Poker party (with government)

[IChing]

In politics as in poker, the only way to win is to seize the initiative. The Democrats need to make bold wagers or risk being rolled over again.

By David Mamet
ONE NEEDS TO know but three words to play poker: call, raise or fold.

Fold means keep the money, I'm out of the hand; call means to match your opponents' bet. That leaves raise, which is the only way to win at poker. The raiser puts his opponent on the defensive, seizing the initiative. Initiative is only important if one wants to win.


The military axiom is "he who imposes the terms of the battle imposes the terms of the peace." The gambling equivalent is: "Don't call unless you could raise"; that is, to merely match one's opponent's bet is effective only if it makes the opponent question the caller's motives. And that can only occur if the caller has acted aggressively enough in the past to cause his opponents to wonder if the mere call is a ruse de guerre.

If you are branded as passive, the table will roll right over you — your opponents will steal antes without fear. Why? Because the addicted caller has never exhibited what, in the wider world, is known as courage.

In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one's convictions, one's intuitions, one's understanding. There can be no victory without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods. Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing, regardless of the cards he is dealt.

For example, take a player who has never acted with initiative — he has never raised, merely called. Now, at the end of the evening, he is dealt a royal flush. The hand, per se, is unbeatable, but the passive player has never acted aggressively; his current bet (on the sure thing) will signal to the other players that his hand is unbeatable, and they will fold.

His patient, passive quest for certainty has won nothing.

The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country.

Committed Democrats watched while Al Gore frittered away the sure-thing election of 2000. They watched, passively, while the Bush administration concocted a phony war; they, in the main, voted for the war knowing it was purposeless, out of fear of being thought weak. They then ran a candidate who refused to stand up to accusations of lack of patriotism.

The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.

John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely "calling" the attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance. Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only where they started before the accusations began.

Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail.

The press, quiescent during five years of aggressive behavior by the White House, has, perhaps, begun to recover its pride. In speaking of Karl Rove, Scott McClellan and the White House's Valerie Plame disgrace, they have begun to use words such as "other than true," "fabricated." The word that they circle, still, is "lie." The word the Democratic constituency, heartsick over the behavior of its party leaders, has been forced to consider applying to them is "coward."

One may sit at the poker table all night and never bet and still go home broke, having anted away one's stake.

The Democrats are anteing away their time at the table. They may be bold and risk defeat, or be passive and ensure it.
DAVID MAMET is a screenwriter, novelist and the author of award-winning plays, including "Glengarry Glen Ross.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-mamet16sep16,1,341798.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[applegrove]

1. I think Dems are being aggressive. And by not being the "truth" tellers

but by concentrating on the policies that back the truth - Bush is spinning in the wind. When Dems speak truth - Bush WH turns that into "not fair - now our turn to tell our truth". When the Dems shut up on what the truth is, Bush is left looking for a scapegoat to hate or in telling their lies into the wind.

So by being so sober and A political on Cindy, on the events after Katrina - the truth has come out from people and witnesses and Bush cannot shut them up and say "it is not fair that people are listening to the victims". Though actually the Pentagon tried that pity play on the third day of the disaster.And it looked really, really bad. So they had to stop.

These are not "victims" the WH is up against. These are real Americans with real problems and issues and real questions.

The Dems should continue whatever they are doing. Because the truth is sinking in.

Why Bush's polls are dropping.

By Democrats "playing politics" or "talking the truth" - it allows Karl Rove's perpetual election campaign to roll along. Now - suddenly - the perpetual campaign has ended. Bush actually scapegoated god - which is what Christians are supposed to do. It is what Christianity is.

Something is working!

[loudsue]

3. I disagree, applegrove. They're only leaving the revolution up to us.

We elected them to LEAD us, not to sit on their hands. If they would fight in the halls of congress, we may not have to fight in the streets of America.

But they are leaving WE, THE PEOPLE, no choice. And, when we DO start to fight, they will, once again, be sitting on their hands. And we will have to fight them, too. They are traitors to OUR party, just like the republicans are traitors to Democracy.

Things have gotten too far out of hand while, as you imply, the Democrats have been so smugly "intelligent" in playing their hand against the take-over of our country.

They are cowards. By doing nothing, they have allowed our country to fall. They are the problem, every bit as much as the republican neocons.

:kick::kick::kick:

[applegrove]

4. If you do not give them enough elected representative to do anything

but filibuster - they cannot do anything but filibuster. Give it a bit. See how Bush looks after another few months of people on the ground speaking to him. Much harder to slime or swift boat someone who is talking about their own life and experience.

Though I would not put it past them to try. Didn't karl say something about Cindy today?

Well it may work. Who knows. And then the next little earthling/american stands up and speaks out. And Karl cannot say they are a fancy pants anything or some elite. And then the next. And then the next.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Great article. It really pin points the reasons

Democrats are perceived as weak by a broad spectrum of the electorate.