The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Ensuring Those Pawns Have Something To Get Off Their Chess

Posted on | July 20, 2010 | 6 Comments

by Smitty

Jennifer Rubin has a great take on a WaPo immigration reform article:

Because, you see, if he passed a bill, the issue would go away. And then Hispanics wouldn’t be mad at the GOP. It is quite a buried lede. The story here is not as the Post’s headline reads: “Republican immigration position likely to alienate Latinos, Obama officials say.” It is, instead, “Obama Wants Divisive Racial Issue, Not Immigration Reform.”

This leads me to paraphrase a most cynical old shipmate of mine, from about a decade ago. If BHO were to level with the American people, he might say something along the lines of:

I’m not good at getting stuff done. I’m good at talking about stuff as if it should have been done, but somebody else impeded my progress, and you should hate them for it.

The polls seem to indicate that those pawns are awakening to the fact that they’re trapped in a game of which they’d been unaware.
Chess is really an inferior metaphor for this post. There is no ambiguity in chess. It is 100% transparent, all the time. What a shame this administration is the opposite of that.

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

6 Responses to “Ensuring Those Pawns Have Something To Get Off Their Chess”

  1. Steve in TN
    July 20th, 2010 @ 10:04 pm

    I disagree with your chess assessment. The most important pieces at the chess board do not occupy any of the 64 squares, the are in the chairs behind the inanimate pieces. And ambiguity abounds…

    Chess is far from transparent, especially when you do not know your opponent. Is he positionally or tactically oriented? Does like to occupy the center or does he like to attack strong points? Is he better on the attack or on defense (puncher or counter puncher)?

    The greatest champions not only played the pieces, they played the opponent. Bobby Fischer famously stated that his goal was to crush the other guy’s ego. Kasparov wore down Karpov in their first match and Karpov was only saved – temporarily – by a corrupt organization. Kasparov went on to defeat Karpov in successive matches, but they were won in the last half of that first match. Kasparov had crushed Karpov’s ego – as Fischer had explained – Karpov was never able to match him after that.

    What is happening now with immigration is a gambit by the Admin in the last stages of the first match. The progressives’ ego is in danger of annihilation. They are willing to give material for counter play. They are desperate. It behooves those of us on the side of Liberty to find the best play from here out.

  2. Steve in TN
    July 20th, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

    I disagree with your chess assessment. The most important pieces at the chess board do not occupy any of the 64 squares, the are in the chairs behind the inanimate pieces. And ambiguity abounds…

    Chess is far from transparent, especially when you do not know your opponent. Is he positionally or tactically oriented? Does like to occupy the center or does he like to attack strong points? Is he better on the attack or on defense (puncher or counter puncher)?

    The greatest champions not only played the pieces, they played the opponent. Bobby Fischer famously stated that his goal was to crush the other guy’s ego. Kasparov wore down Karpov in their first match and Karpov was only saved – temporarily – by a corrupt organization. Kasparov went on to defeat Karpov in successive matches, but they were won in the last half of that first match. Kasparov had crushed Karpov’s ego – as Fischer had explained – Karpov was never able to match him after that.

    What is happening now with immigration is a gambit by the Admin in the last stages of the first match. The progressives’ ego is in danger of annihilation. They are willing to give material for counter play. They are desperate. It behooves those of us on the side of Liberty to find the best play from here out.

  3. smitty
    July 20th, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

    @steve,
    Interesting points, but the total information of the chess position is always known.
    State kept within the players is interesting, but makes chess comparable to poker when you include that. Chess ain’t poker.

  4. smitty
    July 20th, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

    @steve,
    Interesting points, but the total information of the chess position is always known.
    State kept within the players is interesting, but makes chess comparable to poker when you include that. Chess ain’t poker.

  5. qq
    July 21st, 2010 @ 7:33 am

    You already spammed that in a few other threads, gg.

    It doesn’t get any better with repetition.

  6. qq
    July 21st, 2010 @ 3:33 am

    You already spammed that in a few other threads, gg.

    It doesn’t get any better with repetition.