The
Weekly Standard (via political wire) is reporting that Zell Miller is endorsing Bush for president and will campaign for him if asked. Does that mean we can endorse someone else for his seat?
The
Weekly Standard (via political wire) is reporting that Zell Miller is endorsing Bush for president and will campaign for him if asked.
Now, I'm not in favor of ideological litmus tests for party members (we've seen what that kind of thing has lead to in the GOP, "Hi there Mr. Jeffords") but can't we all get together to agree that Democrats shouldn't be endorsing Republicans over Democrats. I know Kos is fond of saying he's happy with any senator that votes for the right way for majority leader. And I've always thought I'd agreed with him, but now I'm starting to think that endorsing your party's presidential nominee is going on my short list of demandds for my party's senators.
So my question is, why exactly do we continue to put up with Miller? Exactly what good is he doing at this point? I can't help but think of George Galloway's recent expulsion from the Labour party in England, and that one of the things he was charged with (though the only one he was acquitted of) was urging voters not to support the Labour party. Couldn't we make that sort of (not particularly taxing) demand of Miller and the rest of our Senators?
If he's not willing to support the party, why should the party support him? I'm sure we can find a nice ambitious Georgia DA or State Senator that would love to run for his seat and would put the DNC's and the Georgia Democratic Party's money to better use.