Here I will utter forth more truth, or at least my honest truth, than has every been said about political parties, conservatism, and liberalism.
Zel Miller is a Dixiecrat, through and through, he still holds the ideals of Democrats before this HUGE left shift. The Democratic party was not always so left and liberal, I remember dis-liking some Democratic candidates because they were to freakin' conservative. Their party has become so one sided that no longer do they even accept or like anyone but those who are exceedingly left, this problem seems to stem from the fact of their loss of many seats of power in Congress and states, after Clinton was elected the first time. They decided that instead of being a party that would have many people standing different ways that they needed to have one view and one agenda, and that became a liberal view, which has become ever more liberal as you, which the Republicans on the flipside have the same problem with going too far right. The Democratic party used to be a National and inclusive party, the party that Zel Miller belong to, didn't matter whether you were conservative or liberal, or even a moderate, just as long as you were a Democrat and not a Republican, now there was some views that were party held, but for the most part each person of the party had their own differing views on their own political policies. I do not know whether it was their huge loss of power in the 90s, or Clinton, or others, but some personal views which were exceedingly liberal of a few people became the party views, so much now that you must obey all party views ARE YOU ARE NOT A DEMOCRAT. That is what Zel Miller is trying to make as a statement, the Democratic Party has gone from inclusive to exclusive, and until they realize this and get more Democrats speaking out against their party coming up with a set of complete views that leave no room for anybody else's opinion, than they will sink deeper, don't be suprised if some flee the party, because rats do flee a sinking ship.
For Republicans this was there problem during Bush Sr.'s era, they had become to exclusive to the nation, which is why the Neo-Republicans swept into Congress and states. Republicans have become more diverse with prime examples of McCain, Gulliani, and Arnold, etc. being the evidence to back up this claim, even though Bush and Cheney are extreme conservatives they do not oust or bash on those who not conservatives like them, in fact Cheney and Bush have differing opinions, which they do state. Kerry and Edwards must be of one mind and view like the current Democrat Party dictates, there is nowhere near the amount of lenancy in the Democratic party for differing opinions as there is in the Republican Party, because of that dictating view of their Party.
I noticed that Gore had different views than Clinton during his first term, but during the second he was the one view guy, and only in his election run did he differ his views only for the sake that some political campaign advisor said that it would benefit his race.
I will be playing close attention to Bush Jr.'s speech tonight to look if he gives specfics on his plans for the U.S., Kerry did not really give hard specfics on his plans, more like glittering generalites, just like he says he has a plan for Iraq that he would have acted differently with Iraq than Bush, but doesn't say how, maybe because some of the difference in plan stims from the fact that Hindsight is always 20/20.
With this much typed I am done for the time being, and I will respond, after all this is the nature of debate, to have differing opinions.
