What Jimmy Carter told me about winning elections:

[trof]

I've posted this before, prior to the 2004 elections.
In light of this excellent thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2819242&mesg_id=2819242
I think it's worth a re-run.

I won't go into all the details, but during his 1975-76 campaign, at least in the south, many of us thought he was pandering somewhat to the segregationist crowd. They were still a large and powerful voting bloc. This was in direct conflict with his actions while governor of Georgia.

Following a speech he gave in my town (before he had won the Democratic nomination), I was able to buttonhole him for a couple of minutes. I expressed my displeasure.

Here's the gist of his reply:
I understand how you feel, but you must understand this - my job right now is to win the election.
If that doesn't happen, nothing else matters.
I can have the best ideas and plans in the world to lead this nation out of the dark Nixon years, but if I don't get elected nothing else will follow.
Politics can be a dirty business. I don't like it, but there it is.
If you want to govern; if you want to lead; you've gotta get elected first.

God, I was so naive back then.
I was somewhat mollified by his answer.
The older I get, the more I know what he said is as true today as it was then.

[skipos]

1. I was too young to pay attention to what he was doing back then

but in my opinion, all Democratic politicians need to do is make sure that a maximum number of Americans can UNDERSTAND and RELATE to our politicians' stances. They don't need to pander or flip flop or lie.

[Totallybushed]

4. I'm with you.

I think it is despicable and hypocritcal to dissimulate your positions on the issues. If you speak honestly, and do not get elected, your job is to continue to work to educate the people. If you DO get elected, then you will be in the strongest position to enact your agenda with minimal opposition. Because your opponents know the American people have spoken.

[snappyturtle]

2. K&R Sad but true.

I keep this in the back of my mind when I disagree with politicians I like hoping their words are sometimes disagreeable but tactically winning. Does that make sense?

[trof]

3. Makes sense to me.

Like Carter said, I don't like it.
But now I understand it's just part of the process.

[billbuckhead]

6. Isn't that what Hillary says?

[Donna Zen]

9. Except that Hillary is/was already in office

Her pollster referred to her Iraq vote as "positioning." I guess one has to ask here: when does the pandering stop and the governing begin. Carter may have pandered while running (I was not kean on the man) but once elected, he did lead on environmental and energy issues. In fact, I was very happy to vote for Carter the second time. He didn't lose on the issues effected by his strength, but rather issues of perceived weakness such as the Iranian hostages, and the Panama Canal. Like it or not, agree with him or not, the American people hated the Panama Canal deal.

Besides, Hillary runs in a blue state.

[Mr_Spock]

5. How many times

have many of us tried to say this in so many ways here. Your ideology is IRRELEVANT if you have a representative of the hate party in office because you were too busy looking for the "perfect" candidate.

[snappyturtle]

7. RIGHT! nt

[AndyTiedye]

8. Jimmy Carter is As Close to an Honest Politician As You'll Ever Find

He could only have gotten elected President in the wake of Watergate.

[Chalco]

10. Ah, the smell of honesty in the morning! Nothing like it. nt