Has Jimmy Carter lost it?

[il Padrino Ute]

I mean, has he lost it more than I thought?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...4.html?sub=new

I can understand and agree that there should be no secrets if there is corruption, but what about cases of things that the citenzry really doesn't need to know, like military strategy during war?

Carter already did his part to make this country worse. It's time for him to sitck to building houses and stay out of politics.

[Archaea]

Maybe we should step back and discern the purpose of political statements.

Statements by politicians or former politicians are not meant to be statements of truth.

A calculating politician NEVER speaks his mind.

He or she is always positioning to attack the opposition. It is always a posture to launch an attack.

The only real political theorists are those at universities.

Aside from that, the rest are spin doctors.

None of these guys are stupid, but he is trying to back Republicans into a corner. It's a rhetorical device.

We novices naively take the bait for what it is not. It is NOT a statement of truth or proper action, but a chess move designed to cause a counter move by the Center and the Right.

What we need to think, is where is he trying to maneuver the opposition. What is his purpose?

[il Padrino Ute]

Good points.

I've neer been good at chess. I just try to take as many pieces as I can before I lose.

If his goal is to get the public to think Bush is secretive, we already knew that.

[Archaea]

The Republican strategists need to anticipate this, determine who should respond, how Carter should be attacked, and find a method of making the Dems look responsible for compromising security.

[il Padrino Ute]

Can the Republicans just point out that this is coming from a man who thinks he was attacked by a giant rabbit in a Georgia swamp?

I may not have the story right, but it would be a good start as to his state of mind.

Just kidding. Like I say, I'm no chess player and even less a political strategist. If it were me, I'd go for the jugular, be that national security or something else. I beleive in quick and decisive victories.

[Archaea]

Rove is good, but right now, they've made a lot of stupid mistakes.

Still, the only reason, the Reps win is due to strategy, as from a media standpoint, they're bucking the trend.

Just imagine the polarized sides sitting there with a bunch of generals, knowing the battle lines, battle fronts, watching polls that feed them information about what is working and what is not.

To be a great politician, one must be amoral, not immoral, not moral, but amoral. Basically, you don't care what is right or wrong, but what works.

That is why, nonpolitically savvy persons get irritated with both sides, we loathe what they do and how they do it. Put on different goggles.

You start by not really believing anything.

You see what your constituents believe or will believe if you feed them enough information. You formulate a message, attack at all times your oppoenent and defend yourself. Your attacks need not be truthful, but plausible.

If you do it more cleverly with more money, you win. Winning is all that counts. Method is not.

Once a politician realizes, belief is irrelevant, but understanding constituency, and what they believe, then that politician can be successful.

It is really chess and a combination of military tactics. It's NOT about right and wrong, but what is possible. It's a system that operates outside the world of morality.

You use moral overlays to appeal to constituency, but the morality of it, doesn't matter. Conservatives appeal to persons who feel, that certain types of personal morality matter. The conservative voters stupidly believe their representatives care. (They don't.)

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A calculating politician NEVER speaks his mind.

...

What we need to think, is where is he trying to maneuver the opposition. What is his purpose?

I wonder where that wily Carter was trying to maneauver us when he talked about the 'lust in his heart.'

Carter's strength and weakness is the same -- he DOES speak his mind, and he DOES speak from the heart.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Robin

I wonder where that wily Carter was trying to maneauver us when he talked about the 'lust in his heart.'

Carter's strength and weakness is the same -- he DOES speak his mind, and he DOES speak from the heart.

Then you bought into his bullshit.

Do not ever believe a politician, especially one as shrewd as Carter, believes or means what he says. Always worry where he's trying to guide you.

By making that statement, he was trying to humanize himself, knowing the average man feels that way. People wanted to say, "yeah, that's a man like me."

Those human interest statements are carefully composed, calculated. I wouldn't even be surprised if his handlers wrote that shit.

You're much too naive if you believe it.

No career politician belives the shit he spews. It is his profession. If you had lunch with Carters, Kennedys, Bushes, Gingriches, and the like, didn't discuss politics, you would find they would do everything to please you. They feed off public approval.

One of these days I'd like to write a book and study some more on the psyche of a professional politician. In some respects, they're much akin to lawyers merely making an argument. Any winning argument will do, as long as it wins.

A professional politician spends his time building credibility, building links to funding, garnering favors, connecting with the "right people", attacking those who are the enemies of your friends.

Very few of our politicians are "horrible" people, even though in political debate we want to depict them as such. OTH, I wager none are good people, but many are good time charlies, i.e., party guys with whom one gets drunk or gets laid.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Then you bought into his bullshit.

Do not ever believe a politician, especially one as shrewd as Carter, believes or means what he says. Always worry where he's trying to guide you.

By making that statement, he was trying to humanize himself, knowing the average man feels that way. People wanted to say, "yeah, that's a man like me."

Those human interest statements are carefully composed, calculated. I wouldn't even be surprised if his handlers wrote that shit.

You're much too naive if you believe it.

No career politician belives the shit he spews. It is his profession. If you had lunch with Carters, Kennedys, Bushes, Gingriches, and the like, didn't discuss politics, you would find they would do everything to please you. They feed off public approval.

One of these days I'd like to write a book and study some more on the psyche of a professional politician. In some respects, they're much akin to lawyers merely making an argument. Any winning argument will do, as long as it wins.

A professional politician spends his time building credibility, building links to funding, garnering favors, connecting with the "right people", attacking those who are the enemies of your friends.

Very few of our politicians are "horrible" people, even though in political debate we want to depict them as such. OTH, I wager none are good people, but many are good time charlies, i.e., party guys with whom one gets drunk or gets laid.

Then rather than view such statements with cynisism (How does this guy want to manipulate me?) perhaps we should just ignore them (the speaker doesn't deserve our ear) or simply discuss the topic at hand?

What is the context for Carter's comments? How about the fact that President Bush, by presidential decree, recently closed down all future access to his papers, Clinton's papers, his father's papers and Reagan's papers.

I don't know where Padrino is getting his info (I'm not sure that revealing classified military tactics is really an issue... is it?), but I know that the Bush has made it impossible (for now) to ever examine his father's involvment as the VP to the Iran Contra affair. We will never be able to see what Clinton was really saying behind closed doors regarding Monica and obstruction of justice. And we will never know to what extent the books were cooked regarding the pretext to war in Iraq (public intelligence reports, during the run up to war, suggested that whatever the state of Iraq's WMD, it appeared that they could be contained, and that they represented no immediate threat... and we have to recall that Bush's plea to the congress was based on the immediacy of the threat, which is why we HAD to go to war when we did, before Blix finished his searches (he claimed he could have finished his report within three months)).

Would the American public benefit from looking at that info? Carter and I say yes. What say you?

[Archaea]

I don't care.

I'm more interested in the focus of the attack, the purpose of the attack, the interests which will be affected, and the resources which will be used to defend the attack.

I don't care about the merits, as in the end, none may matter.

You act as if this stuff matters, instead of part of a game. It's a game.

I'd need to know the context, the purpose.

What are the calculations involved in not revealing, what gain is achieved?

Right now, the Reps are losing the PR battle, they usually do.

For example, the Reps need to calculate if this attack has legs and how they will fend it off.

To me, it appears irrelevant. My guess is, ignore it, and it goes away. But I lack adequate info to make an informed decision.

See you got pulled in, thinking the object of the game mattered. It doesn't. That's a gotcha.