Alfonse D'Amato just on Fox News....live

[hollaballa]

he didn't say a word about poker. Wahooo.

Said Fred Thompson was the type of president we needed.

Someone wake me up when this issue becomes something our country gives a rip about.

[dorethawsp]

Good to see the PPA's chairman is publicly pushing a guy who will be hostile to our interests.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Good to see the PPA's chairman is publicly pushing a guy who will be hostile to our interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than a hire do we know he's against our interests? Thompson that is.

D$D

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
he didn't say a word about poker. Wahooo.

Said Fred Thompson was the type of president we needed.

Someone wake me up when this issue becomes something our country gives a rip about.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, we're probably better off if most of the country forgets about this issue.

[Skallagrim]

Of course he did not say a word about poker. Al and Fred are old friends, and whats a little thing like a cause your supposed to feel deeply about (and get paid a lot of money to promote) amongst old friends?

If Thompson were to say anything even remotely favorable about poker his potential vote base (southern christian conservatives) would go ballistic.

But Thompson is far more actor than politician and far from the brightest bulb even among the republicans, so I rate his chances at the nomination as poor, and his chances in the general election as slightly above zero.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course he did not say a word about poker. Al and Fred are old friends, and whats a little thing like a cause your supposed to feel deeply about (and get paid a lot of money to promote) amongst old friends?

If Thompson were to say anything even remotely favorable about poker his potential vote base (southern christian conservatives) would go ballistic.

But Thompson is far more actor than politician and far from the brightest bulb even among the republicans, so I rate his chances at the nomination as poor, and his chances in the general election as slightly above zero.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Any chance you were at the debate last night Skall?

[Skallagrim]

No legislurker, not last night.

But I assure you that being a registered independent NH voter will come in useful some point between now and January (maybe December).

Aside from R. Paul, however, I think the Republican candidates positions on Internet poker are known and negative - the only one I want to ask directly still is Guiliani, and that primarily to confirm my opinion of him as an authoritarian statist (which will hopefully cost him votes).

I do intend to ask all the Democrats an online poker question.

But Primary Season is just starting up, so if any of you want, give me a candidates name and a poker related question to ask and I will do my best to corner them the next time they are in my neck of NH.

And no, I will not in any way suggest that I represent or have the support of 2+2 when I ask /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Skallagrim

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good to see the PPA's chairman is publicly pushing a guy who will be hostile to our interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than a hire do we know he's against our interests? Thompson that is.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I briefly caught a show (Charlie Rose) on PBS last night after the debate. Bill Frist was on as a guest and he basically said he was backing Fred Thompson. It was late and I don't recall much of the content of the show, but Frist was all gung-ho about Thompson. I don't know much about Thompson, but that doesn't sound good to me.

Anyone know more about this?

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
No legislurker, not last night.

But I assure you that being a registered independent NH voter will come in useful some point between now and January (maybe December).

Aside from R. Paul, however, I think the Republican candidates positions on Internet poker are known and negative - the only one I want to ask directly still is Guiliani, and that primarily to confirm my opinion of him as an authoritarian statist (which will hopefully cost him votes).

I do intend to ask all the Democrats an online poker question.

But Primary Season is just starting up, so if any of you want, give me a candidates name and a poker related question to ask and I will do my best to corner them the next time they are in my neck of NH.

And no, I will not in any way suggest that I represent or have the support of 2+2 when I ask /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Im suprised about the debate last night, RP actually had people cheering for him during his Iraq exchange with Huckabee. Most of the [censored] cheered for Huckabee, but at least some people were with him.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]


Im suprised about the debate last night, RP actually had people cheering for him during his Iraq exchange with Huckabee. Most of the [censored] cheered for Huckabee, but at least some people were with him.

[/ QUOTE ]



......and despite hanity's bashing, Ron Paul wins yet another debate.

http://infowars.com/images2/cartoons/ronpaulrace_dees.jpg

[oldbookguy]

Yes, Frist first stated promoting Thompson back in early spring and from what I could gather from Frist's site, volpac he recruited him to begin with (I have been monitoring Frist since he left office).

The question is, will Thompson simply be a puppet for Frist or his own man?

Frist, before the '06 election debacle, had in place an entire campaign team so it can be guessed that a large number are now working for Thompson.

obg

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

The question is, will Thompson simply be a puppet for Frist or his own man?

[/ QUOTE ]


The thing is that Thompson (or McCain for that matter) can afford not to toe the FoF line 100%, because what then are they going to do if they don't like it? Vote for Billary or stay home which is the same thing?

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that Thompson (or McCain for that matter) can afford not to toe the FoF line 100%, because what then are they going to do if they don't like it? Vote for Billary or stay home which is the same thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but I think if they're going to endure the pain that comes from defying the FoF agenda on something, online poker is a very unlikely place for them to take their stand. They piss off a dependable source of fundraising and votes, and I doubt any of the GOP candidates believes they'd get something measurable in return. They're not just going to blow off James Dobson for nothing.

[BluffTHIS!]

fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hot damn we actually agree on something!

But then I'm not sure sucess now would be a good thing for the party. The GOP seems to need a few years in the wilderness to wake up.

D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hot damn we actually agree on something!

But then I'm not sure sucess now would be a good thing for the party. The GOP seems to need a few years in the wilderness to wake up.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Presidential politics are going to be state by state, again.
What states are in play that matter? Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, WV, Colorado, and Florida. A republican has to win almost all of those. Florida and Ohio may be 100% must wins. Our goal should be to show that poker could cost a Republican nominee every one of those states. Our other goal should be to tell the Dems poker can throw them every one of those states and several Senators into the bargain. We don't want to be an issue, we want to pitch to them to avoid the issue.

[oldbookguy]

Staying on this theme, the GOP / FoF, I was just reading a Pew Research poll. Trouble with polls, you only get filtered information but it can be interesting.

In this poll, 7 of 10 polled stated that they felt the candidated needed to be very religious.

Rudy and Hillary were ranked the LEAST religious.

Rudy and Hillary lead their respective party in the polls.

Moral, for the GOP (and it seems the Dems as well) to be successful, they need to move away from the FoF religious base, it seems even their own party members in general are rejecting them.

This is the message we, if we choose, need to send to potential candidates.

Be religious, yes, but do not legislate to me what morals I should / should not have.

Read on Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_religion_poll

[BluffTHIS!]

obg,

The problem is that Rudy and Hillary are horrible nanny-staters with many of the same positions as the fundie religious crowd. Neither will help us.

[oldbookguy]

I am not suggesting either would help us, I was pointing out that the FoF crowd seems to have lost some pull reading the poll results.

The point I was responding to concerned the need for a candidate (GOP) to court the FoF crowd to win and it seems that may be shifting some.

The 2 LEAST religious are leading while 70% favor a very religious candidate and pointing out the disconnect.

obg

[Legislurker]

Yeah, but how many od the candidates do you think are actually very religous, or all?

Subtract out Brownback, I come up with zero. And, his religion scares me. Fundamentalist from Kansas who converts to Catholicism while his family doesn't? People just don't care, and most aren't very religious. They want a soundbyte and are satisfied. Kinda like Barry Bonds supporters who say because he wasn't convited he didn/t take steroids(minus the racists). Makes me sick.

[oldbookguy]

In reality, none, including Brownback.

The perception of the public, in the GOP, 3. Huckabee, Brownback and Romney (even though his religion is considered odd by most).

As to th Dems, I would again go with 0 and add a 0 to who is even perceived that way.

Again, I was just pointing out the disconnect between what people say and reality. The GOP candidates should be doing the same.

obg

[IndyFish]

obg, thanks for the update on Frist. I had really hoped I'd never hear his name again.

Concerning religion, I found it odd (to put it lightly) that after the debate Fox News Channel interviewed each candidate and to the left of the screen they had a "playing card" type of display showing "stats" like current government position, state, etc. Also listed was the candidate's religious preference. I'd really like to ask FoF which branch of Christianity has the better decision-making skills. Isn't that what's important???

Anyway, the Republicans lost me when they became the big government, big spending, ultra-religious nanny-state party. I really hope I'm not just the exception.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hot damn we actually agree on something!

But then I'm not sure sucess now would be a good thing for the party. The GOP seems to need a few years in the wilderness to wake up.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Presidential politics are going to be state by state, again.
What states are in play that matter? Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, WV, Colorado, and Florida. A republican has to win almost all of those. Florida and Ohio may be 100% must wins. Our goal should be to show that poker could cost a Republican nominee every one of those states. Our other goal should be to tell the Dems poker can throw them every one of those states and several Senators into the bargain. We don't want to be an issue, we want to pitch to them to avoid the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem with this analysis from a gambling perspective in motivating "poker" votes is both MO and Ohio have riverboat gambling, FL and WV have passed recent changes allowing more poker, KY is likely by next year to have gambling on the ballot. This isn't to say that we like all advocacy groups shouldn't look at swing states, but the issue in these isn't going to be as hot as we'd like, IMO. So to some degree we are left with getting mainly on-line players.

I'm also uncomfortable throwing our lot with either main party just yet.


D$D

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republicans are unlikely to agree with this sentiment. They win elections by energizing the base, energizing the base, and energizing the base some more. In the 3 minutes they spend getting votes that are not part of the base, they will focus the debate on taxes and introduce gay marriage legislation in some swing state.

[Berge20]

Re the Frist-Thompson thing

Not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Both were Senators from the State of Tennessee and have long political ties going well back.

[oldbookguy]

For more on the Frist / Thompson connection and support, this takes you to Frist's Thompson Watch Headlines page:


http://volpac.org/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Search.Home&SearchText=thomps on


These are why, those who recall, I posted when it was announced that Witcherman(? correct spelling ?) was hired by Thompson and the need to write.

obg

[canvasbck]

I don't think Thompson will be an enemy of gaming. He is running as a federalist. He has stated many times that when he voted on a bill he always asked himself "Should governement be doing this, and if so, at what level" The following is a direct quote from his website;

" Back in my days in the Senate, I found myself on the short end of a couple of 99 to 1 votes. They involved issues that had been under the purview of states for over 200 years. I asked why we should federalize what rightly were state and local issues.

I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a thousand sparks of genius in the states and communities around this country catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the alternative of central planning.

We need to allow local authorities to apply their own good ideas and use their own good judgment. Each state can find its own way, learning from the successes and failures of the others. There is a wealth of creativity and initiative out there in the states, and often the best ideas in Washington started out as state initiatives. ."

Of course, he isn't going to pizz off his conservative base by supporting gaming. If he is a true federalist, he should want to see gaming legislation kept at the state level. Just my .02.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point completely if you thought I said the GOP would try to make FoF 100% happy.

The point is, they will go against FoF on issues where they think they can pick up a substantial number of votes in the middle. FoF is still a powerful force within the party and they're not going to go against it just to go against it, there has to be some benefit.

Unless we put together a million man march or something, I very much doubt any Republican candidate is going to see online poker as an issue with enough upside to warrant dissing FoF over it.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
I very much doubt any Republican candidate is going to see online poker as an issue with enough upside to warrant dissing FoF over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul has already done that and will continue to do it in the future. He doesn't sell out to any group.


http://infowars.com/images2/cartoons/130707pers-1.jpg

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fnurt,

Thompson or any other repub candidate is going to have to make a choice. Either make the core religious conservatives 100% happy or just take them for granted in an attempt to reach more of the middle. With things going against the repubs, just energizing the base and getting out its maximal voting potential won't be nearly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point completely if you thought I said the GOP would try to make FoF 100% happy.

The point is, they will go against FoF on issues where they think they can pick up a substantial number of votes in the middle. FoF is still a powerful force within the party and they're not going to go against it just to go against it, there has to be some benefit.

Unless we put together a million man march or something, I very much doubt any Republican candidate is going to see online poker as an issue with enough upside to warrant dissing FoF over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a lot of people seem to want a Million Hand March, but I don't. You would get more impact with a few hundred or more showing up in each of the state capitals to march. Even more if you regularly show up at candidate's offices, their events, and help those who support us, you will get more action. IMO. But if you are going to push for it you are running out of time. Isn't October 13th the day the UIEGA passed?

Look at the simple cost vs. benefit analysis. Who are you trying to move? Given the published numbers of poker players and polls on the subject we don't have to move the general population through action or education as much as we do have to convince legislators we are more than a heard of cats.


D$D

[oldbookguy]

Posted at 2p2 & PPA

The up-coming anniversaries; passage and signing are the right time for a virtual march on the legislators.

This though should not be a lambasting, rather pushing for the Wexler Bill.

Each date needs to be a Weekly action alert with full PPA support, e-mailing ALL members encouraging participation.

The sample letter needs to be short, 200 words or so and touch on the underlying backlash it caused by Poker players and a solution, the Wexler Bill and have examples of other ‘SKILL’ games available and poker is no LESS skill than those, no trying to prove poker IS a skill game.

There should be two versions of the letter drafted, each directed at the specific party.

Yes, I know in the House it passed by a bi-partisan vote, however, the Senate actions put the face of the GOP on the bill, giving democrats a pass so to speak.

We need congress on each anniversary to receive 100K or more letters and phone calls.

If FoF or any other group responds, we need to be prepared to respond to that as well.

We need, a few days in advance, for the PPA to release an ‘OFFICAL’ press release to major news outlets about our actions.

In conjunction, these letters and phone calls will need to be sent to the individual campaigns as well. Why? Simple, here ALL members can e-mail these where many in congress only accept e-mails from constituents. This way, the candidates will here from everyone.

Time however is of the essence. Initial passage took place on September 13, 2006 (if I remember correctly), Thursday of next week.

obg

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Posted at 2p2 & PPA

The up-coming anniversaries; passage and signing are the right time for a virtual march on the legislators.

This though should not be a lambasting, rather pushing for the Wexler Bill.

Each date needs to be a Weekly action alert with full PPA support, e-mailing ALL members encouraging participation.

The sample letter needs to be short, 200 words or so and touch on the underlying backlash it caused by Poker players and a solution, the Wexler Bill and have examples of other ‘SKILL’ games available and poker is no LESS skill than those, no trying to prove poker IS a skill game.

There should be two versions of the letter drafted, each directed at the specific party.

Yes, I know in the House it passed by a bi-partisan vote, however, the Senate actions put the face of the GOP on the bill, giving democrats a pass so to speak.

We need congress on each anniversary to receive 100K or more letters and phone calls.

If FoF or any other group responds, we need to be prepared to respond to that as well.

We need, a few days in advance, for the PPA to release an ‘OFFICAL’ press release to major news outlets about our actions.

In conjunction, these letters and phone calls will need to be sent to the individual campaigns as well. Why? Simple, here ALL members can e-mail these where many in congress only accept e-mails from constituents. This way, the candidates will here from everyone.

Time however is of the essence. Initial passage took place on September 13, 2006 (if I remember correctly), Thursday of next week.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

You know a number of people carrying something like "I'm not a criminal, I play poker on-line at home" posters in a number of states as part of a coordinated effort might be fun and possibly catch a little media.

You all know me I don't mind looking foolish. /images/graemlins/blush.gif


D$D

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of people seem to want a Million Hand March, but I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I wanted something like that. And the number of people who are passionate enough about online poker to march on Washington is, regrettably, smaller than one might wish.

I think Engineer is on the right track with what he's trying to accomplish in the Kentucky governor's race. And there are plenty of traditional ways to lobby and persuade politicians that you have a voting bloc behind you on an issue, which I'm sure you're extremely familiar with.

My point is that these efforts to divine whether Fred Thompson or any other Republican is going to deviate from the FoF position on gambling based upon what's in their heart of hearts are pointless. This is politics at the highest level, none of the Republicans will go randomly pissing off a major interest group UNLESS THEY PERCEIVE A BENEFIT. And yes, what we're trying to do from a lobbying perspective is make them perceive the benefit!

And yes, of course, nothing I say applies to Ron Paul. I know he walks on water.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Time however is of the essence. Initial passage took place on September 13, 2006 (if I remember correctly), Thursday of next week.

[/ QUOTE ]

The accurate / specific dates we need be concerned with:

passage: September 30,
Signed by Bush - October 13

We have a little time to get organized if we wish to stage a virtual march, both dates are important and both need recognition, I believe.

obg

[CincyLady]

I'd be very happy if in Colorado if they'd even come up with a law simular to the one in Florida to allow for N/L poker.

Right now, we are stuck with No Fold 'em Hold 'em (aka Bingo or Lotto) Poker, due to the fact that since the Casinos started up over 15 years ago, the max bet allowed here, is 5 bucks per bet.