Zell's Zingers

NEW YORK, Sept. 2 -- Did Zell go too far?

The former keynoter at the '92 Democratic convention totally overshadowed the vice president of the United States. He looked really hostile -- even if you turned the sound off -- as he eviscerated Kerry. No flicker of a smile ever crossed his lips.

Senator Miller -- who's been a Republican in all but name for more than a year -- was the talk of the chattering classes. Cheney's monotone, CEO-style speech got 'em booing at Madison Square Garden, but Zell's barely cooked slab of red partisan meat will be debated for many news cycles to come.

So much for trying to appeal to swing voters. The man accused by Democrats of being a Zellout did all his swinging at Kerry.

"I wonder if it was smart to have him out there in such a hot fashion," said George Stephanopoulos.

"He looked angry," said Mara Liasson.

"Miller went over the line into demagoguery," said Mort Kondracke, by accusing the Dems of defaming American troops.

He really got kicked around on CNN. "I've never heard such an angry speech," said Bill Schneider -- even angrier, he said, than Pat Buchanan's "culture war" address in '92.

"I don't think I've ever seen anything as angry and ugly as Miller's speech," said Joe Klein.

The Wall Street Journal's John Harwood said Miller "looked like a spouse at a divorce proceeding who says, 'Oh yeah, she's a child molester too.' "

The New York Times called it "a memorably brutal attack on Mr. Kerry and the Democratic Party."

But the morning papers mostly lead with Cheney, largely because that's the way it's traditionally done. It's also hard to shift editorial gears at 11 p.m. But in the television world where most convention watchers live, Zell is the story.

Will the Miller story stay alive after Bush's big speech tonight? I'm not sure. But something tells me the Democrats will be stoking that story line.

The San Francisco Chronicle pairs the two attack dogs:

"Cheney and Miller, the night's two prime-time speakers, left no trace of the kinder, gentler party that had been showcased in the first two nights of the Republican National Convention."

The New York Post (whose banner headline is "KOBE WALKS," an equally dramatic story) focuses on the reaction:

"The Republican crowd lapped up the red meat Miller sliced off and served up, loudly booing after nearly every Kerry reference.

"Miller's dramatic rebuke of Kerry came as the renegade Southern senator has reached his boiling point with his lifelong party."

The blogosphere is afire about the speech. Andrew Sullivan summons up his righteous indignation:

"Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift.

"Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats.

"Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude. . . .

"Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry bigots like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day."

Dan Kennedy assesses the fallout:

"Did Karl Rove vet Zell Miller's speech? This might be the most hateful major address delivered at a national-party convention since Pat Buchanan's 'culture war' speech of 1992, delivered with remarkable bitterness and anger.

"It's so idiotic that it's not worth picking apart." Then he does.

The New Republic's Joshua Zeitz scores a preemptive hit:

"The truth is, no political organization should want to keep company with Zell Miller. His conscience -- which, he writes, is 'on steroids, has a Black Belt and long fingernails, and stomps around inside of me, sometimes in hobnailed boots' -- evidently tells him to do a lot of things these days. But where was his conscience when he was a pro-Jim Crow Democrat campaigning against civil rights? What about when he worked for a notorious segregationist governor he called 'a father'? In fact, Miller's conscience has never been anything more than a barometer for populist appeals.

The Republicans shouldn't be proud of him as their standard bearer. And they shouldn't attribute his embrace of conservatism to anything other than political expediency."

Like most papers, the New York Times sticks with the game plan and plays up the highest-ranking speaker:

"Vice President Dick Cheney reverted on Wednesday night to the simple, bold declarations of how America should exercise its power that were often heard in the first year after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Iraq had not yet been invaded, intelligence reports had not yet proved false, and 17 months of insurgency had not yet raised the question of whether George W. Bush had taken a wrong turn in the fight against terror.

"Instead, Mr. Cheney jettisoned the complications of the past year, honing the central argument of the Republican campaign: that the country could not trust Senator John Kerry to strike decisively in the defense of American interests. 'Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations," Mr. Cheney said last night. . . .

"To some it may seem an over-distilled message, discarding much of what the Bush administration has learned, often the hard way, over the past year. It largely ignores discussion of the value of alliances, the need to treat the roots of terrorism, or the requirements of slow, patient diplomacy in places -- like Iran, North Korea, even Pakistan -- where there are no real military options. Mr. Bush's critics will say it sidesteps the problems of murky intelligence and deeply festering resentments of American power around the world.

"But as Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's advisers have said repeatedly in recent weeks, campaigns and the subtleties of national security policy do not easily mix. So they have settled on a strategy that is designed to sow doubts about their opponent's character."

The Chicago Tribune also deconstructs Dick:

"Dick Cheney was made for second billing.

"Quiet and dour, he is most effective behind closed doors, which is where he normally resides. He is to George W. Bush a sage, blunt but discreet political counsel, transforming his office from warm-bucket-of-spit ceremonial to in-the-room influential.

"On Wednesday night in Madison Square Garden, he appeared in a place he typically shuns -- the spotlight -- to do what he has done best in a long political career: set the table for the boss.

"He stoked fear and concern about the war against terrorism with the clear message that this was no time to change course in leaders. He bulked up the emerging story line against the Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, that is certain to be echoed until Election Day -- that Kerry is malleable, inconsistent, and lacking conviction. He suggested that Kerry's Senate record was marginal, noting that a long legislative career can be waged 'without consequence to the nation.' "

In that light, I guess Cheney did his job.