RazorbackTX:
I predict \"Democrats for Bush\" will have about as many members as Log Cabin does.

They can get together and have a joint meeting in a phone booth somewhere.

PhillyFan:
I think it's so cute when you accuse someone of being gay and hiding in the closet because he doesnt agree with you...

DallasUNC:
He should just become a Republican and get it over with.

Miller has not always been so dismissive of Kerry. At the Georgia Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in 2001, he introduced Kerry as “one of this nation’s authentic heroes, one of this party’s best-known and greatest leaders — and a good friend.”

In remarks reported in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miller continued, “In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.” Miller said Kerry “fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.”

PhillyFan:
Quite funny that when a dem says something you dont like, you become even more mean spirited than well... myself... i'm just waiting for someone to use the word... bacon... how bout skank?

shawnq:
Zell has to stay a Democrat because that's the only way he can get his mug on TV. He's the Democrat who hates Democrats. If he switched parties he'd be just another boring Republican senator from the South.

JUDY WOODRUFF’S TOTAL BULLSHIT: They now call the program Judy Woodruff’s Inside Politics, as if we’re somehow supposed to feel thrilled to see the brilliant CNN ace. But maybe they should call it Judy Woodruff’s Total Bullshit, in honor of what she allows on the show. Yesterday, Woodruff wasted the public’s time with fake-and-phony mountain loudmouth Zell Miller, who was up to familiar old tricks, lying through his teeth on cable. Here’s how the loudmouth mountain fraud finished up yesterday’s interview:

Amazing, isn’t it? John Kerry has voted to increase taxes 350 times! As we saw on Wednesday, this ludicrous claim by the Bush campaign is built on outright, bald-faced lying (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/24/04). There’s simply no other way to put it. The slimy Miller—well, let’s just say it—was lying in America’s face when he made his ludicrous charge. We did get lucky about one thing, though. On Wednesday morning, Michael Kinsley explained the scam in the Washington Post—Judy Woodruff’s hometown paper. The total fakery of Miller’s claim was clear—and yes, Judy Woodruff did read it.

The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes lists only 67 votes \"for higher taxes.\" Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. The logic seems to be that if a bill contains more than one item (as almost all bills do), it counts as separate votes for or against each item. The Bush list also includes several series of sequentially numbered votes, which are procedural twists on the same bill. And there are votes on the identical issue in different years. The only tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey . . . ) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.

The best way to see the absurdity of saying that Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is to apply Bush's madcap logic to Bush himself. Every year, in the president's budget, there is a table called \"Effect of Proposals on Receipts.\" It lists the president's proposed changes in the tax rules and how they will affect government revenue for various periods up to 15 years. Most of Bush's proposals will cost revenue, obviously. But in the four fiscal years between 2002 and 2005, Bush has proposed 63 actual \"revenue enhancers,\" as his father used to call them. This doesn't include, as Bush includes for Kerry, his opposition to any tax cuts (and there have been some, such as Democratic proposals to reduce the payroll tax). Nor does the list seem to include any \"supply-side\" revenue enhancement by magic or growth. These are actual proposals to take more money out of people's pockets and give it to the government.

At Bush's current rate of 16 \"tax increases\" a year, he'd have 320 under his belt if he could stay in the White House for 20 years. Depending on how you figure -- but without wandering beyond Bush himself into the jungles of absurd logic -- this is as many as eight times the number that Bush has managed to pin on Kerry. But isn't it unfair to call, for example, more efficient administration at the IRS a tax increase? And isn't it simply ridiculous to suggest that George W. Bush is more complacent about higher taxes than John Kerry? Yes, it's unfair. It's ridiculous. That's the point.