Wizbang, who has a link to video, mentions it, but I haven't seen much commentary on what I think is one of the most interesting aspects of the Zell Miller v. Chris Matthews fight: the Senator's defense of Michelle Malkin's honor. From the transcript:
MILLER: If you are going to ask me a question, step back and let me answer.MATTHEWS: Senator, please.
MILLER: You know, I wish we...
MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.
MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.
Don't ask me—don't pull that...
MATTHEWS: Can you can come over? I need you, Senator. Please come over.
MILLER: Wait a minute. Don't pull that kind of stuff on me, like you did that young lady when you had her there, browbeating her to death. I am not her. I am not her.
MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, she was suggesting that John Kerry purposely shot himself to win a medal. And I was trying to correct the record.
MILLER: You get in my face, I am going to get back in your face. ... You ask these questions and then you just talk over what I am trying to answer, just like you did that woman the other day.
For a sense of Miller's effect on Matthews, just slowly scroll down the Miller interview portion of the transcript. After Matthew's chastening, the questions and answers come in large blocks — almost paragraphs. I'm not a big-time TV personality, but that sort of discussion seems much more productive, and much more interesting, to me. That a Senator had to demand it makes this comment from Matthews later in his show even more delectable:
I think when he goes back and starts reading what I said, instead of checking on the latest blog site, he will learn a lot more about what's going on here.
I think Miller does know "what's going on," and Matthews is beginning to figure it out, too. Online transcripts make it obvious who talks in incomprehensible bulletpoints. And even the talking heads are beginning to feel the media earth shaking.
ADDENDUM:
Michelle applauds here.
The Old Media has got to hate the internet. Watch for restrictions coming soon to an ISP near you.
Posted by: c matt at September 2, 2004 12:07 PMI'm not impressed by Zell Miller's desire to murder Chris Matthews. Seems a little juvenile.
It's intersting that Republicans ranted about Howard Dean's "scream" because Zell's entire speech was a scream.
Posted by: Joel Thomas at September 2, 2004 12:55 PM"It's intersting that Republicans ranted about Howard Dean's "scream" because Zell's entire speech was a scream."
First of all, most conservatives kind of laughed at Dean, more than ranted. Second, what was the point of Dean's scream? And Zell's speech? There's the difference...
Posted by: Mike S. at September 2, 2004 1:08 PM"I'm not impressed by Zell Miller's desire to murder Chris Matthews. Seems a little juvenile."
And Matthews is the furthest thing from juvenile. Riiiight...
Posted by: Mike S. at September 2, 2004 1:09 PMMatthews definitely had it coming.
Posted by: Christopher Blosser at September 3, 2004 1:46 AMIf duels were legal,
1. it wouldn't be murder.
2. I doubt that Matthews would show up.
William,
Superb response, with #1. I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't think of it.
Posted by: Justin Katz at September 3, 2004 11:35 AMThe moral wrongness of murder is defined by the Bible, not by the law. I don't find Biblical support for dueling. Chris Matthews is kind of obnoxious, but no more so than Sean Hannity and other conservatives.
If you liked what and how Zell Miller said, don't complain about Michael Moore.
I note that Miller falsely accused Jimmy Carter of being a pacifist. Miller defenders respond that such attacks were "hyperbole." Fine, then Moore's attacks were hyperbole, too. Miller also implied that Kerry wouldn't defend the country. This from the same Miller who in 2001 praised Kerry's record on defense matters, thanked him for working to strengthen the military, and called him a great leader, an authentic hero and a good friend. Did John Kerry change in three years, or is Miller blowing smoke?
The bottom line is that we liberals are pre-disposed to believe the worst about you conservatives and you conservatives are pre-disposed to believe the worst about us.
Posted by: Joel Thomas at September 5, 2004 3:47 PMRe: Moore and Miller
Do you really think accusing someone of being a pacifist is morally on par with accusing them of being a murderer?
Posted by: Mike S. at September 5, 2004 8:51 PMMike S:
In a time of terror, pacifism would encourage, and fail to stop, the killing of more innocent people. So yes, pacifism is quite a significant moral failing.
If you conservatives cannot admit that Miller's comments are, at best, stupid, than you're living, with him, in the 19th century.
Posted by: arturo fernandez at September 7, 2004 4:01 PMArturo,
So it would be safe then to say that first you were for pacifism, and then you were against it?
Likewise for Miller?
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |