Wacko messages are better delivered by outrageous Hollywood personalities who actually get points for being the most weird. I mean, everybody knows the worlds deepest thinkers earn a living making believe they are someone else. What makes a politician, think he has a opinion worthy of note, right?

Well, I suppose if once someone puts on a politician hat that we all have to give equal respect to everything that someone says, you are right. I prefer to think of public service - as opposed to, say, golf - as something that brings out character. It does not give you any right and does not inherently make you better but puts you on the line to do good or get out of the way. Some excel in that character test and some do not, some may have an opinion and some have an opinion of note, some are hypocrites like Miller and some are not. Carter pointed that out about as graciously as possible in the circumstances.

``What makes a politician, think he has a opinion worthy of note, right?`` was meant as sarcaism.

But, about public life and character, why do we only hear about how corrupt all politicians are? If it shows character, why do those in political life - all of them - face redicule and cynicism...blamed for every rainy day and bad pie crust around? If public life is a good indicator of character, why does it seem that everybody`s opinion of every politician is negative? And why is it that Michael Moore can lie and deceive on film, and be a Hollywood star, while Zell tells it like it is and he is a traitor?
I can see through a golf swing much clearer then through a carefully crafted speech, probably written by someone else...

Zell was as close to a traitor as you can find. He did not tell it like it is as there is no "like it is" in the rhetoric of an election. He chose the other side's rhetoric.

The reason why politicians are regarded so lowly is that they deserve to be regarded lowly due to their actions. Granted, the job is a minefield in which most trip up but they do so based on character and lack there of, not because of some failing in the public...but it is that minefield, nothing else. If you want to get into the rough work, expect it to be rough. Seeing politics otherwise is a faith-based mental process that is beyond analysis, but familiar to those experienced in PEI's "great leader, never mind the outcome" brand of politics.

Are you saying Zell lied about Kerry's record in voting against the bills outlined in the speech? If not, can you call these facts "rhetoric"? Where is your other oar?

He is not charged with lying but privately admonished for being a traitor.

Did he give a complete or part record of Kerry's voting - obviously part. He suggested that Kerry voted against Patriot missles which protected Israel against Scuds. As the Patriot had no such effect, that is close to a lie in my book. As such it is rhetoric as all political speech is. But he is a turncoat without turning, the worst kind. A Yahoo amongst Yahoos. I wouldn't lend him 27 cents.

Whether or not they protected Israel is debatable, the missle shield did not work exactly as <strike>planned</strike>hoped for, but may have had an effect on the extent of damage, and where the damage occured. What is not debatable, is Kerry's opposition to even try to implement the best that technology could offer at the time. (Trying is better then sitting on your hands, which seems to fill the Kerry campaign platform. The only thing that changes is what hand he sits on.) To not even try would send a message to (1)Israel that there was an opposition to even trying to defend them, and(2)that new, cutting-edge technologies were not supported by the Senate. Kerry also opposed various F-18 proposals, body armour for troops, and apple pie.

Telling it like it is may upset Democrats, but his loyalty to his family seem more important to him, and a vote for Kerry endangers us all. His priorities are clearly thought out, and I applaud him.
[Clap, clap, clap!]

You are a politician's dream - ignore everything but what you are told what not to ignore.

I don't get Carter's objection to Zell Miller referring to him as a "pacifist" (ie. "I don’t believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacificist[sic]"), as if it was necessarialy a "dirty word". The pursuit of "peace" I thought was the main part of Carter's whole belief system. After all, he recieved the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 (seen as the Nobel Committee's "slap in the face" to the Bush Administration).

He refers to himself as a "Christian and a (former) president who worhsips the 'prince of peace', not war" (see:http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7572)
And in Carter's view, for instance, for a war to be a "just" war, among other factors "..the war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted" (see:http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=1249). This sounds like a "pacifist" and, as an aside, with respect, that thinking seems to locked in a pre-9/11 world view of war between states. Also, as a further aside, its rather bizarre that he was "overcome with emotion" in May of this year in christening the USS Jimmy Carter, a nuclear Sea-wolf class attack submarine.

For a "pacifist", he evokes strong negative emotions in others, even those who voted for him in 1976 (check out this diatribe: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6983 ). Or check out "The top ten alternate openings to Jimmy Carter's speech (to the Dem Con)", number ten being "Hi I'm Jimmy Carter, I was the Ayatolla's bitch" (see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1179160/posts ).

Carter's infamous "malaise" speech in July 1979, in which he "blamed" the American people for the country's ills (...(we) worship self-indulgence and consumption...") alienated even those in his own cabinet. VP Mondale was reported to almost "have a heart attack" when Carter said he would deliver this speech, see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_malaise.html.

Many believe that when he left office, the world was a more dangerous place, with a weakened America and an empowered Soviet Union.

Also, why didn't Carter refer Miller to Carter's PD 59 in which he committed the United States to fighting and winning limited and protracted nuclear wars - now that's no sucky-sucky, damn "pacifist" (did the Nobel Committee know about this?) see: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/pddirectives/pd59.pdf

Kerry sounds alot like Carter - yikes: the kiss of death. You'll see this in comedian Pat Paulsen's quip on Carter, "They wanted to put Carter on Mt. Rushmore, but they didn't have room for two faces."

For more on Carter's dubious "peace, international law and human rights" legacy see:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-06.htm

<class="smalltext"><small><strike>Sm wld thnk Crtr wld knw ll bt "trsn" whn h ccss Zll Mllr f t. Lnc Mrrw, th mmnnt Tm mgzn ssyst s llgd t hv cnd Crtr s th "nt-Prsdnt" (bt thnk h ws rlly tlkng bt Rgn) nd wrt f Crtr's pst-ffc "pc ffrts": "Sm f hs Ln Rngr wrk hs tkn (Crtr) dngrsly clse t th nghbrhd f wht w se t cll trsn."

Mrrw, mng thr thngs, cts bzrr x-Prsdnt Crtr ndrmnng th frst Prsdnt Bsh nd th frst Glf Wr, wr Crtr bjctd t, whr Crtr "wrt lttrs t th hds f stt f th mmbrs f th U.N. Scrt Cncl, nd ltr t the rb hds f stt, pldng wth thm t bndn Prsdnt Bsh's pnstkngly ssmbld cltn gnst Sddm Hssn. Ltr n, Crtr dmttd hs tctcs wr 'nt pprprt', bt h dd nt plgz".

When it comes to treason (disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior;an act that undermines the offender's government), apparently, Jimmy otta know!</strike></small></class>

How unfortunate. You have something wrong with your computer's pasting function.

LOL - perhaps I deserved that. Thanks for the slap upside the head, Al.

But I have to say that I thought the pasted "Hi I'm Jimmy Carter, I was the Ayatolla's bitch" quip was funny enough to "share".

Then that shall remain up.

Happy 80th, Jimmy.