Bluffing depends on uncertainty. Did the Capitol Police really have a history of discrimination? Did the officer really use excessive force? Does McKinney have solid evidence to back up her claims? And how much were the Capitol police willing to pay - in the currency of reputation and credibility - in order to find out?Poker. It's about everything.
Whatever you think of McKinney, it was hard not to be impressed by the way that she kept raising the stakes. It would have been hard enough for federal prosecutors to take on a member of congress in any circumstance, but she put them on notice that they might be publicly branded racists - and perhaps face a civil rights lawsuit - if they filed charges against McKinney. Under that sort of pressure, no one would blame them for backing off.
April 25, 2006
"McKinney ... kept restating her charges of discrimination and profiling - which is just how a good bluff works."
Lawprof Steven Lubet -- who's got a new book, "Lawyers' Poker: 52 Lessons That Lawyers Can Learn from Card Players" -- is blogging about Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and poker:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
"Poker. It's about everything."
So is football: the best defense is a good offense.
Unfortunately for McKinney, though, when the indictment is handed down, all bets will be off.
Or Marshall Foch,
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking.".
My personal favorite is from the Battle of the Bulge in WWII.
"They've got us surrounded again, those poor dumb bastards"
You’d think with only 535 members of Congress that by now the Capitol Police would have learned to recognize the crazy ones.
I enjoy it when people call being shameless being savvy. You'd be a "fool" not to agree, don't you think?
Reminds me of a 2500-year old story and its moral: "Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed."
A bluff is only effective if people believe you might be holding all the cards. In this case it was obvious McKinney didn't, and the capitol police were only too happy to call her bluff.
If one is prepared to concede that all of life's relationships have only winners and losers, then life is indeed no more than a poker hand. In that way, when McKinney repeats a lie often enough, she's a good strategist, not simply a liar.
But even in Poker there are rules. Why wouldn't Lubet suggest instead that a lie is no different than dealing from the bottom of the deck, i.e. cheating, and therefore condemn her behavior?
Marghlar and Pogo: Analysis is different from moral evaluation. Analysis needs to be morally dispassionate if it's going to be effective. That doesn't mean that moral evaluation is wrong or unnecessary, just that it's a different ball game.
I don't read Lubet's post as endorsing McKinney. And yes, Marghlar, it is a fascinating strategic game. (I say that even though I'm not selling any strategy books.)
Analysis is about what is, not about what should be. If you mix those up, you get shoddy analysis and shoddy moral reasoning.
Re: "Analysis is different from moral evaluation. Analysis needs to be morally dispassionate if it's going to be effective."
Matt: My second point was a 'rules-based' and thus dispassionate comment, in that Lubet could just as easily recognized that cheating isn't allowed in Poker, and McKinney is dealing from the bottom of the deck. But he prefers the 'bluff' category because it sounds less judgemental.
But just try to get away with cheating at high-stakes poker, and see how dispassionate people are.
What's that old saying?
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Yeah, that's the one.
Poker? Shmoker. What she's doing is a sin and she's going to hell. But hey, that's just me talking.
I agree she is playing her hand correctly but it’s really not that brilliant. Just show me how she can lose. If she prevails great for her, if the officer is shown to be correct her base will most probably still believe her. The possible downside would be the members refusing to seat her and that will never happen.
reader_iam said...
What's that old saying? "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Yessssss!
Makes me think of the UN scene in "Team America: World Police" where Alec Baldwin just starts yelling "GLOBAL WARMING!"
I agree she is playing her hand correctly but it’s really not that brilliant. Just show me how she can lose. If she prevails great for her, if the officer is shown to be correct her base will most probably still believe her. The possible downside would be the members refusing to seat her and that will never happen.
You forget the larger downside (for Democrats at least but for McKinney if she gets part of the blame): this serves as fodder for GOP GOTV and fundraising efforts for 2006 and helps to rally their base by reminding them that as upset as many of us are with the GOP leadership, McKinney and the members who supported her at her press conference (some of whom would be Committee Chairs in a Democrat-controlled House) is a perfect example of why Democrats are worse.
To: Ehud Blade.
Re: Your 4:35 p.m. comment.
Mssg: Excellent! (and LOL!)
"There are no troops here! Everything is fine"!
--Baghdad Bob.
"this serves as fodder for GOP GOTV and fundraising efforts for 2006 and helps to rally their base by reminding them that as upset as many of us are with the GOP leadership, McKinney and the members who supported her at her press conference"
Didn't Ana Marie Cox say something on Fox a few weeks ago, along the lines that the problem with McKinney is that she tars by assocaition, that is, makes all democrats look a little crazy to be in the same party?
I don't know how Lubet can chalk McKinney's maneuverings up as a win. From where I sit, it looks like she's in some trouble. I question the choices she has made.
Since she was going to be forced by Dem leadership into issuing an apology anyhow, so she should have done it on the spot, or soon thereafter, and tried to settle things out of court. The incident would be chalked up to Crazy McKinney, and she'd be done with it and go back home to win re-election from the idiots who keep sending her to Congress. Instead, she upped the ante considerably, and now she will probably face assault charges.
Her "the man's pickin' on me" defense may shore up her base at home, and may even play with a D.C. jury given its typical makeup, but she will still be facing serious charges with a potential for a catastrophic loss, and D.C. juries do send an awful lot of black people to prison, so I'm not sure the race card will be her trump card. The best result she can get after a trial is acquittal - and even then she's still the nutty Member who punched a security guard. The worst result is a felony conviction, and she's still the nutty Member. The best result she could have had from the apology, is that nothing legal occurs, and she's still the nutty Memeber. The worst outcome would be that she could face charges and a conviction.
Seems to me if I was advising a client to gamble, I'd advise them to try the apology route first, since it's the only route that potentially avoids the risk of trial completely, while offering a chance to make the whole thing go away questly.
As long as the Democratic caucus has not announced its support for her expulsion from the House, she's still winning.
Post a Comment