A thing of beauty!

On Nov. 3, as the media slowly recovers from the severe whoop-ass they and their candidate took the day before, they will realize that Karl Rove is an evil genius. They will see that Rove had Matthews in his pocket all along.

On the other hand, we need to seriously be asking -- "Why is it that these guys are called professionals?"

Oh, come on Kevin don't be ridiculous. Before the spitball question he asked Miller five times or so if he really thought Kerry and Edwards didn't want to defend the country. Which, based on Cheney and Miller's statements, is not a ridiculous question. If you are going to imply over and over again that you don't think the Democrats want to defend the country then you should be able to say it when asked. He avoided it over and over again and then he went absolutely nuts. This interview isn't a win for Miller just because you put up quotes that sound good. Most people that see the whole interview will not think Matthews was being moronic at all; they will think Miller is a loose cannon.

"I wish we lived in the day that I could challenge you to a duel."

*ROFLMAO!* I wish I'd seen that just to see the look on Matthews' face. ;]

Ah'll bet Zell'd win the duel, too.

Yes,Bill whatever you say darling

Yeah Kim nod a sarcastic head.

Did Miller and Cheney obviously allude to Kerry/Edwards being weak on defense? Yes

Did Miller state that Kerry voted against weapons programs? Yes

Is the intented inference that Kerry wouldn't protect the country? Yes

So when Matthews trys to ask, multiple times, about procedural voting in Washington (i.e. I voted against a bill that I wouldn't have voted against if a rider hadn't been added, or $50 million wasn't added to a new highway in Montwanta) Miller freaks out.

Tonight the Republicans goal was to say, "if you don't vote for Bush you are at risk." Plain and simple. If you deny that you are lying to yourself. Matthews was simply asking Miller if he really thought Kerry didn't want to defend the country.

If you watch the video, or read the text, you will see that. Just because you might not like Matthews, or you want the Republicans to look good, doesn't mean you should defend a position based on parsed quotes.

Looked at the Dem underground stack on this one (Michelle Malkin)...Apparently a gaggle of epithet spewing morons is the representation of this years crop of young democrats..."Oh gawd how cool is that...I get such a torqed up rush typing out rocking words like fuk and kunt and hore"....sheesh what a clusterfuck of brain dead losers. Or ...maybe its a cover so no one asks any embarrissing questions like "did you read the book" or "can you read".

I followed the link, couldn't get anything to show up. :-(

Here, Bill, I'll explain using small words, so hopefully you can understand:

Zell Miller does not trust John Kerry's judgment.

It does not matter whether John Kerry "wants" to defend the US, what matters is whether or not he's actually capable of doing it.

On 9/11, the United States was hit with a mass casualty terrorist attack.

President Bush's response is "we cannot rick this happening again, we must destroy all state sponsors of terrorism." So he started with Afghanistan, continued with Iraq, and will be taking out other dictators during his second term.

John Kerry's response is "well, we took out those bad guys in Afghanistan, now we should go back to sleep until the next attack. However, when the next attack comes, I promise I'll make whoever does it, pay."

Now, if you think Kerry's response doesn't put us more at risk, you're an idiot and an ignoramus. IOW, you have the same poor judgment that Kerry has.

Which is perhaps why you, and Mathews, couldn't understand the plain language and straightforward logic of Zell Miller.

Thanks for being a child about the debate. If you think Kerry's response was that simple then it isn't worth continuing this talk.

Even as Air force One touches down at Kennedy and the President arrives for his upcoming appearances at the RNC Thursday night, Kerry and company try mightily to wring the last ounce of traction from the "no win" comments during Bushes interview with Matt lauer on the NBC today show yesterday. Apparently the fact that practically every living person over the age of 7 in the U.S. now knows that their claims are wrong and out of context, intentionally miss-representing what the President was expressing, is a small un-important detail. These guys at the DNC can't seem to stop making a fool out of their candidate at every opportunity. Not to be outdone in the buffoonery department the New York Spin Times liberal press echoed all of the DNC's talking points covering the politically motivated spin in certitude and unflinching detail. Moreover, Edwards, he of the "Amazing disappearing Vice Presidential candidate" popped up from his spider hole to make sure no one alive could mistake their collective screwup. In speeches today Kerry said he would do everything differently than Bush when it came to fighting the war in Iraq. Other than trying to fight the extremists on Mars no one can figure out what the hell he's talking about. Maybe he means he would have voted against the war and then voted to fund it and would have snuk in under the cover of darkness and stolen all the women's burka's, thus preoccupying the bad guys long enough to snatch Saddam and sentence him to watching Mayberry RFD reruns for the rest of his life. Apparently what his followers would rather he do differently is change the way the DNC election campaign is being run. Insiders say that the groundswell of unhappy liberals is growing by the hour. Evidence that it is finally having an effect is this mornings infusion of fresh meat into the DNC camp, Susan Estrich's melodramatic protestations on FOX news today not withstanding. Not a few Dem's feel that Kerry's slow response in refuting the Swiftvets coupled with running his candidacy on his Vietnam record indicates that no one is minding the store. Time is running out. If Kerry doesn't find a way to clear up at least some of the confusion about his positions on the issues before the debates, people will tend to take him even less seriously and doubt his conviction and core values to a greater extent than they already do. Since he's already lost 5 or 6 points to Bush even before the wrap up of the Rep convention, other than last minute stumping, the debates are his final chance to establish a firm understandable position with a large viewing audience and recover some lost ground. In all fairness Kerry wanted to face the Swiftvets controversy immediately and aggressively but his chuckle headed advisor's demurred and restrained him. I have said for sometime now I thought McAuliffe is a young turk, arrogant, inexperienced, dick head that should be back at Yale debating issues of law and decidedly not running a presidential campaign. I'm assuming he was recommended by the goreniacs/deaniacs so its hardly surprising. Ivy league mavin's always express their superiority to the "uneducated American electorate". Unfortunately that tends to generate a rather disappointing result come election day. If I were a liberal Dem about now I'd be focused on kicking some serious DNC ass ... The clock is ticking...

Bill, it isn't a question of whether or not Kerry wants to defend the country. The question is whether or not he can defend the country. Does he have the guts to take the hard road if things turn ugly? His ambivalence (or idealism) on these spending bills also suggests that he can't make hard and compromised descisions today for the future security of the country. That is, he couldn't for twenty years and he hasn't done anything to show that he has changed. John Kerry wants to be the good guy but he doesn't have the guts to be unpopular, for him that's harder than being under enemy fire which he managed to endure in the 'Nam as well as one could expect of a 23 year old kid.

Matthews was being completely disingenuous in failing to treat political rhetoric like the hyperbole that it is. He framed the questions as Democratic talking points and worked very hard to undermine Zell's credibility by asking questions that any highschooler who had seen the speech knew the answers to. He is and has been an insufferable prick for the last year because he doesn't like the President and he's known the Dems couldn't win the national election since the primaries, when they put up eight candidates that were the walking dead. Plus Leiberman, who the fanatics in Central Park this week could never bring themselves to vote for.

And nailing yourself to a cross because no one will take your ridiculous talking points seriously is extremely childish. Grow up.

I like Chris Matthews usually, but that exchange with Miller was absolutely priceless. You could hear that the others on the panel were snickering and totally enjoying the moment; probably not that they liked seeing Matthews get skewered, but that they were witness to a rare TV event when he gets beat at his own game.

It is about time someone spoke directly to Matthews. Regardless of whether you lean left or right it should be obvious what a lousy and biased interviewer he is. He will have a liberal/socialist on and will darn near make out with them he's so friendly. If someone is on who effectively states the conservative side of an issue he just brow beats them from commercial to commercial. The left decries FOX as biased to the right. However, if you watch them interview a leftist they are respectful and allows them to make a point. I don't care for O'Reilly but even he will let the other guy have the last word. Matthews seems scared of a conservative getting a viewpoint clearly expressed on his show.

What is not evident from the Millers-Matthews interview is that just a few moments before that started, Miller had been interviewed by a group from CNN, Wolf Blitzer, Jeff Greenfield and Judy Woodruff. They essentially ganged up on him and were very adversarial, sounding more like the Democrat response team than objective reporters. (I know, what a suprise.) They especially focused on asking him why he was "angry" and Miller said he wasn't. Wolf Blitzer very angrily insisted that Miller was "angry" in his speech and Miller was just astonished that he thought so.

They (Wolf especially) were also demanding - really, demanding - to know why Miller didn't become a republican. They seemed quite offended (angry?) that he would stay in the Democrat party but still insist on being a conservative.

My take - Miller is a Southern politician of the old style, with a practiced rhetoric that is very similar to a preaching style. He says what he says strongly and intensely - but it is not anger, it is a style. The dumb northerners just didn't get it. They were just shocked - shocked! that someone would display strong emotion publicly.

Anyway, Miller was clearly irritated that they were trying to ambush him into making sound bites contrary to his actual position. He went straight from that interview to the Chris Matthews interview, I think really only about five minutes later, and it seemed to me that he was already pretty irritated at the CNN people, and then Matthews started his usual asking a question and interrupting the answer shtick, and Miller just wasn't having it. I think it was worsened by a satellite delay - which is idiotic when you realize that the two of them were at most two blocks away from each other (Matthews at Broadway/6th Avenue and 34th street, Miller somewhere in Madison Square Garden at 7th Avenue and 33rd street) but nonetheless there seemed to be a significant delay in Matthews speaking and Miller hearing and vice versa.

I think that Miller might have had a little more patience with Matthews' antics if he had not just come from the CNN panel's nonsense, but he was clearly fed up and not going to take it anymore by the time he got to Matthews. And good for him - it's about time that somebody handed Matthews his head like that.

I agree with what Zell said, Kerry is "Satan incarnate" and the Democrats are "his wretched spawn on this earth".
Man that guy knows how to tell it like it truly is!!!

Cheney talks about showing "our softer side" but Bush has had a lot of opportunities to take out Sadr and is militia, and haven't done it. But then maybe they were just being "sensitive".

I want Zell to become the mayor of NYC, and Rudy as governor.
Gawd! that beatdown he gave Matthews ... priceless
I just keep rerunning the thing and sit here laughing my ass off! Wife's looking at me sideways.

I can't believe you people are supporting Zell and his hatred. He'sand insane man. He's said nothing but half-truths. An the duel line is unforgivable. He's going to be the downfall of this campaign. Just you wait and see. God bless, George Bush.

Zell will be a negative influence just like Gore's loony ravings will negatively affect Kerry. In other words, he won't.

From Sally's and Gideon's (and others) comments, it looks like the core lefties in the Democratic Party are writing off the South. Good for them! Who wants those racist white men in your party, anyways! Let them tell you not to tailor your Party's foreign policy platform to the whim of the French, and the next thing you know, they'll be giving you grief over your proposed income tax increase. Best to get rid of every state from Florida to Maryland right now, and be done with it!

By the way, the link no longer points to the Matthews interview. IS there an updated link for everyone?

Wait, here's the new link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

Matthews has it on his "blog", click the picture

p.s. I thought Matthews had a low opinion of blogs!

It was obvious that Miller was having a tough time hearing what Matthews was saying. Still, it was nice watching Chris Matthews squirm while being verbally slapped around by Miller!

Gideon, you're overstating Kerry's case. I'd say he's no better than Evil Lite. He's the Dark Lord of Heck, maybe?

Can I have a Zell Miller moment, please?

Ahem...

Get the hell out of NYC you miserable f*cks! Or better yet, stay for a day or two, because after tomorrow you won't have police escorts to move you around.

Thank you.

Zell's Bells! Great post. Matthews is a tool. End of story.

Re: problems with the video loading . . . I had the same problem--are you using Microsoft Internet Explorer? If not, it will not load correctly.

MSNBC.com is a Microsoft-affiliated site, so go figure.

The video is priceless!! I think Chris had to change his shorts at break.

Hey Sally - Tuesday night, Ted Koppel challenged Jon Stewart to a duel on The Daily Show. Seems like duels are about to come back in style.

I guess duels are the new bell bottoms.

Chris Matthews is responsible in no small part for the erosion of journalistic standards on every level, in every medium. It is fitting that a responsible adult embarrassed him publicly on his own show. To pose a loaded question as he did to Zell Miller is schoolyard punk stuff that belittles everyone on the show and in the audience. It is why MSNBC's ratings are in the toilet.

John Kerry's voting record indicates he has no principled position on anything, including the defense of this country. He voted to send our brothers and sisters and our neighbors' sons and daughters into combat and then having done so, voted to withhold funding to afford them every advantage. That's just wrong. That's obscene. That's insane.

No, as his Senate record indicates, John Kerry and the Democratic Party is not prepared to defend this nation and its institutions. Instead, as with Chris Matthews and his recent guests, they are only more than willing to tear them down. Their champion is still Bill Clinton, and we all know now the legacy he bequeathed to the American people. We won't be fooled again.

Chris Matthews is part of the problem, not the solution, as Zell Miller made plain for all to see. The time for childish, petulant, pompous primadonnas ended on 9/11. Thank God the adults are back in charge. Thank you, Zell Miller. Godspeed, George Bush.

Matthews exposed himself in the following exchange:

MATTHEWS: You have said and it has often been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. Was there not...

MILLER: Do you believe that?

MATTHEWS: Well, of course it‘s true.

MILLER: Do you believe that?

MATTHEWS: But it‘s a statement that nobody would have challenged. Why did you make it? It seems like no one would deny what you said. So what‘s your point?

Matthews takes offense at Miller's statement but earlier asked this ridiculous question:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy really only believe in defending America with spitballs?

Sorry, Matthews, but nobody believes Kerry and Kennedy would use only spitballs to defend America so why did you ask this question? So what's your point? You engage in the very thing you accuse Miller of doing.

"So when Matthews trys to ask, multiple times, about procedural voting in Washington (i.e. I voted against a bill that I wouldn't have voted against if a rider hadn't been added, or $50 million wasn't added to a new highway in Montwanta) Miller freaks out."

I'm sorry I missed the kerfluffle. I started watching the interview, but was incensed by Matthews framing of his questions to Miller and changed the channel. It makes me so blasted mad! You wouldn't see Matthews use the same tack (justifying votes by referring to procedural voting) regarding conservatives. It seems like the only time he allows that there might be a valid reason for a certain vote is when it is someone he favors, or can somehow turn it around to bash President Bush.

Conservatives have had to listen to their candidate lied about on a daily basis in the MSM which admits being 12:1 liberal in the Washington area. We have Farenheit and all the Bush-bashing of the last three years. YES, WE ARE ANGRY! We have NOT forgotten the lies of Kennedy and Gore and Dean.

Zell vented some of that anger so justly felt on the right. The Liberals constantly trot out their anger and have been Bush-bashing for three years. It is about time those on the right have a voice for our outrage as well and Miller did a pretty good job of that for us. Go, Zell!

P.S. Already the ignorant are trying to connect Miller with the Dixiecrats, a movement from when he was likely in Jr. High. Jeeze, how I wish Democrats would learn to check their dates before making their slanderous statements! Not only do they overtly lie, they get the time-frame all messed up making the whole thing impossible. Big waste of time!

Here are 5 points why Zell's speech will win Bush the election:

see here

> Did Miller and Cheney obviously allude to Kerry/Edwards being weak on defense? Yes

Correct.

> Did Miller state that Kerry voted against weapons programs? Yes

Correct again.

> Is the intented inference that Kerry wouldn't protect the country? Yes

Wrong, wrong, worng. The intended inference is that Kerry is clueless on what defending the nation requires, that he's been wrong on every supporting issue of what it take to defend the nation, that he can't be entrusted with that defense.

> So when Matthews trys to ask, multiple times, about procedural voting in Washington (i.e. I voted against a bill that I wouldn't have voted against if a rider hadn't been added, or $50 million wasn't added to a new highway in Montwanta) Miller freaks out.

Miller "freaked out" because Matthews, like you, tried to cloud it all as a "procedural" issue, when in fact Kerry's specific campaign literature identified the weapon systems mentioned as things he'd like to eliminate.

Maybe ol' Zell should challenge Matthews to a duel.
Then Mattews could accept, and chose non-lethal weapons, say spitballs at 5 paces.

[quote]Cheney talks about showing "our softer side" but Bush has had a lot of opportunities to take out Sadr and is militia, and haven't done it. But then maybe they were just being "sensitive".[/quote]

I prefer 'nuanced'.

Sadr is 'an enemy' not 'the enemy'. Simply killing him will do very little to improve the situation. Hence, we move carefully and with great 'strategery' (LOVE that word! ; ) until one or both of the following things occur:

1. Sadr gives up of his own free will and/or is co-opted into the New Iraq.

2. The Iraqi's themselves kill or capture Sadr.

Those are the events that will have a LONG TERM positive effect on the entire situation.

Bush has the patience and foresight and . . . dare I say it . . . FAITH to think and behave in a manner that he believes will contribute to the LONG TERM well being of Iraq and the United States.

THIS is what has been missing entirely from the Democratic party since the end of Vietnam.

The greatest hope of the Democratic party and American politics in general is Barack Obama. A breath of fresh air if ever their was one, and someone whom I believe could get this dedicated Republican to consider a Democratic President in the future. I pray to the gods that he is only the beginning and that more Democrats like him will start rising up all over the place, lifting the level of discourse all around.

Kerry will lose even if he somehow wins the election. He has nothing to offer anyone but his own Vanity, and that charm will fade quickly along with his name after his first four years. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has already assured himself a gracious place in history.

I thought the proper response to Matthews' questions was, "No, they want our armed forces to defend America with spitballs.

To be fair, I don't believe Senator Kerry would resort to spitballs. Pointy-tipped quills with which one can write harshly worded resolutions is the weapon of choice for post-modern transnational progressives these days.

"Sorry, Matthews, but nobody believes Kerry and Kennedy would use only spitballs to defend America so why did you ask this question? So what's your point? You engage in the very thing you accuse Miller of doing."
Good point, Rod D. And that gets to the core of why this was so satisfying to watch. Matthews got skewered when he got too cute at the wrong time with the wrong man.

Bill,

Thanks for showing the weakness of your position by running away instead of attempting to defend it.

John Kerry said in his acceptance speech that he would hit back "if America was attacked."

Imagine the Republican candidate sying that, in 1944.

It's impossible to imagine, because everyone knew the US was at war, and when you're at war you don't wait for your enemies to hurt you, you try to find ways to hurt them.

John Kerry doesn't think we're at war against the Islamofascists. He wants to return to the Clinton Administration, where the response to terrorism was police action, not war.

IOW, he wants to go back to sleep and pretend that nothing has changed.

He's wrong. Fortunately, the majority of Americans disagree.

And that's why he's going to lose.

Anyone have a link to audio of Zell Miller's speach at the RNC on Sept 1?

anyone have a link to the audio of Zell Miller's speech at the RNC?

After Bush's speech, Chris Matthews interviewed his brother Jim Matthews, a RNC delegate from Pennsylvania.

Hubby and I were making bets on whether Chris would interrupt Jim.

Surprisingly enough, he didn't.

FWIW.

"Are you going to shut up after you ask the question?"

Is a career-ender for CM. Every conservative who appears on his show needs to repeat it.

FoxNews.com has most of the main RNC speeches.

Chris Matthews has been bullying people all week during the RNC..I'm glad Zell didn't allow him to talk over him...Matthews asks the same questions OVER AND OVER AND OVER...Journalists can be SOOO dumb sometimes and I think most of us get really sick of hearing them... I'm sitting back, drinking my Guinness and waiting for the DUEL!! Hey maybe it will be a spitball duel... cool!

It'd be sweet if Zell brought a mug from here.

OK... I'm shameless.

GIV'EM HELL ZELL!

Zell went off the deep end. He refused to answer questions directed of him and when he couldn't change the subject, he threw a temper tantrum in a last ditch effort to create a smokescreen.

It's a testimonial to how little you people care about issues when you let your political leaders dance around like idiots and then call attention to the dancing as if that's the only substance worth mentioning.

Zell went off the deep end. He refused to answer questions directed of him and when he couldn't change the subject, he threw a temper tantrum in a last ditch effort to create a smokescreen.

It's a testimonial to how little you people care about issues when you let your political leaders dance around like idiots and then call attention to the dancing as if that's the only substance worth mentioning.

I was born in Georgia and live in Georgia. Zell Miller is an old-line Dixiecrat segregationist who can't get over that the world has moved on. The only reason the South is now mostly Republican than Democratic is that the bigots started changing parties starting in the 1960s during the civil rights revolution. The only reason Zell didn't officially change parties is that it would have cost him money. He's a cheap, bitter, old bastard with a scowl as his only face.

Karl Rove, the real President, has now backed away from Zell. Coward!

Zell Miller humiliated himself in that interview with Mathews.

Mathews exposed Zell as the bitter man Zell Miller is. Mathews gets to the truth under the surface, and that is why Hardball is the most insightful show on cable tv (which is, of course, a low hurdle).

And to see Zell try to defend Malkin's self-humiliation added to the comic relief.

Loved the Zell interview, and being a Georgia resident.. I'm a bit ashamed of the way he's presented himself lately. Three years ago he proclaimed Kerry as being an "authentic hero". The man has lost his mind.

And to all of you voting for Bush, do you not realize who's really running the show here? As evident by the two screwups on the first two days of the convention (war on terror can't be won, interview with Limbaugh), Bush cannot function without having something in front of him telling him what to say or think. Not once during the RNC did Bush or any of the speakers bring up any points on what they are going to do for the country in the next 4 years. The entire convention was a Kerry-bashing pep-rally that gave no insight into how he's going to handle the growing deficit, healthcare problems, or unemployment rate.

In an interview with Bill Maher last week, the Brig. General that in charge during the prison scandal was asked about how much more pissed the Islamic nation was at the USA after the photos were released. She replied with something on the order of between 100x and 1000x more pissed.

I don't feel any safer now than I did on 9/11.

When Laura Bush has to distance herself from your comments, you know you've done something wrong.

Zell's interview made him look like a nutbar. The reporting on the Miller interview and the news of Clinton's bypass surgery overshadowed the convention Thursday night.

As for Matthews' line of questioning - every politician who splits from his or her party is going to get some tough questions. Matthews isn't going play patsy and lob softballs at him ("Oh, why do you think Bush is wonderful?") like many other members of the media would.

The suggestion that Kerry "can't" fight terrorism is just ridiculous. The fact that he won't preemptively invade a country doesn't mean he's "weak on defense." Even if you think preemptive warfare IS critical to American security, do you think Bush is going to invade the REAL threats in his next administration - such as Iran and North Korea, who actually have weapons of mass destruction - and Saudi Arabia, where 14 of the 9/11 hijackers came from, and where bin Laden received considerable material support?

And how about Libya? Bush said we'd never negotiate with terrorists, but now we're normalizing relations and removing them from the export control list. That's pretty tough on terror right there.

Bush's priority for WMD seems to be a missile defense system - way off the mark, considering it doesn't work, and terrorists don't have ICBMs. Terrorists' vehicle for delivering WMD wouldn't be a missle, but more likely a bomb, like the nefarious "suitcase nuke" or perhaps a suicide belt - not missiles and MIRVs.

We SHOULD be spending money on securing weapons grade uranium in the US (read: the deteriorating facility at Hanford) as well as the former Soviet Union...but Bush slashed the budget for the CTR program, which 6,000 Russian nuclear warheads, and put 20,000 weapons scientists to work securing fissile material rather than building bombs for terrorists. Kerry, on the other hand, plans on expanding CTR.

Is Bush sending our forces into Darfur, where Muslim militias are raping women and slaughtering everything in their path? Without a massive military intervention, Darfur will undoubtedly become a haven for terrorists. Sudan is designated by the US government as a terrorist nation; if we want to stop terrorists, as well as an ongoing genocide, we should send our troops to Sudan. Bush, as a Christian who believes in a culture of life, has a moral obligation to intervene.

And what of North Korea? Bush, who said he would never negotiate with terrorists, now has his diplomats at the bargaining table, offering food aid - paid for by US taxpayers - in exchange for the discontinuation of North Korea's nuclear program. And unlike Iraq, US intelligence can say without a doubt that North Korea actually has several nuclear weapons, and is testing and improving missile delivery and guidance systems. Will we invade North Korea, or will Bush conduct a "sensitive" war on terror at the bargaining table?

George W Bush (draft dodger/deserter) - a true American hero!

I believe that George W Bush's heroic conduct during the Viet Nam War certainly qualifies him as the man to lead our military.

"Zell went off the deep end. He refused to answer questions directed of him and when he couldn't change the subject, he threw a temper tantrum in a last ditch effort to create a smokescreen."

"It's a testimonial to how little you people care about issues when you let your political leaders dance around like idiots and then call attention to the dancing as if that's the only substance worth mentioning." -- BSA

Hear, Hear!

Chris Matthiews came out looking like the more mature adult. And zig Zag Zell came out shown up as the uninformed wannabe bully that he tried to be.

The whole premise of the Duel was Honor and the bodily "proving of truth". Under those circumstances, Zell would nesicarily be the looser, to go with the whopping set of lies he told. Between the convention speach and contradictory previous interactions with Kerry, Zell sold out at some point, and lied. Its up to us to determine which was the Lie, but either way, Zell is the Liar.

Zell came out looking like the more mature adult. And softball Matthews came out shown up as the uninformed wannabe bully that he tried to be.

The whole premise of the Duel was Liberalism and the bodily "proving of truth". Under those circumstances, Matthews would nesicarily be the looser, to go with the whopping set of lies he told. Between the convention speach and contradictory previous interactions with Malkin, Matthews sold out at some point, and lied. Its up to us to determine which was the Lie, but either way, Matthews is the Liar.

I don't fault Zell for anything he said - I do think there was some background noise which interfered and caused him to jump off the handle at Matthews prematurely. But Matthews has no one to blame but himself for starting off the interview with moronic (an appropriate term used above in one of the posts) question about the spitballs.

I think a more effective response from Miller would have been, "Chris, you'd have to be either really stupid or really partisan to ask that question, and I'm thinking its probably both...". I'd like to see Matthews recover from that barb.

This is a spanking?

Miller just seems like a grade-A kook. Kinda like an angry senile man in diapers yelling at you to stop listening to that dang ragtime and listen to some classy John Philip Sousa.

It's sort of an Abraham J. Simpson moment.

Zell did the best he could. He has never faced the same wrath that Republicans face from the Liberal Media Propogandists. Since he has had the (D) after his name he has always been protected from the "HardBall" questions, and has like all other Democrats been treated with kid gloves. Now that the gloves have come off from a total KO delivered by Zell, he will face the full wrath and Fury of the Party of Hatred, and the Liberal Media Propogandists that protect them.

Personally I have always respected Zell Miller. As a Marine, a Lt. Govenor of GA, a Govener of GA, and a Senator, Zell Miller has dedicated his life to his State and Country with dignity and respect. He has always been honest and above board with his constituents, Georgians, and the American people. When I was a democrat I deeply respected and admired Zell Miller, I do so now more than ever. I understand perfectly what Zell Miller meant when he said "the Democratic party left me". Just like him, the democratic party left me behind as well, in its ferverent pursuit of Leftist ideology, and pure unadulterated hatred of Conservative values, Republicans, and especially George Bush.

Everything Zell Miller has said, and everything he said in his speech at the RNC is truth. Zell has no reason to lie, in fact, look at what his speaking out has cost him. He could have retired with the blessing of the Democratic party as a faithfull, honorable, respected member. Makes anyone who is not blinded by partisanship wonder, why is he so empassioned. I feel like me he sees the blind and misguided hatred of the Democratic party and it's members. What is going on that a man with everything to loose would stand up and face this kind of hatred, venom, ridicule, scorn, and disrespect. When a man takes this kind of risk he needs to be listened too, he knows something we don't.

I

>He literally ground the interview to a halt over >this one moronic question.

Did you even see the interview? Matthews asked that question exactly TWICE, and the first time does not count since Miller ignored it the first time.

Not too hot on the facts, huh?

"Zell has no reason to lie, in fact, look at what his speaking out has cost him."

Cost him? If anything, he gained support from his Georgia base of Republican constituents. What's that old rule in politics? Oh yes, 'Look out for number one.' Good thought, but try harder next time.

Anyway, am I the only person out here who witnessed Zell get schelacked by Matthews? Zell was on the ropes the entire time and Chris was eventually forced to back off because he had reduced a respected Senator to a jabbering victim of senility that was literally making death threats for lack of any other intelligent comment.

Don't get me wrong, I think Matthews is insane and I actually like Zell (albeit for the fact that I consider him quaint). But what I saw in that interview was Zell getting ripped a new one on national TV.

Ummmm...are you guys kidding? Zell Miller looked like a raving lunatic to the nation....it even surpasses Howard Dean's angry rant

I read the first person's comment, after searching frantically for the video of the interview. I think you are an idiot, if you think he bitch-slapped Matthews. I do not think that a person who has that much anger should be raising his voice and making him look like a fool, and I certainly don't think that a man who has some obvious issues should be in our government, republican or democrat. Chris Matthews has a higher intellecutal copacity than this man could ever dream. Furthermore, it is a sad state of affairs when we have someone who is so negative talk, after hearing the woes of the country and terrorism for too long. This country needs true, genuine leadership, but instead, we follow like sheep to the words of a mediocre-and that's being polite-president who has officially dumbed-down the most important and influential position in the world outside the pope. The leadership provided by the Bush admin. is uncertainty, and that is not good enough. Moreover, if he ever mentions another country with WMD's and terrorist ties without revealing valid proof, can he be believed?

Consider the following quotes, in context with Zell Miller's speech.

“After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.”
The speaker was President George H.W. Bush. 1992

“Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.” Dick Cheney, Bush’s Secretary of Defense. 1992

"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." -- U.S. Senator Zell Miller (Remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner 2001)

Why is Zell Miller splitting with his party and slinging half-truths? Who knows. I don't have time to try and understand the motivations of such people. He DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY misrepresented Kerry's record. Kerry was trying to balance our budget. As was George Bush Sr., as was Dick Cheney. Miller is appealing to people's hate, and fear, and ignorance. That is dispicable.

We Conservatives may be learning a sad lesson. It appears that it certain of our Conservative Talk Hosts and Authors may be made of the same “stuff” as those “Liberals” – it appears that it is all about book sales and host job-protection or radio/network protection. It appears that it is not about holding “their own” to the same standards that they do . . . . say . . . . . Dan Rather and CBS?????
On O’Reilly – Ann Coulter said NOTHING!!!! She asked NO QUESTIONS of O’Reilly and made NO statements . . . . it was all about SELLING her book and in doing this . . . . . she showed that Conservative Authors may be just like Liberal Authors . . . . it is all about book sales and manipulating the “little (stupid) people.”
Not one FOX News host – not even Brit Hume has acknowledged that this O’Reilly thing is even happening!!! Therefore, no FOX News representative could tell us that they are stepping to the plate in a full-press investigation of the sexual harassment/extortion charges. No – FOX News is adopting the plays straight from the CBS and Clinton playbook . . . . ignore, pretend that this is not happening. FOX News went straight for the throat of CBS (as they should) and were relentless in pursuit of Dan Rather’s effort to ignore and deny. In taking this most unwise stand – they are disrespecting their viewers/listeners and discrediting their own standing as “fair and balanced” in reporting news.
I am deeply disappointed in FOX News and am sadly learning that when put to the test of stepping to the plate and dealing honestly with us – they have chosen the sleazy road common to other media corporations – protect their stars, protect their revenue generators and break the trust with their listener/viewers – after all, we are probably so stupid we won’t even notice.

Wow you guys are basackwards. Zell Miller looked like a dog foaming at the mouth. He looked like a white al-queda looking to terrorize. Why is it ok for zell to want to murder somone for "his" views yet if al-quada does it's different. Hypocrits!!! When I was younger my christian friends, thier parents were nice people. Now most of them are war mongerers. Oh well I guess.

If you people think Zell Miller looked good in that interview, I'd invite you to consider voting for gangsta wannabes.They have the same mentality.

Zell looked like a Borderline Personality Disorder patient in desperate need of anti-psychotic medications. Chris matthews was asking valid questions, trying to expose the RHETORIC for what it was.

Here's a clue for the pussies out there: Don't go on a program called "hardball" if you can't hit slow underhand pitches. Zell was out of his league and he looked like a pathetic old man trying to sound like a tough guy. You ain't a tough guy zell, you're a frail old man missing screws.