May 14, 2003
Law Games
Salon.com News | GAO chief paints bleak budget picture
U.S. District Judge John Bates, a Bush appointee, was "clearly wrong" in ruling against the GAO's lawsuit for the people who met with the Cheney energy task force. The GAO went to court when the White House refused to release the names, saying the public had a right to know whom the Bush administration consulted in drafting its energy plan and whether Congress needed to talk to other interested parties. Walker said he didn't challenge Bates' decision because the ruling would not stop the agency from seeking other White House records, but a failed appeal could hinder future investigations.
See, I'm absolutely convinced that the White House knew that the risks of appealing and losing outweighed the benefit of a successful appeal. Which puts them in the position of only needing one bad judge. It's this kind of chesslike manipulative thinking that I'm sure the republicans are better at than the democrats. They're not as burdened with the internal control that says, "But we can't do that!" I've been noticing all term how Bush's strength is his willingness to break unwritten rules and taboos. This is a skill that can be learned without selling your soul, I'm sure of it. It's not directly manipulating an opponent, it's making a series of unthreatening moves around the perifery that restricts the movement of your opponent.
So the question is, when you are dealing with someone who does that, how do you beat them? Despite my belief that you can learn how to do it, I think it's a mistake to get sucked into their game. However, I also think it's a mistake to remove yourself from the battle to be above the fray. Democrats get stuck in this all the time. They think they are taking the high road when they're really burying their heads in the sand. There's a way to respond so that you are engaging them vigorously, but not on their terms. That's the approach to use. I want to get better at that, myself.