I often state that I'm wrong. I do it for credibility's sake. I do it because it is the right thing to do. I do it as a matter of self-reflection to improve.
It is a good habit to be humble.
To state it once again, I was wrong when I generally agreed with the idea that Democrats wouldn't return to being a national governing majority until we started being "normal" again. That meant to stop pandering to the various interests groups and advocated policies that put us as a party out of the mainstream. It meant standing up for national security and good policies rather than protest grievances and the like.
It wasn't so much a liberal versus moderate vs conservative debate but more so a common sense approach as opposed to extreme left wing ideology.
But George Bush's War in Iraq went so bad, Republicans were so corrupt, and their policies failed so badly (Katrina, economics,etc.) that the country wanted change no matter what.
--Where's Zell Miller's apology?--
"A National Party No More? He was totally wrong. Worse he was mocking and surly. Zell Miller slandered many Democrats and became a stalking horse for right wing Republicans.
Yet, online I can't find any interview, speech, any answers as to why the ideas he advocated, the people he supported were routed in 2006 and 2008. The people he claimed were too irresponsible were chosen by the American people he loves.
Show some character Zell and tell us what happened.
I did find Miller on Youtube making the same outlandish talking points about the Obama Administration in July of 2009. Including a reference to "Monkey Glue" about the President that I'm sure he knew was outrageous.
But no reference as to why the Conservatives are down to 40 Senate seats and have to resort to obstruction, and there are 78 more Democrats than Republicans in the House.
The fact is Democrats were/are too beholden to leftwing special interest groups. Miller should have stayed and fought. He should have stuck to the facts and not lied about men like John Kerry.
On most policy positions, I find myself thinking the right answer would fall on the Democratic side of the debate. Though often neither party will address it correctly. For example:
education: A universal voucher program that gives every parent enough money to send their child to a good public or private plan would be a liberal initiative in my mind because of the fully funding and the ability of the poor to get which the rich take for granted.
Healthcare: Universal coverage that is delivered by the private sector. Again the guaranteed right is associated with the Democrats.
Unions: We need Unions to work as a shield and not a sword. So more unionized workforce but they should function to protect against abuses and not dictate.
Trade: We should have fair trade that demands our values are included in the agreements and not have a situation where we are racing to the bottom.
As you can see the irony is that I agreed with the sentiment of Zell Miller, not the attitude, not the turncoat, and not the facts he used. But now's the time for a review.
I suspect he's hoping and waiting until Democrats lose, and then he'll forget the past 4 years.
Funny thing, I haven't heard his book title referenced in the media lately.