From my blog
There are a ton -
His appearance on Hardball takes the cake - challenging Chris Matthews to a duel!
"MATTHEWS: ... Let me ask you about this, because I think you have a view on the role of reporters in the world. You have said and it has often been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. Was there not...
MILLER: Do you believe that?
MATTHEWS: Well, of course it's true.
MILLER: Do you believe that?
MATTHEWS: But it's a statement that nobody would have challenged. Why did you make it? It seems like no one would deny what you said. So what's your point?
MILLER: Well, it evidently got a rise out of you.
MILLER: Because you are a reporter.
MATTHEWS: That's right.
MILLER: You didn't have anything to do with freedom of the press.
MATTHEWS: Well, you could argue it was not nurses who defended the freedom of nursing. Why did you single out freedom of the press to say it was the soldiers that defended it and not the reporters? We all know that. Why did you say it?
MILLER: Well, because I thought it needed to be said at this particular time, because I wanted to come on...
MATTHEWS: Because you could get an applause line against the media at a conservative convention.
MILLER: No, I said it because it was-you're hopeless. I wish I was over there. ...
MILLER: In fact, I wish that we lived in—I wish we lived in the day"
Whoa, Zell - easy boy. Let's see how Chris handles his feisty guest..
"MATTHEWS: I've got to warn you, we are in a tough part of town over here.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: But I do recommend you come over, because I like you."
Well done Chris
Now, the best parts -
"MATTHEWS:A Republican Senator broke ranks and came over and spoke for the Democrats, would you respect him?
MILLER: Yes, of course I would.
MATTHEWS: Why?
MILLER: I have seen that happen from time to time. Look, I believe...
MATTHEWS: What does Jim Jeffords say to you?
MILLER: Wait a minute.
MATTHEWS: Jim Jeffords switched parties after getting elected.
MILLER: If you‘re going to ask a question...
MATTHEWS: Well, it‘s a tough question. It takes a few words.
MILLER: Get out of my face."
Continued on the next page
Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - Vic
Yes, the level-headed Chris Matthews.
I don't suppose you heard him interview Michelle Malkin, where he continually cut her off, did not allow her to answer his questions despite her attempt to do so, and threw her off the show.
Vic
2 - jack e. jett
zen miller is another member of the bush slander sluts. he is a freaking joke. to me, he is like the white don king.
sadly, i have pretty much come to the conclustion that not matter who is elected, this country is so divided that the fences won't mend for a long time.
there is hate within the hate.
jack
3 - Roland
Actually, I did see the Matthews interview with Malkin. Malkin was doing okay until she alleged that Kerry shot himself on purpose, presumably with an M79 grenade launcher, to get a purple heart. Matthews asked her where she got that, and her response was to claim that the SWBVT were claiming this in their celebrated book. In fact, this is not the case. All Matthews required of Malkin was a simple yes or no to the question : "Are you saying that John Kerry shot himself to get a purple heart?" She simply would not answer him, and chose to backtrack.
4 - Vic
Bush slander sluts.... of course the Dems never say anything improper. Go here for just one of Al Gore's nice little rants where he says the President betrayed us and preyed on our fears.
In another speech, Gore (and Jack, I know you saw this in another comment by me) referred to Bush and his administration in the following terms:
"moral cesspool"
"complete incompetence"
"incompetent"
"most dishonest president since Nixon"
"dishonor"
"disgrace"
You didn't deny these statements, just stated the Bush administration considers them compliments. Viva la double standard. It's ok to insult the Right but God forbid anyone says anything negative about the Left.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander and I'm tired of the Left's epithets getting ignored while everyone jumps on the Right's back.
As far as Miller/Matthews, I heard the Malkin interview, and every time she started to answer the question, he cut her off. He didn't want to hear her answer at all. It wasn't a simple yes/no answer. So now Zell is dick because he actually has the balls to stand up to Matthews combative interview style?
I say good for him.
Vic
5 - Evilwhiteguy
She never said he shot himself on purpose, she said it was a self-inflicted wound. She never said he did it on purpose.
6 - Dan
Exactly right Evilwhite, Zell wasn't going to let mad-dog Matthews pull that desperate straw-man routine on him. I liked the way Zell handled it.
7 - Roland
Malkin definitely insinuated that Kerry shot himself to engineer a purple heart. There is no other way to read the transcript of the interview. Matthews called her on this, and when it came time to say one way or another whether or not Kerry injured himself on purpose, she said the classic "Well, some veterans say that," which was in fact totally false. The SWBVT book states that Kerry's wound was self inflicted, which appears to be a technical term describing how he incurred the injury and does not describe his intent.
Malkin then went on demand why Matthews did not ask Kerry whether or not he shot himself to engineer a purple heart incident. It was a disgrace, she was very thoroughly embarrassed, and had to issue a ludicrous explanation of the evening on her personal weblog.
Miller was essentially insisting that Kerry's votes in the Senate were instances of him deliberately and with malevolent intent depriving American soldiers with weapons that would help them do their jobs. This is a serious charge and Matthews called him on it. Miller response was to become enraged and challenge Matthews to a duel. Here is your keynote speaker.
8 - Vic
"Here is your keynote speaker."
And yours as well, albeit 12 years ago.
Vic
9 - Roland
12 years ago, he was not my keynote speaker. That aside, even if he was, what are you attempting to say with this statement?
Miller made a lot of charges in his speech. The Matthews interview revealed that he had a temper. The CNN interview was the one that was revealing of the nature of the charges. You had Greenfield examining the "occupiers" portion of the speech, pointing out that President Bush had himself used these terms. You had Blitzer point out that Cheney, while Defense Secretary under former President Bush, was also in favor of cutting these weapon systems and in fact desired even deeper cuts. This is especially telling, since in 1991 Blizter was covering the Pentagon for CNN.
You also had Miller, in 2001, singing the praises of Kerry and in 2004 placing a dagger into his back on a national stage.
This was wild speech. I know a lot of people find it and the confrontation with Matthews alarming. My reaction was to be convulsed with laughter, especially during the "duel" sequence. It was very funny.
10 - Vic
What I'm saying is that Dems didn't think Miller was nuts or mean or whatever when he was on *their* side. As to the Matthews interview, the man *invites* anger. Anyone with a spine will eventually pop their top when trying to answer rapid-fire questions while simultaenously not being given a moment to answer them (there's a big difference between reading the transcript and watching the interview). Especially if you know that he's going to try to dissect you. Talking to Matthews is not like talking to Larry King.
As to the accusations, sure reps sometimes vote against something because of pork, or it costs too much or whatever, but the point was that there was a sustained pattern of anti-military spending voting. More than *any* other Dem during that ~20 year period.
I don't like either side getting on a pedastal. Both sides use the same tactics. Both sides take facts and spin them to their advantage. Both sides take things out of context.
I'm tired of this discussion, no one is going to change anyone else's mind.
It comes down to one's opinion of the character of the person running, and whether one agrees with the overall philosophy of that person and their party.
Vic
11 - Roland
The point Miller attempted to make, had it been made in a way that did not have his veins bulging out of his skull, is perfectly valid. My impression though is that Kerry's pattern of anti-defense spending occurred on 2 or three occasions at most, and the programs Miller referenced all came from a single spending bill. It is reasonable to criticize Kerry for this vote, but Miller made it appear that he voted 16 or so times against effective weapons systems. This is simply not so.
Moreover, I dispute that calling Kerry's voting record is all Miller was attempting to do. he clearly was trying to rile up the GOP conservative base, which he seemed to do rather effectively. In the process, he claimed that the Democrats were politicizing foreign policy in an attempt to bring Bush down. This is a fair statement. The Democrats in the past have clearly made the conduct of the war in Iraq and the War on terror campaign issues. Miller argues that this is a great wrong, but then precedes to do the same thing when he claims that the election of Kerry would lead to his family made unsafe. This also politicizes foreign policy. In fact, a central theme of this convention was that Bush's vision of foreign policy was the correct.
I don't have a problem with this. Without the WOT and the War in Iraq, I doubt the GOP would have a whole lot to talk about. But Miller went way too far when he used the WOT and the War in Iraq as a club against domestic political opposition. The good Senator acted the clown in front of a national audience and became indignant when someone had the audacity to call him to account for it.
12 - Eric Olsen
I think he is mean AND nuts, but it was mighty fine political theater. I wouldn't vote for Miller with your dick, oh wait, mixed metaphor, but I'd rather hear him preach than most of these mealy-mouthed equivocators: reminded me of the reverends Jesse and Al.
13 - Dawn
Zell is a full on nutjob, but a fine and entertaining pontificator, just so long as he has his vast volumes of paperwork conveniently prepared for him by the Bush camp.
Plus, they don't call it "Hardball" for nothing.
Chris Matthews could kick his old fart ass anyday.
14 - Dan
factcheck.org: "Miller was a bit more careful in his wording than some previous Republican critics, and avoided saying anything factually incorrect."
Michelle Malkin also avoided saying anything factually incorrect, and even if she had, Matthews would've had no way of knowing since he hadn't read the book she referenced.
The un-hinging of Chris Matthews is becoming more evident daily, he should probably take some time off to gain perspective.
15 - Roland
Dan
There have been various deconstructions of Miller's speech in the press. He claimed that Kerry's voting record demonstrated a pattern of opposing defense related projects, and to provide evidence for this, he gave several examples. That's fine, except Miller gave the impression that Kerry voted against each weapon system at different times, and that he was somehow alone in this. Cheney, while SecDef in the Bush 41 was promising even deeper cuts than this, and now he is recast as being strong on defense. In fact, the record shows that Kerry's pattern consists of at most about 3 votes in total.
With regard to the Malkin incident, I leave it to you to check the actual transcript. She is doing fine, saying there are questions about the wound being self-inflicted, until Matthews asks her directly whether or not she thinks Kerry shot himself on purpose. She replies, "Yes. Some soldiers are saying this," or something to that effect. The relevant portion of "Unfit for Command" does not in fact make this claim. It suggests that the wound might be self inflicted in the descriptive sense, and occurred because Kerry discharged an M79 grenade launcher too close to shore and was hit by shrapnel. Nowhere does it claim that Kerry shot himself deliberately to engineer a purple heart incident.
Malkin was making a wildly inaccurate claim, even when judged by the testimony of the SWBVT. Matthews confronted her about this. It really is as simple as that.
16 - Eric Olsen
I miss duels
17 - Dan
Roland, I think that our only difference of opinion on Zell's speech is that you seem to be saying that it's 'out of bounds' for the senator to foster an impression that would exaggerate Kerry's lackluster commitment to defense issues. I would agree if he were representing himself as a non-partisan news journalist. But he was there to solidify, convince, and inspire. The fact that he could do these things, masterfully, and still AVOID SAYING ANYTHING FACTUALLY INCORRECT is a testament to his brilliance. He certainly did not "act the clown". It's my opinion that Zell's placement in the convention, show-casing his classical oratory style, was a political master-stroke.
It's also my perception that Republicans, and conservatives in general, are held to higher standards of honesty than Dems and Libs. Chris Matthews, who once postured himself as chiefly non-partisan, has devolved to doing crude partisan attacks for the Dems. Zell was going to have none of the ugly hack job Matthews performed on Malkin, and I believe Zell alluded to that interview when he 'handled' Matthews.
Michelle Malkin is more easily defended. If your impression of the interview is formed exclusively from reading the transcript, you owe it to yourself to hear the audio. Here is a link to an audio and a transcript of her version of events on Rush Limbaugh's show. Embedded within is also the audio and transcript from the relative portion of the Chris Matthews show.
Michelle Malkin, besides possessing obvious charm, maintains a high level of integrity. Because her chosen field of endevour is to root out some of the uglier facets of Liberalism, she is often held to an even higher standard of honesty than Repubs and conservatives. I've never Known her to "disgrace" or "embarrass" herself.
If you follow the link and listen and read the transcript and still have the same conclusion, I will concede that one of us is being less than reasonable.