaks, and while you would probably be more comfortable in a new house, this IS your house, so why move. (roughly what he said anyway). I'm telling you, if you like those 2 essays, there are 100 more on his webpage to scan though. He sure has a way with words. As far as him in the cabinet, i think its unlikely. He is getting up there in years and probably wants to get out of the public eye. But politicians like him are rare, unfortunatly. And for the record, he did always vote to organize with the democrats.

Oh, i absolutley did. I have been watching this guy for years. I actually have that beltway diet story i just posted cutout from the wall street journal. He is a true patriot.

This is another one of my favorite zell pieces circa 2001/2002. Check out is website before it goes down http://miller.senate.gov/index.htm for more. I also recommend his book "A national pary no more" The Beltway Diet By Zell Miller (As appeared in The Wall Street Journal) Let's see now. What bountiful feasts do we have spread before us in this tax-cut debate? There's the filet mignon and baked Alaska on the white tablecloth of the Republicans. There's the burgers and brownies on the limp paper plates of the Democrats. But there's something missing from both these enticing meals. Where's the spinach? Where's the sacrifice? Both parties want Congress to do what we've always done: Scarf up their feast, belch loudly and say, "Charge it" as we get up from the table. When I was growing up without a father in the hard scrapple of Appalachia, my mother used to tell my sister and me, "Take what you want, sayeth the Lord; take it and pay for it." I was a grown man before I realized that is not in the Bible. It was just my mother's scripture. It also is one the truest laws of life: You can have anything in life, but you must pay for it. Here in Washington, that rule has been twisted into: You can have anything in life, and someone else will pay for it. There's no one on this Hill or in this country who likes tax cuts more than I do. I've never seen one too big for me to swallow without water. I'd even be willing to pass both the president's plan and the Democrats' plan -- as long as we were willing to cut federal spending at the same time. I just firmly believe that government takes too much from our taxpayers -- big and little alike. So, as both parties spoon those delicious tax cuts onto our plates, let's save room for the spinach. Let's suck in our gut, tighten our belts and spend these precious tax dollars only on what's really important. Unfortunately, in this citadel of "champagne wishes and caviar dreams," there is hardly ever any talk -- much less, action -- on cutting spending. It's often mentioned on the campaign trail, but amnesia strikes as soon as the candidates win and get inside the Beltway. And then, each year, as sure as the swallows return to Capistrano, every federal program that the mindof man, woman and K Street can conceive finds its way into the budget and settles into a permanent home. Not for just a day, or a year, but forever. I think it's time to turn up the volume on the theme from "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and begin a forced march to reality. In this time of competing tax cuts, we ought to remember why the people don't like taxes in the first place. When I was a boy growing up in the tiny town of Young Harris, my mama was the mayor and folks came to our house to pay their taxes. And I remember hearing them grumble each time when they turned over their hard-earned dollars. What it taught me was that people don't complain about taxes because they are selfish or stingy. They complain because they simply don't believe they're getting their money's worth. No one has ever spoken about taxes more eloquently than that great patriot Thomas Paine: "It is not the produce of riches only, but of hard earnings of labor and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery." Congress forgets all too often that there is no such thing as "government money." There is only "taxpayers' money." I got into government because I've always believed that government can help people. But good government doesn't mean big government. Good government means providing basic services efficiently. Good government means not just asking how to make a program more efficient, but asking what would happen if we got rid of the program entirely. Why waste time making something more efficient if we don't need it? There's a whole herd of sacred cows grazing in the lush green pastures of the federal government. Even though many of them quit giving milk long ago, we still fund them. I say take 'em out and shoot 'em. It's no secret that I like this president. He's the right man and I want to support him. But federal spending has gone wild and someone must take the lead in stopping it. Most functions of government grew by at least 5% a year for each of the last four years. Some grew by twice that much. That's got to stop. We now have the biggest, most expensive federal government in history. Federal employees are thicker than maggots on a rotting carcass. So, why not start by abolishing vacant positions in every department except Defense and Homeland Security? Congress could set the example by cutting our own staff to show that we are willing to stop feeding the hungry beast. When it comes to out-of-control federal spending, you don't find many members of Congress who have made it a high priority. In the Senate, there's John McCain and the pork projects he ridicules; there's George Voinovich, Russ Feingold, Judd Gregg; there's Larry Craig with his balanced budget amendment. That's not even enough for a baseball team. And yes, I'm guilty of not supporting them as I should have. It's been said the Democrats blame the deficit on Republican tax cuts and the Republicans blame the deficits on the Democrats' social programs. And as long as they can blame each other, they will never solve the problem. So, we need that tax-cutting Texan to also become a budget-cutting president. We need more members of Congress to decide that now is the time to cut taxes and at the same time tighten our belt. It's simple: Collect fewer dollars; spend fewer dollars. In the '80s and '90s, we "drank that free bubble up and ate that rainbow stew," as Merle Haggard sings. Now, it's time to go on a diet. Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.

Lynah is a great place to see a hockey game. No Joke. And this coming from a die-hard Clarkson fan. LETS GO TECH!

I love Zell. Too bad he left the senate. He will be missed.

Not bad, pretty close. where did you find this info?

Right, but there has been some talk about amending the constitution to say that you have to be a citizen for 20 years to run. I think that is very wrong, and thus why I said "shouldnt be". I disagree that Pataki or Guliani cannot win a nomination. Though I will agree both would be best served as a VP for 4 years before running on their own, they are both very strong men with a good track record in New York. The fact they could deliver a state like NY for the republican party would be a very strong selling point. BTW, I forgot to add McCain to my list

I dont believe its being released, but rather leaked.

So what do I win?! I was a little off on the popular vote I guess....Anyone know where I can find out if Badnarik got more votes than nader? I cant find definitive vote counts on anyone other than bush/kerry anywhere

The republicans have a very good crop of candiates Guliani Pataki Schwarzzeneger (though he shouldnt be) Cheney (likely not to want it) Powell (likely not to want it) JC Watts George Allen etd, etc, etc.. Compared with the democrats Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Al Sharpton et. Al. You have honest competent knowlegeble people on one side and well....nothing of substance on the democrat side. This democratic pary needs a makeover. Barack Obama is a good start, but they have a long way to go and need to rid themselves of the cancer amungst them

Exit polls appear to have been VERY wrong this year. I dont put much weight in them this year.

This could get interesting. I remember seeing the same thing in 2000. Called a state for one candidate and then backfired. CNN says 54-45 bush right now with 12% in. Granted i have no clue where those are from and how they compare, but almost 2 million votes to bush's favor could make this interesting.

They have to vote for one of the top 3 electoral vote getters I believe

The really interesting (and indeed bad) thing about this, is kerry could win the popular vote AND the electoral college, yet lose the election. This woudl be bad news for the country. If this happens, I indeed hope bush conceeds to the will of the people and steps down. (and I voted for him)

Yes, they are, however that is the house not the senate. I dont think anyone feels the hosue will change hands.

Do you have proof she is a lesbian? If so, then yes.

Drudge said that votes were found on machines before voting started. This is exactly what was alleged. He was the first one to report this story. The story may not be true, but this is exactly what was alleged. This WAS the story. I cautioned people to wait until the facts came out, and said "Drudge just doesnt make this stuff up" and guess what, HE DIDNT. He consistently breaks news stories first. This was a news story. Turns out its probably a bunch of nothing, but its still a news story and another one brought first by drudge.

The senate will still be republican barring a major upset. Dems pick up obama..republicans officially get the georgia seat vacated by zell miller (which for all intent and purpose has been a republican seat anyway). There are about 9 seats (KY, LA, NC, SC, SD, OK, FL, AK and CO) that are close enough to even possiby be too close to call. Notice all of them are in states bush is expected to win. Without those 9 seats figured in, the republicans hold the majority in the senate at 47-43-1. Republicans only need 3 of those 9. My gess is the republicans win NC, SC, FL, OK, SD and KY and lose CO, AK and LA making the senate 53-46-1 with a bush win or 54-45-1 with a democrat win. Besides the presidential election, Tom Daschle losing in SD might be the biggest story of the day.

Excuse me. Drudge reported the story. The story is true. What he said IS NEWS.

Not only that, but I saw a listing somewhere of his potential cabinet. Alot of senate guys. Its possible he will lose a couple more senate seats to his cabinet. Not sure what states they were from though. Could make it more interesting.

While I agree with you, I think this goes to speak great volumes about kerry. He will say ANYTHING to win. He will be a packer fan today in WI, a redsox fan tomorrow, he will go hunting for ducks, he will hunt deer on his hands and knees. He is a gun owner, he tries to be everything to everyone instead of who he is. Just be John Kerry and maybe people will vote for you.

10 is too much. I like one 6 year term