UM, ISN’T THIS A CASE OF CALLING YOUR OWN BLUFF?... I mean, I’m not a big poker player, but I thought the point of a bluff is not to admit it’s a bluff . . . .I'd say the biggest problem with the poker metaphor is that it characterizes the talks as a game... and, more particularly, a game in which, on any given hand, somebody wins the whole pot. At the point in poker where you make a comment like "Don’t call my bluff," you are trying to lure the other player into making the wrong decision so you can win it all. In the ultra-serious debt negotiations, where supposedly the 2 sides are engaging in give and take to reach a consensus for the sake of the people, it's bad to reveal that you see it as a game and you're trying to win it... for yourself.
UPDATE: “I’d love to play poker with him. Does he know that it’s played with cards?”
Now, there's also the question whether someone who plays poker competently would use the phrase "Don’t call my bluff." Glenn is right that you don't want the other player to know when you are bluffing, but saying "Don’t call my bluff" isn't admitting you're bluffing. Indeed, if you were playing with someone who thought it was, saying "Don’t call my bluff" would be a great way to get them not to fold when you have an excellent hand. You could just as well say the opposite — "Call my bluff" — in the same situation for the same reason. The other player has the same problem he has when you don't say anything at all — when you keep a poker face: He doesn't know what you have.
Think about when someone outside of a poker game might use the phrase "Don’t call my bluff." Meade and I were talking about that and he said: It's something a father would say. "Son, don't call my bluff." In other words: Do you think I'm kidding? Try me. Within some father-son relationships, that's a very powerful move. The father is demanding obedience, and the son is afraid of what will happen if he does not accede to his father's demands. The father isn't saying what the consequence will be, but the fear of the father's power is enough to make the son comply. He can't risk finding out. It's a test of parental authority.
And we know Obama would like us to see him in that fatherly role. He would like to have our compliance because he knows best. Eat your peas.
Posts
203 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 203 of 203Yep - That's Some "Warning" You Gave Us, Buddy!!!
You are making the same error Obama is making. You are assuming that the electorate is not aware of what the differing positions represent over the long term.
Maybe. But didn’t Obama take contradictory “differing positions” during the 2008 campaign? And wasn’t enough of the electorate “not aware” enough, or did not care enough if they were aware, to elect Obama? Some mighty smart folks voted for Obama. Even law professors who believe that Obama’s election put the GOP in a stronger position.
Earlier I wrote: “Is the commentor aware that in 1996 Clinton won by a landslide?”
Seeing Red correctly chastises me for the “landslide” characterization. For the record, below are the numbers:
In the 1996 presidential election, Clinton was re-elected, receiving 49.2% of the popular vote over Republican Bob Dole (40.7% of the popular vote) and Reform candidate Ross Perot (8.4% of the popular vote) … Clinton received 379, or over 70% of the Electoral College votes, with Dole receiving 159 electoral votes.
http://tinyurl.com/66f8r38
So I amend my statement to read:
Is the commentor aware that in 1996 Clinton won handily with over 8% of the popular vote and 70% of the electoral votes?
On polls about which side is winning I contended that polls AFTER the negotiations are finished are the polls that matter. Red replies:
And we still have a year to go after.
And the point is … ?
Red again: Checkbook, mine's been closed a long time.
Fine. But don’t be bitching about election results.
Sorepaw says: You're so efficient at spreading FUD, one wonders whether you do it for a living.
I have no idea what FUD means. Fucked Up Debate? Farcical Unusual Discord? Frightfully Urbane Discourse? Could the commentor help me out on that?
Earlier I commented:
Yes, Obama wants a “long term” agreement in order to defer future negotiations safely beyond the 2012 election. But if the GOP sweetens the pot sufficiently he may be persuaded to agree to a “short term” plan.
Sorepaw inquires: If the short-term plan lands on his desk in the form of a bill that has passed both houses of Congress, and not agreeing means Obama has to veto it, what then?
I think this may be the same tactic I saw Krauthammer propose on Fox today. Considering Krauthammer’s expertise and insight I believe we must assume the GOP would be in a better position than with the 2 options I described in my previous comment. But it depends on the MSM not being able to successfully perform their usual subterfuge. I would love to see Obama maneuvered into an untenable position.
Crack – followed the link. Nice. Didn’t leave a comment there cause nobody gets my email address.
You're giving Obama way too much credit. He's not nearly as smart as you think ... credentialed out the wazoo, yes, but not smart.
Post a Comment