2008 Presidential Primaries

[TheEngineer]

The 2008 presidential primaries are only a few months away. In some states, registered voters who wish to change parties (necessary to vote in that party’s primary in some states) must do so by the end of the year, so it’s time to think about the implications of each candidate for online poker.

We discussed this a bit at Republican Presidential Candidates' Stands on Internet Gaming (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10351539&an=0&page=2#Pos t10351539); this is an update of that.

Republican Candidates (in order of latest CNN polling):

Rudy Giuliani, 27%
Former two-term mayor of NY. Social moderate (pro-choice, favors some gun restrictions). I found no record on his stand on any gaming issue. He’s made some pro-gaming statements, but he also zealously enforced gaming laws in New York. Rep. Peter King (R), cosponsor of IGREA, is his ally.

Pros: a win for him will reduce the influence of the anti-gaming social conservative Republicans. In fact, many will sit out the general election if Giuliani is the candidate, which would be an awesome result for us there and (especially) in the Congressional races.

Cons: Giuliani is no libertarian. In fact, he believes big government provides law and order, and his history is one of big government. If he thinks Internet poker is legal, we’re golden. If he thinks it’s illegal…watch out! Also, there’s a risk that he’ll look for some common ground between him and the anti-gaming religious right. For some reason, we’re usually the bone that gets thrown to these folks.

Fred Thompson, 19%
Former senator from TN. Often described as a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. Championed by many social conservatives as the best candidate who has a good chance of winning. I found no record on his stand on any gaming issue. Endorsed by Sen. D’Amato (not as PPA Chairman, but as a private citizen).

Pros: He believes in limited government, so he’s historically been hesitant to empower the federal government to control issues that traditionally belong to the states.

Cons: He doesn’t appear to be on our side. Our opponents are his core constituency.

John McCain, 14%
F. AZ senator. Clear record of opposing our rights, right along with fellow AZ senator Jon Kyl.

Pros: none

Cons: He’s simply against us.

Newt Gingrich, 12% (undeclared)
Former House speaker.

Pros: He believes in limited government.

Cons: Same as Thompson. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Mitt Romney, 11%
Former MA governor. I found no record on his stand on Internet gaming. While Mormons don’t personally gamble, they don’t necessarily have issues with non-Mormons gambling. In fact, many Mormons work in Vegas casinos.

Pros: can’t think of one

Cons: Same as Thompson and Gingrich. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Sam Brownback, 3%
F-. Senator from Kansas. Proud social conservative. Cosponsor of several Internet gaming ban bills. Also sponsored bills on broadcast decency and on bans of violent video games. Supports big-government social conservatism. Reportedly met with former Atty. Gen. Gonzales to pressure him to push through harsh UIGEA regs.

Pros: If he’s the nominee, he won’t win, and he’ll take down other anti-gaming folks with him.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours...may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

Mike Huckabee, 2%
F. Baptist minister, former Gov. of Arkansas. As governor, he opposed the Arkansas state lottery. I. Nelson Rose says Huckabee is staunchly anti-gaming ( <a href="http://gaming.unlv.edu/reading/rose84.html (http://gaming.unlv.edu/reading/rose84.html))." target="_blank">http://gaming.unlv.edu/reading/rose84.html[/url]).</a> And, the CATO institute gave him an F for spending and tax policy, and an overall D in 2006. www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html)

Pros: Same as Brownback. If he’s the nominee, he won’t win, and he’ll take down other anti-gaming folks with him.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours…may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

Tom Tancredo, 2% .
CO representative. Supported HR 4411 and HR 2143 (banned credit card use for Internet gaming)

Pros: none

Cons: Trying to get the support of our opponents.

Ron Paul, 1%
A+. Texas congressman. Big proponent of our rights.

Pros: Perfect candidate for us.

Cons: none

Duncan Hunter. 0%
F. CA congressman. Voted for HR 2143, banning Internet gaming by credit card, 2003. Voted for HR 4411. Cosponsored HR 4477 (Goodlatte’s ban bill). Big-time anti-gaming guy.

Pros: none

Cons: opponent of ours

Republican Summary:

Ron Paul: A vote for Paul is a vote for our freedom. Even if he doesn’t win your state’s primary, a vote for him is a statement for what we believe.

Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the leading Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.


Democratic Candidates (in order of latest CNN polling):

Hillary Clinton, 40%
Two-term NY senator. I found no record of her position on Internet gaming. The Clinton administration, of which she was a part, was strongly anti-Internet gaming.

Pros: She could not care less what FoF thinks, and they know it.

Cons: Her negatives among all Republicans (social conservatives included) are so high that they’ll go to the polls just to vote against her, hurting us in congressional races.

Barack Obama, 21%
IL senator. No known position on Internet gaming but reputed to be a good player.

Pros: He doesn’t mind letting it be known that he enjoys playing poker for money. These stories are even on his own website. Probably would be good for us.

Cons: He hasn’t come out in support of us.

John Edwards, 13%
Former NC senator. No known position on Internet gaming.

Pros: He’s unlikely to draw the social conservatives to the polls specifically to vote against him.

Cons: Position on Internet gaming unknown.

Al Gore, 11% (undeclared)

Former TN senator and vice-president. I found no record of his position on Internet gaming. The Clinton administration, of which he was a part, was strongly anti-gaming.

Pros: Invented the Internet /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Cons: Position on Internet gaming unknown.

Bill Richardson, 5%
NM governor. Made statements in support of Internet gaming.

Pros: Appears to be with us.

Cons: none.

Joe Biden, 2%
DE senator. Voted against Kyl’s S 474 (an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have amended the Wire Act to ban most Internet gaming), an amendment that passed 90-10. Current senators against that amendment were Larry Craig (R-ID), Pete Domenici (R-MN), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Pros: With us, at least on this occasion

Cons: Hasn’t really spoken out for us

Dennis Kucinich, 2%
A- OH congressman. Voted against HR 4411.

Pros: With us.

Cons: none.

Chris Dodd, 0%
F CT senator. Spoke on the Senate floor in favor of S 627, Kyl’s Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

Pros: none.

Cons: Against us.

Mike Gravel, 0%
F Former AK senator. Seems like he could be with us, but I don’t really know.

Pros: none.

Cons: Hasn’t spoken for us.

Democratic Summary:

Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich: With us, or likely with us. At this point, votes for them help us.

John Edwards, Al Gore, and Mike Gravel: Open questions at this point.

Hillary Clinton: Open question. Unfortunate issue of her strong negatives motivating our opponents.

Chris Dodd: Opponent of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

So, that's my take at this point. What do you all think?

[TheEngineer]

Cliff's Notes version:

Republican Summary:

Ron Paul: A vote for Paul is a vote for our freedom. Even if he doesn’t win your state’s primary, a vote for him is a statement for what we believe.

Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the leading Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

Democratic Summary:

Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich: With us, or likely with us. At this point, votes for them help us.

John Edwards, Al Gore, and Mike Gravel: Open questions at this point.

Hillary Clinton: Open question. Unfortunate issue of her strong negatives motivating our opponents.

Chris Dodd: Opponent of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.

[Coy_Roy]

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

[Emperor]

I have pledged to wear my Ron Paul Tshirts EVERYDAY until Nov. 5, 2008. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'll be writing him in.

Wearing the Tshirts has definitely been noticed by my friends/family/college classmates and professors.

[TheEngineer]

Correction #1. Replaced "leading" with "top tier" for clarification:

[ QUOTE ]
Rudy Giuliani: A vote for Giuliani is a Republican vote against nanny-state social conservatism. Of the top tier Republican candidates, he may be the best one for our long-term goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction #2. Mike Gravel not "F":

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Gravel, 0%
Former AK senator. Seems like he could be with us, but I don’t really know.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Legislurker]

Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to do these ratings the same way as the NRA does, which is evaluating where the candidates appear to be on Internet gaming. I hope we can read this and gain more insight into where the candidates currently stand. Hopefully we can get more folks on our side.

Of "top tier" Republicans, hopefully we can pick one off. Giuliani or Thompson seem most likely. As for Romney, his state seems to strongly support our position, so maybe there's some hope there as well. He's one of the "open question" Republicans.

Still, it's something how six of the ten declared Republican candidates are clearly against us, three are question marks, and the one certainly with us is seen as outside the mainstream of the party (and is still polling in the low single digits). I hope we can start getting more Republicans with us, but it's sure been tough. The KY election should be where we at least start to change this, as we'll have data on how people really vote. It won't swing everything overnight, of course, but it will start things off. A thrashing of Republican in '08 should get them to reconsider their allegiance to big government nanny-staters.

Likewise, it's something that only one Democratic candidate is strongly against us. Our solution has to be bipartisan, but I think Internet poker will be far better off for now with Democrats chairing Congressional committees.

[Emperor]

TE, I think you dare doing a great job on all of this.

As for Republicans, ALL the Republican talking heads (Rush, Hannity, etc..) were very adamant about what kind of Republican was needed to win the election.

They all described a candidate who is:

1. Pro Smaller government
2. Pro Lower Taxes
3. Strong on National DEFENSE

They said that with these 3 things more republicans would show up to vote than democrats and it would be a landslide victory...

Ron Paul supporters notice, "Hey! Ron Paul is all of these things! AND he doesn't have a whole walk-in closet full of skeletons like the other guys!"

Now the talking heads are all:

4. He has to be PRO-WAR!

Which is just a farce with 70% of the public wanting the troops to come home ASAP.

I do think Ron Paul will win the nomination AND win the election.

Why:

1. 97% of Republicans want MUCH SMALLER government
2. 97% of Democrats want the war over a long time ago. (plus they like to smoke pot)

Personally the only thing I see wrong with a Ron Paul presidency is the population would have to grow up and learn how to be responsible adults instead of depending on the federal government.

Oh and the influx of fish at pokersites would cause me to lose a lot of sleep.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
His campaign has a lot of other negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does? I can't find any.

I'm 40 years old and he's the closest I've ever seen to the "perfect" candidate.

[Al_Money]

Nice post Engineer, very informative as usual.

[fightingcoward]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His campaign has a lot of other negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does? I can't find any.

I'm 40 years old and he's the closest I've ever seen to the "perfect" candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants to abolish the federal reserve. Enough said.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His campaign has a lot of other negatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does? I can't find any.

I'm 40 years old and he's the closest I've ever seen to the "perfect" candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem realistically is he has no support in in the Republican "machinery" the state parties nor in established "circles." How do you think Thompson shows up in the polls at all other than name recognition?

Numbers matter when it comes to elections, even primaries, dollars convince people to run. Word is the Thompson campaign has the backing of a number of old time GOP faithful. A lot of Bush 41 old timers as well as a number of people not so happy with 43.

D$D

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem realistically is he has no support in in the Republican "machinery" the state parties nor in established "circles."

[/ QUOTE ]

What you describe is an "obstacle", not a "negative", there is a difference.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
He wants to abolish the federal reserve. Enough said.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for the negative.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/feddees.jpg

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]

Mitt Romney, 11%
Former MA governor. I found no record on his stand on Internet gaming. While Mormons don’t personally gamble, they don’t necessarily have issues with non-Mormons gambling. In fact, many Mormons work in Vegas casinos.

Pros: can’t think of one

Cons: Same as Thompson and Gingrich. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Republican Summary:

...

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.



[/ QUOTE ]

the summary seems a lot more negative on the romney than the main part of the post.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't run away with RP enthusiasm please. His campaign has a lot of other negatives. We need a higher profile mainstream candidate to endorse if we ever get to that place in the primaries. We should consistently lobby every major canddidate, even Romney. The last thing we need is to be lumped into the RP camp as just another band of whackjobs with the abolish the government and legalize pot crowd. Somewhere, somehow, a candidate will get desperate for a slice of the electorate. The Republicans more than Dems since single digit swings can mean the nomination on Feb 5th. Sit tight and try to be noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to do these ratings the same way as the NRA does, which is evaluating where the candidates appear to be on Internet gaming. I hope we can read this and gain more insight into where the candidates currently stand. Hopefully we can get more folks on our side.

Of "top tier" Republicans, hopefully we can pick one off. Giuliani or Thompson seem most likely. As for Romney, his state seems to strongly support our position, so maybe there's some hope there as well. He's one of the "open question" Republicans.

Still, it's something how six of the ten declared Republican candidates are clearly against us, three are question marks, and the one certainly with us is seen as outside the mainstream of the party (and is still polling in the low single digits). I hope we can start getting more Republicans with us, but it's sure been tough. The KY election should be where we at least start to change this, as we'll have data on how people really vote. It won't swing everything overnight, of course, but it will start things off. A thrashing of Republican in '08 should get them to reconsider their allegiance to big government nanny-staters.

Likewise, it's something that only one Democratic candidate is strongly against us. Our solution has to be bipartisan, but I think Internet poker will be far better off for now with Democrats chairing Congressional committees.

[/ QUOTE ]


Im not bashing your summary of him, just the gushing of love from other people who think he would be a poker hero. Maybe. But is poker the only issue? You can't see the negatives?

1. He wants to go back to the gold standard. Uhm, hello, we don't have a trillion in gold to hand to the Chinese who own almost that in paper. Put that together with leaving the WTO a 2nd Great Depression sounds fine and dandy.

2. He wants to run as a freedom candidate but he is anti-gay and has anti-gay elements in his campaign. The full on pro life stance is a bit hypocritical as well.

3. The last candidate who wanted to abolish all the federal institutions was Andy Jackson and his white trash ass almost totally [censored] the country up.

4. He has no foreign policy experience. Leave the war or don't leave the war, but I want to feel like youre not going to do something stupid to start WWIII. I don't trust RP on China, or to stand up for Taiwan. I don't trust him to watch Iran or North Korea.

Poker isn't the only issue. Im sure you all would like my poker stance in the White House, but you wouldn't vote for me. Why vote for a crazy loon from Texas just because he has a poker friendly plank. Im very Libertarian and yearn for the day we have a real, pragmatic Lib run for office with cred and standing. But RP isnt that candidate.

[fnurt]

You offer all these reasons like Ron Paul has a legitimate chance to become President. In reality, he has no more chance than I do, sorry to say.

In terms of "sending a message" to the Republican Party, there is probably nothing that would be as effective as Ron Paul getting a shockingly high level of support in the primaries. They understand why people support him and that he represents a break from the nanny-state turn the party has taken in recent years. If you want a sane Republican Party again, this is definitely the message you want to send.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mitt Romney, 11%
Former MA governor. I found no record on his stand on Internet gaming. While Mormons don’t personally gamble, they don’t necessarily have issues with non-Mormons gambling. In fact, many Mormons work in Vegas casinos.

Pros: can’t think of one

Cons: Same as Thompson and Gingrich. He’s not on our side and he’s trying to win the support of our opponents.

Republican Summary:

...

Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich: Open questions at this point.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter: Opponents of our freedoms. Avoid at all costs.



[/ QUOTE ]

the summary seems a lot more negative on the romney than the main part of the post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct. Thanks. I had Romney in the wrong category. I mentioned in my reply to Legislurker that I meant to have him as "open question".

I'll have to request mod access someday just so I can edit my own posts after 30 minutes. Here's the correction:

Correction #3:

[ QUOTE ]

Republican Summary:

Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney: Open questions at this point.


[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I think you dare doing a great job on all of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
As for Republicans, ALL the Republican talking heads (Rush, Hannity, etc..) were very adamant about what kind of Republican was needed to win the election.

They all described a candidate who is:

1. Pro Smaller government
2. Pro Lower Taxes
3. Strong on National DEFENSE....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a big Ron Paul fan, as everyone here probably knows. I post at sites like Townhall to remind them of what Republicans are SUPPOSED to believe, and then remind them that Ron Paul is that guy. I hope he wins the nomination, of course.

Regardless, it seems the political calculus is straightforward. Unless Barack Obama comes out for Internet poker, it seems like our votes will count the most in the Republican primary. We can vote for Ron Paul to make a statement (and with the hope that many others will as well). We can vote for Giuliani to keep the FoF-types at home on Election Day. Or, we can vote for Thompson or Romney if they come out for Internet gaming.

With regards to the Barack Obama exception I mentioned earlier, if he sponsors any of our legislation in the Senate we may wish to vote for him in the Democratic primaries. We'll have plenty of lead time.

Just something to think about. We can always switch back to our "real" parties after the primary.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Im not bashing your summary of him, just the gushing of love from other people who think he would be a poker hero. Maybe. But is poker the only issue? You can't see the negatives?

1. He wants to go back to the gold standard. Uhm, hello, we don't have a trillion in gold to hand to the Chinese who own almost that in paper. Put that together with leaving the WTO a 2nd Great Depression sounds fine and dandy.

2. He wants to run as a freedom candidate but he is anti-gay and has anti-gay elements in his campaign. The full on pro life stance is a bit hypocritical as well.

3. The last candidate who wanted to abolish all the federal institutions was Andy Jackson and his white trash ass almost totally [censored] the country up.

4. He has no foreign policy experience. Leave the war or don't leave the war, but I want to feel like youre not going to do something stupid to start WWIII. I don't trust RP on China, or to stand up for Taiwan. I don't trust him to watch Iran or North Korea.

Poker isn't the only issue. Im sure you all would like my poker stance in the White House, but you wouldn't vote for me. Why vote for a crazy loon from Texas just because he has a poker friendly plank. Im very Libertarian and yearn for the day we have a real, pragmatic Lib run for office with cred and standing. But RP isnt that candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like everything in politics, what one person sees as a negative someone else sees as a positive. My ratings, much as the NRA's legislator ratings, only concern our issue -- poker. (Likewise, Rep. Ron Paul is A rated by the NRA.) None of the issues you brought up negatively affect poker. If I were doing this while biasing the results with my own personal beliefs, it wouldn't be I guide for poker players...it would be a guide for me.

The NRA is also pragmatic. For example, they won't endorse a Libertarian presidential candidate over an even nominally pro-gun rights Republican no matter how much more favorable the Libertarian's beliefs on gun rights are to the NRA. Likewise, we'll want our strategy to be the one that benefits us the most. If the primaries were held today (assume we have a national primary for this exercise), we'd have two equally valid choices...vote for Ron Paul to make a statement, or vote for Rudy Giuliani to keep our opponents at home on Election Day. There will be changes between now and then, of course, including the fact that the results from Iowa and New Hampshire be available, helping those of us not residing in those states to refine our decision.

Finally, I hope Thompson and/or Obama come out in support of our position before the primaries.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You offer all these reasons like Ron Paul has a legitimate chance to become President. In reality, he has no more chance than I do, sorry to say.

In terms of "sending a message" to the Republican Party, there is probably nothing that would be as effective as Ron Paul getting a shockingly high level of support in the primaries. They understand why people support him and that he represents a break from the nanny-state turn the party has taken in recent years. If you want a sane Republican Party again, this is definitely the message you want to send.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[redbeard]

I'll definately be out voting for Ron Paul when my states primary rolls around.

One thing I'd like to add -- and it is just a guess of course at this point but -- IMO the most likely ticket combos for the republicans are either Gulianni/McCain or Thompson/McCain. And on the democrat side I'd guess they would be either Clinton/Richardson or Obama/????. The vp usually doesn't control a whole lot of policy issues but we need only look at the current situation with Cheney to see that it is possible, so make sure you watch who the candidates select as their running mate it could make a difference for us too.

Oh and Engineer congrats on the new position with the PPA!

[dorethawsp]

Engineer, let's face it, any Democratic candidate will be demonized in such a way that the FOF crowd will turn out in bunches. The fact has become that the FOF have taken over your beloved party and the Libertatian wing has been marginalized in such a way that they have absolutely no say. You guys can keep pissing in the wind about how great Ron Paul and his libertarian ideas are, but until you realize how insignificant he is in this race, you are wasting your time.

[Grasshopp3r]

Where is the libertarian wing going to go? Not to the democrats, to which we oppose on more issues.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, let's face it, any Democratic candidate will be demonized in such a way that the FOF crowd will turn out in bunches. The fact has become that the FOF have taken over your beloved party and the Libertatian wing has been marginalized in such a way that they have absolutely no say. You guys can keep pissing in the wind about how great Ron Paul and his libertarian ideas are, but until you realize how insignificant he is in this race, you are wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think they'll be as enthusiastic to vote for Giuliani vs. Obama or Edwards as they'd be to vote for Huckabee vs. Clinton? No difference at all?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, let's face it, any Democratic candidate will be demonized in such a way that the FOF crowd will turn out in bunches. The fact has become that the FOF have taken over your beloved party and the Libertatian wing has been marginalized in such a way that they have absolutely no say. You guys can keep pissing in the wind about how great Ron Paul and his libertarian ideas are, but until you realize how insignificant he is in this race, you are wasting your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many Democrats are already raising concerns over what they've dubbed the "Hillary Effect" (I don't just make this stuff up or write my opinions as fact....I actually research it, at least to some degree):

http://politics.wizbangblog.com/2007/08/21/indiana-dems-fear-hillary-effect.php

[ QUOTE ]
Indiana Dems fear Hillary effect
Some Indiana Democrats are afraid of the effect nominating Senator Hillary Clinton might have on the down-ticket in their state, reports Mike Smith for AP

Crooks' concerns were included in a recent national Associated Press article that said many Democrats quietly fear Clinton at the top of the ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom. They also said Clinton might be too polarizing for much of the country, will jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans a stronger reason to vote.....

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293025,00.html

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats Weigh Effect of Hillary Clinton Down the Ballot
Sunday, August 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.....

[/ QUOTE ]

[dorethawsp]

The Religious Right will oppose whomever the Democratic party runs. The Democratic nominee will have plenty of issues which those folks disagree with. Attack/scare ads will be run, sermons will be given in church, pamphlets will be put on windows. Hillary would seem the easiest to trash, but I believe after they get done with Obama or Edwards the difference would be negligible.

If you guys want to put your libertarian philosophy ahead of poker, I totally understand that. But let's not act like we have much, if any, hope to convert the Republican party. That train has done left and its driven by social conservatives. I believe our best hope comes in getting the social liberals in our corner.

[dorethawsp]

For the record, I agree with the Indiana Democrats. I think Hillary's negatives are too high and she is too risky to nominate, in what should be a landslide year for the Democrats.

I guess I am concerned that some of you are holding onto hope that we can win this by supporting the last standing Republican to support us. The trouble is the guy is seen as a wackjob and is ignored, ridiculed, and scorned by his own party. If Hillary is going to be the nominee, which many think is inevitable, I could see her getting behind us.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I agree with the Indiana Democrats. I think Hillary's negatives are too high and she is too risky to nominate, in what should be a landslide year for the Democrats.

I guess I am concerned that some of you are holding onto hope that we can win this by supporting the last standing Republican to support us. The trouble is the guy is seen as a wackjob and is ignored, ridiculed, and scorned by his own party. If Hillary is going to be the nominee, which many think is inevitable, I could see her getting behind us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you replying to something different than my OP? Sorry, but I'm not following your thought process at all. What is it you're suggesting as an approach (I'm not asking for your opinion of what we should not do....I'm asking what you think we should do)? Thanks.

[dorethawsp]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy. I would like to see us become to the Democratic Party as the NRA is to the Republican Party.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy. I would like to see us become to the Democratic Party as the NRA is to the Republican Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we've essentially done that. My OP is where our primary votes are best served.

[redbeard]

The NRA has a constitutional amendment (the right to bear arms) on which to lean. While I certainly think online gambling is a right to which all American citizens over the age of 18 ought to be allowed to partake in if they so choose, there is not an amendment that SPECIFICALLY says we do. Who knows maybe the PPA can become a large lobby in the same vain as the NRA, the oil companies, health care companies, unions, etc., but there is a LONG, LONG, LONG way to go.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.

http://infowars.com/images2/cartoons/060707RonPaulScreenShotFina.jpg

[dorethawsp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.



[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly don't get the realities of the two-party system and that Ron Paul makes zero difference in the American political system. By being associated with him, its marginalizes us. We should be actively courting the support of someone who has a chance of winning. Not someone with all the influence of the grass-roots party.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.



[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly don't get the realities of the two-party system and that Ron Paul makes zero difference in the American political system. By being associated with him, its marginalizes us. We should be actively courting the support of someone who has a chance of winning. Not someone with all the influence of the grass-roots party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we're looking for suggestions on what to not, not on what not to do. And I don't believe "hate Republicans" is a strategy in and of itself. Who should we support? How do we gain their support?

No offense, but anyone can run their mouth. You say we don't get the realities of the American political system. Please impress us with your immense knowledge.

[dorethawsp]

My immense knowledge says that any interest group worth a grain of salt would not spend one second supporting or encouraging their members to support a fringe candidate.

My immense knowledge says that an interest group that really wants to get a law changed or regulations weakened would get behind candidates who have a chance to win and change the law.

I don't want the PPA to become the LPP (Libertarian Poker Players).

And I didn't say you don't understand the realities of the American Political System, I said Coy Roy didn't. He's worked up in a lather about the freaking Federal Reserve system and its 2007.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.



[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly don't get the realities of the two-party system and that Ron Paul makes zero difference in the American political system. By being associated with him, its marginalizes us. We should be actively courting the support of someone who has a chance of winning. Not someone with all the influence of the grass-roots party.

[/ QUOTE ]


You've been deceived by the "notion" of a 2 party system when in reality, at the presidential level, it's really just a "club" of globalists taking their orders from huge corporations.

http://infowars.com/images2/cartoons/bush1_bill_golf.jpg


Ron Paul would break the cycle.

Because this is about far more than just online poker.


http://www.jonesreport.com/images/160307_ronpaul_sm.jpg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
My immense knowledge says that any interest group worth a grain of salt would not spend one second supporting or encouraging their members to support a fringe candidate.

My immense knowledge says that an interest group that really wants to get a law changed or regulations weakened would get behind candidates who have a chance to win and change the law.

I don't want the PPA to become the LPP (Libertarian Poker Players).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it seems all you can do is tell us what NOT to do. Which candidate do we support? How do we gain their support? What's your plan?

[dorethawsp]

Roy, It's not about more than online poker to me. I hope to God the PPA locks tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks like you in the closet.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Roy, It's not about more than online poker to me. I hope to God the PPA locks tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks like you in the closet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're just going to rudely criticize without offering positive suggestions, I'll have to ask you to start your own thread, where you can bitch to your heart's content, because you're doing nothing more than flaming this one.

Cheers and goodbye.

[dorethawsp]

I would convince Hillary Clinton and any other Democratic candidate that would listen that it is in their best interests to support our cause.

I would prepare to mobilize to get out the poker players vote.

I would educate our members that nearly all of our support is coming from Democrats. I would educate our members that the Republican candidates are all bending over backwards to please the Religous wackos. I would educate our members that the law will not change if Republicans take back the House and Senate or keep the White House.

I would not bother talking with Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul or any of the other fringe candidates who make no difference. In fact, I wouldn't waste my time researching them or typing their name if I was really concerned about making a difference.

I get the feeling, just from reading this board, and I realize its just a poker message board, that there are a lot of kooky libertarian poker players who are lumping this in with other issues. That worries me.

[dorethawsp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Roy, It's not about more than online poker to me. I hope to God the PPA locks tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks like you in the closet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're just going to rudely criticize without offering positive suggestions, I'll have to ask you to start your own thread, where you can bitch to your heart's content, because you're doing nothing more than flaming this one.

Cheers and goodbye.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. Next time I'll put some libertarian pictures up and some wacky references to the massive corporate plan to dominate the world so I can be relevant.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I would convince Hillary Clinton and any other Democratic candidate that would listen that it is in their best interests to support our cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? Tell her she's stupid if she doesn't? That seems to be your approach with us.

Are you aware that we had a week where we called Barack Obama several times each to encourage him to sponsor one of our bills? Are you aware of all the work we're doing?

It seems we always get some guy with fewer than 100 posts who feels we're all stupid and that we need to have this explained to us.

[ QUOTE ]
I would prepare to mobilize to get out the poker players vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you appear to be very skilled at influencing and motivating people.

[ QUOTE ]
I would educate our members that nearly all of our support is coming from Democrats. I would educate our members that the Republican candidates are all bending over backwards to please the Religous wackos. I would educate our members that the law will not change if Republicans take back the House and Senate or keep the White House.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you analyze the entire House, as I did at Politicians For and Against Online Poker (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11872919&an=0&page=0#Pos t11872919), or would you just tell us that since you think it, it must be true?

[ QUOTE ]
I get the feeling, just from reading this board, and I realize its just a poker message board, that there are a lot of kooky libertarian poker players who are lumping this in with other issues. That worries me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a hell of a way of communicating with people. Best of luck with that.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Roy, It's not about more than online poker to me. I hope to God the PPA locks tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks like you in the closet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're just going to rudely criticize without offering positive suggestions, I'll have to ask you to start your own thread, where you can bitch to your heart's content, because you're doing nothing more than flaming this one.

Cheers and goodbye.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. Next time I'll put some libertarian pictures up and some wacky references to the massive corporate plan to dominate the world so I can be relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just try not being such a [censored].

[dorethawsp]

Engineer:

I appreciate all the hard work you do. I've followed this forum and tried to do your weekly action plans as my work/poker/family time have allowed. Best of luck and keep fighting the good fight. I just hope our time is spent on those that might show a willingness as well as an ability to change it.

dorethawsp

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
I just hope our time is spent on those that might show a willingness as well as an ability to change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul has already shown the willingness. We know exactly where he stands.

Now the task at hand is to get him elected.

You don't know the events of tomorrow any better than anyone else.
You simply cannot say he has no chance, and you have no place berating others who think he does.

[dorethawsp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just hope our time is spent on those that might show a willingness as well as an ability to change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul has already shown the willingness. We know exactly where he stands.

Now the task at hand is to get him elected.

You don't know the events of tomorrow any better than anyone else.
You simply cannot say he has no chance, and you have no place berating others who think he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has no chance. I promise you. None. Zero. And if you want to act like he does, I certainly will berate you and laugh at you.

[BluffTHIS!]

From last month's Mark Davis article on the RCP website: Ron Paul: Idea-Driven, Decent, Unworthy (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/ron_paul_ideadriven_decent_unw.html)

[i]The bad news for Dr. Paul and his followers is that their brains are simply too full of nutty things for them to be taken seriously in any grand sense.

For example, there is a corner of American economic thought that is skeptical of the Federal Reserve and laments our departure from the gold standard, now obsolete across the globe. But the Ron Paul take is that the Fed and its various chairmen have acted as sinister puppeteers doing the bidding of an ill-defined elite.

This John Birch-style conspiracy geekdom has sparked appeal among the disaffected of all ages, especially twentysomethings ripe for the artificial know-it-all vibe that often accompanies three to six years of adulthood.

File all that under disturbing quirkiness. But it is the Ron Paul take on fighting terror that makes him unfit for even the briefest consideration for the presidency.

In the now-famous May 15 GOP debate in South Carolina, he stood out among the crowded field by blaming America for 9/11. "We've been over there," he lectured. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... What would we say here if China was doing this in our country?"

That phony equivalency rises to the level of sheer moral idiocy, and it doesn't stop there. Dr. Paul's longstanding unfortunate tendency is to rope Jesus into his war objections. Today, the notion of going to war to actually prevent additional terrorism strikes him as antithetical to the concept of a "Prince of Peace."

We should expect sixth-graders to recognize that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities. Peace is what you get when the good guys win.[i]

[Legislurker]

I really doubt we have a clear-cut choice for Pres. Our weight will be behind House and Senate races. Yes, to whoeve said it, Im holding out that a Republican or Democrat gets desperate for votes and comes knocking. Feb 5 will determine the nominee, not interest groups. The work will be after, probably.

What I WANT DESPERATELY TO AVOID is some sort of whacky movement to get behind RP with weight. Vote your conscious or interest or both. But, don't tie RP around our neck like a huge weightstone. We will drown, and ANY cred we build up will be lost with the mainstream parties. "Oh they are just more tinfoil hat TriLat conspiracy nuts, let them vote for Nader or Browne." RP has no [censored] sense. None. He had a chance before the debates started to hone his message, shut up about the stupid [censored], and win some backing. His war message is good, and his poker stance is. Everything else is from some whacky militia conspiracy novella. We need to keep our official distance.

Engineer, just a thing about what you left out on what an average non FoFNazi Republican voter wants.
1A. Competence. You need to be able to trust him to run the government well.
1. Pro Smaller government
2. Pro Lower Taxes
3. Strong on National DEFENSE....

Maybe RP is there with taxes and small gov't but 1A and 3, hell no.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Roy, It's not about more than online poker to me. I hope to God the PPA locks tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks like you in the closet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on people there is a place for passion as well as realism here. You want to test out you passions in a primary fight, fighting the good issue fight, go for it. Just don't feel you suffered a bad beat and tell me the system is rigged after you loose with your pocket 10's candidate when I can tell you it's going to take Jacks or better to win.

IMO the PPA has little place in the Presidential elections. Yes this is a personal opinion, not factor by any conversations with any one including ET(not a typo I mjean ET!). As strong as we think we might be or even hope we might become, single issue advocacy doesn't move general elections.

Our fight is in the legislative trenches. We either prove we are a force that can move a congressional or State wide election of we fold up tent and hope for the best. I think TE is right; KY is the key to our future. Either we can operate as a functional grassroots operation of we can't.

I've posted that KY's race is like holding the absolute nuts and the whole table is betting into us. We may have to spend a little to save our place at the table and the implied odds of the win might not be all that fantastic, but we have to play the wonderful hand dealt to us.

We may or may not get the monster pot I think is out there for us to win, but playing it safe or trying to slow play it is a mistake IMO. The real pay off is in our table image. If we can show we can play this hand politically correctly and capitalize on the potential profit, IMO it will reap rewards in future pots.

Well that's the way I read the table,

D$D

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
Just don't feel you suffered a bad beat and tell me the system is rigged after you loose with your pocket 10's candidate when I can tell you it's going to take Jacks or better to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, good one. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Coy_Roy]

Here's an excellent article from that site you mentioned:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/taking_ron_paul_seriously.html

Taking Ron Paul Seriously
By Bruce Bartlett

As some readers of this column may know, the first "real" job I ever had was working for Congressman Ron Paul back in 1976. I went to visit him a few months ago and was pleased to see that he had not changed much at all since the days when I was a legislative assistant on his congressional staff.

At that time, I did not know that Ron planned a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. When I later learned of it, I thought he was being hopelessly Quixotic -- tilting at windmills. I thought Ron's views about limited constitutional government and nonintervention in the affairs of other nations were hopelessly out of step with the vast bulk of Republican primary voters. On the war, they remain solidly in the George W. Bush camp -- willing to defend the war in Iraq to the bitter end and highly intolerant of anyone who raises doubts about its wisdom or continuation. Rudy Giuliani exemplified this attitude in the debate two weeks ago when he demanded that Ron apologize for his antiwar position.

However, significant cracks have developed in the wall of conservative support that Bush enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Today, much is known about the lack of verifiable evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, and about how the White House bullied those urging caution into reluctant support and thoroughly screwed-up the Iraq occupation. Even Sen. John McCain, still a strenuous war supporter, has become outspoken on Bush's poor management of it. Consequently, more than a few conservatives have gone over to the antiwar side. Unfortunately for Ron, they are mostly former Republicans today, unlikely to vote in a Republican primary.

Among conservatives, another factor is also at work: the growing realization that Bush has never really understood or shared a Goldwater/Reagan vision of the nature of conservative governance. And even those who still cling desperately to the view that Bush is better than the Democratic alternative mostly concede that his performance in office on a wide range of issues has left much to be desired. Following are just a few examples of Bush's actions that have worn them down:

-- The explosion of spending on Bush's watch, his strong support for numerous "big government" initiatives such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the vast expansion of the Medicare program for prescription drugs, and his unwillingness to use the veto to control an orgy of pork barrel spending on his watch. Bush's recent successful veto of the defense supplemental, which yielded a bill close to what he originally asked for, confirms the view that he could have kept wasteful spending under control all along if he had simply made the effort.

-- Bush's extraordinarily poor choices for high-level government positions. The choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was perhaps his worst decision -- rectified only because conservatives finally protested one of his decisions en masse and forced him to choose the vastly more qualified Samuel Alito instead. But since then we have witnessed the gross incompetence of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the continuing scandal over the unnecessary -- and still unexplained -- firings of several U.S. attorneys; the comically inept actions of former Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown during the Katrina disaster; and the forced resignation of Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank, a position for which he was totally unqualified in the first place and which was given to him purely as a reward for obsequious loyalty to the president. Space prohibits listing many other such examples.

-- The incredible ineptness with which Bush has pursued conservative goals such as Social Security reform, while he has brought to bear every ounce of power at his disposal to ram though Congress an immigration bill that is viewed as abhorrent by most conservatives. If it becomes law, it will only be because of heavy support from Democrats, who correctly view the addition of millions of new Hispanic voters as a major boon to their party. Meanwhile, Bush gives short shrift to his conservative critics, just as he did in the Miers incident. This has led many of his formerly fervent conservative supporters to conclude that he essentially views them and their concerns with total contempt.

All of this has made the Republican soil highly fertile for a dissident campaign based on a genuine conservative message, such as that being offered by Ron Paul. I still don't think he can win the nomination, but he may end up playing a role not dissimilar to that played by Eugene McCarthy in the Democratic nominating process in 1968. He didn't win, either, but forced Lyndon Johnson to retire and ultimately shaped the direction of the Democratic Party for decades to come.

[BluffTHIS!]

CR,

The fact of the wrongness of Ron Paul's opponents on many issues, and his own rightness on many issues, doesn't outweigh Mr. Paul's wacky views on other issues, many of which are more important than the issues on which he is right. He is never going to sell "get rid of the FED" or "don't take the fight to those who attacked us on 9/11 (wherever that place is properly assigned to be)" to the American electorate. No chance.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
CR,

The fact of the wrongness of Ron Paul's opponents on many issues, and his own rightness on many issues, doesn't outweigh Mr. Paul's wacky views on other issues, many of which are more important than the issues on which he is right. He is never going to sell "get rid of the FED" or "don't take the fight to those who attacked us on 9/11 (wherever that place is properly assigned to be)" to the American electorate. No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]


I fully understand where it is you're coming from and I will respectfully disagree.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
I really doubt we have a clear-cut choice for Pres. Our weight will be behind House and Senate races. Yes, to whoeve said it, Im holding out that a Republican or Democrat gets desperate for votes and comes knocking. Feb 5 will determine the nominee, not interest groups. The work will be after, probably.

What I WANT DESPERATELY TO AVOID is some sort of whacky movement to get behind RP with weight. Vote your conscious or interest or both. But, don't tie RP around our neck like a huge weightstone. We will drown, and ANY cred we build up will be lost with the mainstream parties. "Oh they are just more tinfoil hat TriLat conspiracy nuts, let them vote for Nader or Browne." RP has no [censored] sense. None. He had a chance before the debates started to hone his message, shut up about the stupid [censored], and win some backing. His war message is good, and his poker stance is. Everything else is from some whacky militia conspiracy novella. We need to keep our official distance.

Engineer, just a thing about what you left out on what an average non FoFNazi Republican voter wants.
1A. Competence. You need to be able to trust him to run the government well.
1. Pro Smaller government
2. Pro Lower Taxes
3. Strong on National DEFENSE....

Maybe RP is there with taxes and small gov't but 1A and 3, hell no.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE has expressed MANY times that he doesn't support any one presidential candidate. That is completely up to each individual to decide. So no worries of a "weightstone."

He does grade politicians based on their views.

If you have a politician that should be supported TE and everyone else would be happy to hear about it.

That being said, not only is Ron Paul the most competent man to run this country, (Have you read his speeches/statement/legislation? It reads with honesty and integrity that no other politician has expressed in 30years), but Ron Paul is also the strongest on National DEFENSE since Reagan. The defense of our country is to arm the population, protect the borders from invasion, and deport those on expired visas (9/11 hijackers), and stop pissing off the world by meddeling in their business.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
From last month's Mark Davis article on the RCP website: Ron Paul: Idea-Driven, Decent, Unworthy (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/ron_paul_ideadriven_decent_unw.html)

[i]The bad news for Dr. Paul and his followers is that their brains are simply too full of nutty things for them to be taken seriously in any grand sense.

For example, there is a corner of American economic thought that is skeptical of the Federal Reserve and laments our departure from the gold standard, now obsolete across the globe. But the Ron Paul take is that the Fed and its various chairmen have acted as sinister puppeteers doing the bidding of an ill-defined elite.

This John Birch-style conspiracy geekdom has sparked appeal among the disaffected of all ages, especially twentysomethings ripe for the artificial know-it-all vibe that often accompanies three to six years of adulthood.

File all that under disturbing quirkiness. But it is the Ron Paul take on fighting terror that makes him unfit for even the briefest consideration for the presidency.

In the now-famous May 15 GOP debate in South Carolina, he stood out among the crowded field by blaming America for 9/11. "We've been over there," he lectured. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... What would we say here if China was doing this in our country?"

That phony equivalency rises to the level of sheer moral idiocy, and it doesn't stop there. Dr. Paul's longstanding unfortunate tendency is to rope Jesus into his war objections. Today, the notion of going to war to actually prevent additional terrorism strikes him as antithetical to the concept of a "Prince of Peace."

We should expect sixth-graders to recognize that peace is not the mere cessation of hostilities. Peace is what you get when the good guys win.[i]

[/ QUOTE ]

When Nutty = What the founders intended, and what makes sense to someone not brainwashed by skullandbones. Count me in the nutty!

[BluffTHIS!]

Emperor et al.,

Why don't you just sum up Ron Paul's views as "gold standard isolationist" to save space?

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
CR,

The fact of the wrongness of Ron Paul's opponents on many issues, and his own rightness on many issues, doesn't outweigh Mr. Paul's wacky views on other issues, many of which are more important than the issues on which he is right. He is never going to sell "get rid of the FED" or "don't take the fight to those who attacked us on 9/11 (wherever that place is properly assigned to be)" to the American electorate. No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting rid of the Fed is a great idea.

Ron Paul voted to track down and Kill all terrorists having anything to do with 9/11 and even sponsored legislation.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe we need to identify the Republican party as the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and shut out the one constitutionalist running on either side.

Not bright........EDIT: grr!

You clearly don't get it.



[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly don't get the realities of the two-party system and that Ron Paul makes zero difference in the American political system. By being associated with him, its marginalizes us. We should be actively courting the support of someone who has a chance of winning. Not someone with all the influence of the grass-roots party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find us a candidate that supports our views.

Until then, why not support the one who does no matter how fringe?

Supporting a candidate that doesn't agree with our views doesn't make much since to me.

"Yay! Our candidate won! Oh wait! Why the [censored] is he outlawing poker!?!?!" /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
The NRA has a constitutional amendment (the right to bear arms) on which to lean. While I certainly think online gambling is a right to which all American citizens over the age of 18 ought to be allowed to partake in if they so choose, there is not an amendment that SPECIFICALLY says we do. Who knows maybe the PPA can become a large lobby in the same vain as the NRA, the oil companies, health care companies, unions, etc., but there is a LONG, LONG, LONG way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the Constitution specifically mentions not infringing on the public's right to bear arms. It also mentions the federal government not legislating anything not specifically mentioned in the articles, and the 10th amendment clearly assigns that responsibility and privilege to the individual states.

The Federal government has no more right to legislate poker as it has to legislate bearing arms.

Ok Ok Interstate Commerce. Legislating interstate commerce does not equal making particular commerce illegal though.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Emperor et al.,

Why don't you just sum up Ron Paul's views as "gold standard isolationist" to save space?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he isn't an isolationist? He is a free trader just like every other libertarian..

Please keep up with the inaccurate stereotyping though.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul voted to track down and Kill all terrorists having anything to do with 9/11 and even sponsored legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]


Only the exact terrorists and their commanders? Or any and all individuals and states who give them aid and comfort?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE has expressed MANY times that he doesn't support any one presidential candidate. That is completely up to each individual to decide. So no worries of a "weightstone."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. That's exactly right.

Everyone,

What I attempted to do was analyze where each candidate stands and the relative benefits to us. We're all intelligent enough to do through the information and figure out for whom we each feel we should vote.

As for the Republican primaries, five declared candidates are staunchly against us, one is for us, and we're not sure of the remaining three. A vote for Paul is a vote for our position on poker (everyone here can look at the current polls, plus his straw polling, and can make a decision on the viability of his campaign). A vote for Giuliani probably helps us to keep some evangelicals at home on Election Day, helping us in Congress. Until we find out more about Romney and Thompson, I think those are our two options in the Republican primary. If someone else sees something beyond that within the Republican Party, please post that.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul voted to track down and Kill all terrorists having anything to do with 9/11 and even sponsored legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]


Only the exact terrorists and their commanders? Or any and all individuals and states who give them aid and comfort?

[/ QUOTE ]

He voted to authorize military action against Afganistan.

The discussion is getting beyond poker. Ron Paul is clearly an underdog, and he's clearly on our side. Aside from the one opinion posted that Paul will win the nomination, I don't think many of us dispute either statement. If Paul gets into contention and wins, it will be a good day for poker. However, a vote for him is, at this point (based on polling data), a vote to make a statement within the party that we want limited government.

[BluffTHIS!]

A vote to make a statement is wasted. A better strategy IMO would be to vote for the "least bad" repub, which as a repub I will probably do. The issue of poker aside, I would probably lean toward Thompson. And as far as dems go, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for Billary. The fact is that in the presidential race we don't have good choices that have a realistic shot to win. But then again, being as any pro-poker bill will probably not be stand alone but instead attached to something else, we probably only need someone who isn't so against us as to veto such a bill for that reason alone.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
A vote to make a statement is wasted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some feel that way. Others don't. I personally won't express an opinion. I'll say that a vote for Paul is a vote to make a statement...the good folks here can decide what relative value they feel such a vote has.

[ QUOTE ]
A better strategy IMO would be to vote for the "least bad" repub, which as a repub I will probably do. The issue of poker aside, I would probably lean toward Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

My personal vote will involve more than only poker, of course, but my discussion here on this thread is poker-only (same as the NRA; they don't worry about candidates' non-gun rights positions at ratings time).

[ QUOTE ]
And as far as dems go, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for Billary. The fact is that in the presidential race we don't have good choices that have a realistic shot to win. But then again, being as any pro-poker bill will probably not be stand alone but instead attached to something else, we probably only need someone who isn't so against us as to veto such a bill for that reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the strategy you mention, I personally think Giuliani is the best candidate to get as pro-poker a Congress as possible, for reasons discussed earlier (keeping FoF home on Election Day). Otherwise, it appears Obama is the only top-tier candidate in either party who may support us. Thompson is an open question. I sure hope we can find out where he stands soon.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Thompson is an open question. I sure hope we can find out where he stands soon.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why don't you ask Mr. Pappas to ask Sen. D'Amato to ask Sen. Thompson and relay the findings?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thompson is an open question. I sure hope we can find out where he stands soon.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why don't you ask Mr. Pappas to ask Sen. D'Amato to ask Sen. Thompson and relay the findings?

[/ QUOTE ]

I almost wrote that in my original reply. I'll see what I can find out.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul voted to track down and Kill all terrorists having anything to do with 9/11 and even sponsored legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]


Only the exact terrorists and their commanders? Or any and all individuals and states who give them aid and comfort?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think only Obama has mentioned bombing Pakistan and Saudia Arabia (the 9/11 attackers were Saudi's), every other politician seems to be ignoring this.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I think only Obama has mentioned bombing Pakistan and Saudia Arabia (the 9/11 attackers were Saudi's), every other politician seems to be ignoring this.

[/ QUOTE ]


If Obama comes out for poker, and adds Iran to the bombing list, he's got this repub's vote for sure if he gets the dem nod.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thompson is an open question. I sure hope we can find out where he stands soon.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why don't you ask Mr. Pappas to ask Sen. D'Amato to ask Sen. Thompson and relay the findings?

[/ QUOTE ] I'd love for Fred to come out 100% live or die for poker, but if you were in his position facing the primary fight he will would you?

If we had shown the muscle by now that we could counter act in some part the organized groups against us in some meaningful way by now this might be worth doing. IMO, we haven't shown that with any confidence to a nominee worth having.

I've been a Rebublican all my life. I have serious concerns about the parties near term future in the up comming cycle. Other than Hillary, who I wouldn't vote for if she made on-line poker her signature issue and helped pass a constituational ammendment making poker the national past-time. But other than her, if another Dem were to take a significant stand on the issue and the Republican took a stand against I'd hold my nose and vote poker.

I guess it's having been in D.C. too long, I'm begining to think in at least the recent past there isn't a c-hair's difference between them.

D$D

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Emperor et al.,

Why don't you just sum up Ron Paul's views as "gold standard isolationist" to save space?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's all he was, he might even be electable in some alternate universe. But on top of that, he is a religious conservative (don't ask me how this meshes with libertarianism, because I don't know), wants to abolish the FDA (but check out his fight to protect the herbal supplement industry (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/)), has allowed a newsletter written in his name to call blacks "fleet footed", and his campaign policy director sent out an email that called the Darfur situation a "genocide"...including the quotes. Oh, and he recently sent out a presidential campaign newsletter to a particular white supremacist site (think of thunder clouds) before anybody else so they could go through it.

I strongly urge the PPA leadership not to be marginalized along with him. I haven't been posting here because I don't have much to say, but you are doing a great job. Please do not now associate yourselves with a particular ideology, especially not a fringe movement; we need support from moderates of both parties, and the last thing in the world that would be useful right now is to throw time and resources away on Ron Paul.

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly urge the PPA leadership not to be marginalized along with him. I haven't been posting here because I don't have much to say, but you are doing a great job. Please do not now associate yourselves with a particular ideology, especially not a fringe movement; we need support from moderates of both parties, and the last thing in the world that would be useful right now is to throw time and resources away on Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I watched the NH debate on Fox News and when RP spoke he was openly laughed at and ridiculed by other candidates as well as the crowd. Their "superiority" and "contempt" reminded me of the bully at the beach kicking sand in the face of the 98-pound weakling. While I despise their behavior, if we lump ourselves in with RP then I fear we will be marginalized with him.

IIRC, he "won" the debate according to the viewer votes, but I strongly suspect those were from dem viewers who will not be voting for a republican come election day. Just my $0.02, but I tend to agree with the "lesser evil" idea above.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If that's all he was, he might even be electable in some alternate universe. But on top of that, he is a religious conservative (don't ask me how this meshes with libertarianism, because I don't know), wants to abolish the FDA (but check out his fight to protect the herbal supplement industry (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/)), has allowed a newsletter written in his name to call blacks "fleet footed", and his campaign policy director sent out an email that called the Darfur situation a "genocide"...including the quotes. Oh, and he recently sent out a presidential campaign newsletter to a particular white supremacist site (think of thunder clouds) before anybody else so they could go through it.

I strongly urge the PPA leadership not to be marginalized along with him. I haven't been posting here because I don't have much to say, but you are doing a great job. Please do not now associate yourselves with a particular ideology, especially not a fringe movement; we need support from moderates of both parties, and the last thing in the world that would be useful right now is to throw time and resources away on Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA hasn't endorsed politicians in the past, and I don't see it happeneing now. PPA isn't even officially endorsing Beshear over KY Gov. Fletcher.

What I did here (which has nothing to do with PPA, of course) was attempt to identify where each candidate is. I think the main value (that no one has mentioned yet) is how bad things look on the Republican side, as 5 of 9 are firmly against us, only 1 is with us, and three are unknowns.

I think we'll have a lot more data on the Republicans by the end of the year and will be able to choose wisely. We'll see how Paul is polling and we'll also see if FoF types hate Giuliani. We'll also hopefully hear a little more about Thompson (I really, really hope he's with us).

For the Democrats, I don't think we'll know where Clinton stands on any of this any day soon (unless we get some legislation into the Senate soon). Obama may give us a clue as to where he stands. I hope we find out something soon.

I believe we'll have one clear path for the primaries by Jan. 1 (and after Iowa and New Hampshire for sure). I also think we'll have a clear candidate next Election Day.

[TheEngineer]

Quote from article on Thompson:

[ QUOTE ]
Thompson launches into his belief in federalism, characterized by limited government, lower taxes, and more individual freedom. "A government that is big enough to do everything for you is powerful enough to take everything away from you," Thompson warns, adding that he believes the power of the federal government should be weakened in many areas but still remain strong enough to perform its primary function of protecting the public. All of this draws approving head nods and applause from those who've come out to see him.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's saying the right stuff, and he's always been a limited government guy (which should be good for us). I don't know where he'll actually be for us, of course. I hope we'll find out before the primary.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]

If Obama comes out for poker, and adds Iran to the bombing list, he's got this repub's vote for sure if he gets the dem nod.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it's just my opinion mind you, but when I see you make a statement like the one above, it makes me question your opinion on every subject.

I read this last night and just finally had to say something.

[omgwtf]

Great post adanthar! I've read your posts here for years. My hat's off to you, you've got class /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here's my perspective. I'm a pot-smoking poker-playing republican who has at times been quite active in politics.

George Bush is an unmitigated disaster. I see him as a president who holds himself accountable only to his idea of "god" who makes a steady stream of bad decisions, followed by terrible (albeit faithful) execution. I can't defend much of what he's done even if I wanted to.

And today, I see the Republican party crumbling. But I don't mind it so much, because gone are the important virtues that once defined us: small and limited government, fiscal responsibility, safeguarding individual liberties, and the like. We are now little more than the party of "moderate christian theocracy" and that scares me. I don't say this lightly, but we may be near the end of any Republican relevance.

Online poker being legal is just a minor issue for me. I have no problem using offshore sites to circumvent US laws. It doesn't change my vote, but candidates who want to restrict it usually do so because of their theocratic leaning, which loses my vote.

Candidates who don't understand (as posted above by BluffThis) that "Peace is what happens when the good guys win" automatically lose my vote too. That includes Ron Paul. In fact, if you go beyond the war, pot, and poker, Ron Paul would be such a disaster on economic, national security, and government operational issues that we would yearn for the "good ol' days" of George W. Bush when we had a president who knew what he was doing.

My only hope for a decent president at this point is Fred Thompson. He's running out of a sense of service, not ambition, and doesn't like to be told what to do. He runs in liberal crowds, with liberal friends, yet still holds an overall conservative stance. Add that up, and it says "libertarian" to me. My guess is that he would find efforts to federally prohibit internet gambling offensive, but would avoid taking a stance pre-election if he could.

I'm not holding my breath on Thompson, just hopeful.

[TheEngineer]

Everyone,

Just to clarify, there are three Ron Pauls. There's the representative on the House Financial Services Committee, who has done us a great service more than once. Next, there's the Ron Paul who's a rallying cry for a return to limited government conservatism within the Republican Party; he serves a useful purpose as well. Finally, there's Ron Paul the presidential candidate, who's polling 1% nationally, 2% in Iowa, and 5% in New Hampshire. Just because someone enthusiastically supports Ron Paul the congressman doesn't mean he/she necessarily supports Ron Paul the presidential candidate without regard for political reality. As for Paul the candidate, I think he'll have to get to at least 10% before he'll really be a factor in determining a course of action. For the record, I hope he gets to 10%, but if he doesn't get there by Jan. 1, I think we'll be best served by looking at options that involve top-tier candidates.

As for the complaints about Paul, we all have varying political opinions. What one man sees as a problem another sees as a virtue. The polls will reflect how people feel about these non-poker issues.

Right now, the obvious take-away from all this is to oppose John McCain (after sending him a letter explaining that you're voting against him because you can't get to Sen. Kyl /images/graemlins/grin.gif ), Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Chris Dodd. Do that, and get your friends to do that, and we'll be doing more than most.

Next, voting agaist Clinton to avoid hurting our chances in Congress is something to consider (I'm not recommending a course of action here...just throwing it out as something to discuss). If she looks to be the nominee, I think poker may be best with Giuliani as her opponent (for the same reason).

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone,

Just to clarify, there are three Ron Pauls. There's the representative on the House Financial Services Committee, who has done us a great service more than once. Next, there's the Ron Paul who's a rallying cry for a return to limited government conservatism within the Republican Party; he serves a useful purpose as well. Finally, there's Ron Paul the presidential candidate, who's polling 1% nationally, 2% in Iowa, and 5% in New Hampshire. Just because someone enthusiastically supports Ron Paul the congressman doesn't mean he/she necessarily supports Ron Paul the presidential candidate without regard for political reality. As for Paul the candidate, I think he'll have to get to at least 10% before he'll really be a factor in determining a course of action. For the record, I hope he gets to 10%, but if he doesn't get there by Jan. 1, I think we'll be best served by looking at options that involve top-tier candidates.

As for the complaints about Paul, we all have varying political opinions. What one man sees as a problem another sees as a virtue. The polls will reflect how people feel about these non-poker issues.

Right now, the obvious take-away from all this is to oppose John McCain (after sending him a letter explaining that you're voting against him because you can't get to Sen. Kyl /images/graemlins/grin.gif ), Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Chris Dodd. Do that, and get your friends to do that, and we'll be doing more than most.

Next, voting agaist Clinton to avoid hurting our chances in Congress is something to consider (I'm not recommending a course of action here...just throwing it out as something to discuss). If she looks to be the nominee, I think poker may be best with Giuliani as her opponent (for the same reason).

[/ QUOTE ]

Giuliani vs Clinton I garuntee you we have a third candidate. They may win the nominations but they are tow of the most acerbic [censored] to ever run for elected office. 80-90% of people will have a negative opinion on one of them, and thats just too high to ignore for a mega-rcih individual who wants to be President.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Giuliani vs Clinton I garuntee you we have a third candidate. They may win the nominations but they are tow of the most acerbic [censored] to ever run for elected office. 80-90% of people will have a negative opinion on one of them, and thats just too high to ignore for a mega-rcih individual who wants to be President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giuliani vs. Clinton vs. Bloomberg? I like that. FoF wouldn't go near the polls.

Could someone from the religious right make a third party run? Nah. Much as I wish they'd try, they know where their bread is buttered.

[omgwtf]

Engineer, I agree with you, that it's good to have Ron Paul's representation in congress, and his presence in the primary race.

Reading through this thread, there are two things that catch my attention that I think are counter-productive to your objectives.

The first is that any support for Ron Paul risks unintentionally lumping poker players in the fringe with him and the rest of the crazies talking about the federal reserve, ignoring the world beyond our borders, etc. Personally I'd like poker to be viewed as mainstream as possible, as "the other American pastime". Any endorsement or praise of him should be done with care (I think you have, BTW) and take into account that he has marginalized himself as a candidate

The other is that several comments come across as "here's how we can defeat the Republicans". As I mentioned I have no love for the R party, but that sort of partisanship only serves to limit your influence. Keep it about the issues, not about the party. We will only win if poker is a liberties issue, where the message easily resonates with all Americans regardless of party.

Regarding Guiliani, the problem I see is that he's shrewd enough, and shallow enough (IMO) to understand the political capital to be gained through a crackdown on internet gaming. This is evidenced by his stance that pot should never be legal for any reason, including legitimate medical treatment, regardless of what any research shows (his words).

I would also expect the whole "money laundering" and "ties to terrorism" rhetoric to make Guiliana enforce the gambling prohibition with gusto.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The other is that several comments come across as "here's how we can defeat the Republicans". As I mentioned I have no love for the R party, but that sort of partisanship only serves to limit your influence. Keep it about the issues, not about the party. We will only win if poker is a liberties issue, where the message easily resonates with all Americans regardless of party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good comment. I am a conservative Republican. However, it's hard to deny that we're sunk if Republicans regain committee chairs in Congress. Still, we'll need their votes (at least 30% will have to come our way), so we should keep this in mind.

Also, (aside from the above paragraph) my comments were more about FoF-types showing up to vote. Rank-and-file Republicans didn't historically desire big government censorship of the Internet. I sure never did.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Giuliani vs Clinton I garuntee you we have a third candidate. They may win the nominations but they are tow of the most acerbic [censored] to ever run for elected office. 80-90% of people will have a negative opinion on one of them, and thats just too high to ignore for a mega-rcih individual who wants to be President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giuliani vs. Clinton vs. Bloomberg? I like that. FoF wouldn't go near the polls.

Could someone from the religious right make a third party run? Nah. Much as I wish they'd try, they know where their bread is buttered.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I doubt Bloomberg runs if Giuliani is in the race. Its kinda like Wright and Reyes trying to win the MVP on the same team. I think Bloomberg wants HIllary vs Mitt. He could win then. Giuliani vs Hillary could very well lead to
a 4 or 5 way race of people who could poll 5-10%, depending on how the Supreme Courts rule on ballot access. So many states have punitive ballot laws. Personally, the more the merrier, as it will lead to the breakup of the Republican Party. If you don't vote R for pres, you don't vote R for Congress. Thats borne out statisitically more than the D side.

FoF candidate? Hmmmm, the pipeline is in place. These little homeschooled nits that litter Bush's playpen will show up again in gerrymandered districts and think tanks. I don't think any have amassed political experience and capital enough to run. 2016? Provided they aren't all registered sex offenders by then. I think why we have never had a charismatic Protestant/Evangelical candidate win is that in order to build a following in American Christianity, you have to poach someone else's flock. Creative destruction has always been at work in America's churces. Its kept them fresh with ideas, but politically unable to flex disciplined muscle. Not this cycle.

RP has disavowed a run by himself. It would make for lively debates if he could get in them. Obama might even net 20% as an independent.

We have a LOT of people with net worth above 300million, which is what Id think it takes to try to win and still be megarich after.

[TStoneMBD]

i know this isnt the right forum for this, but i figured i might as well do someone a favor.

i have no idea how accurate these cnn polls are, so i have no intention of betting on this myself, but if the polls are anywhere near accurate then political betting lines are not correctly reflecting these polls.

according to those polls obama, edwards, mccain and gingrich are all +ev bets:



http://www.wsex.com/market/REPUBLICNOMINEE-2008.html
http://www.wsex.com/market/DEMOCRATNOMINEE-2008.html

ftr, i have no money invested in this and dont plan to bet on the election at all.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If Obama comes out for poker, and adds Iran to the bombing list, he's got this repub's vote for sure if he gets the dem nod.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it's just my opinion mind you, but when I see you make a statement like the one above, it makes me question your opinion on every subject.

I read this last night and just finally had to say something.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1. (At risk of turning this into politics, spin me a single plausible scenario where such a course of action is anything short of disastrous)

As for the primary purpose of this thread, my opinion is this - any GOP president will be bad for poker, because the nominee will have needed to curry at least some favor with the FoF types. These people will expect something. The modus operandi amongst successful coalition building pols is to give the necessary-but-annoying types a bone, which typically equals a portfolio where they can do the least damage. Amongst the general scheme of things, internet gambling is a pretty minor deal, making it a prime candidate for whoever is tasked with overseeing it to be a staunch co-called anti-vice crusader.

To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party. So it comes down to what kinds of people will be appointed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the primary purpose of this thread, my opinion is this - any GOP president will be bad for poker, because the nominee will have needed to curry at least some favor with the FoF types. These people will expect something. The modus operandi amongst successful coalition building pols is to give the necessary-but-annoying types a bone, which typically equals a portfolio where they can do the least damage. Amongst the general scheme of things, internet gambling is a pretty minor deal, making it a prime candidate for whoever is tasked with overseeing it to be a staunch co-called anti-vice crusader.

To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party. So it comes down to what kinds of people will be appointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've been the bone thrown to FoF for a long time now. This year, we've spoken up enough to at least not be a freebee anymore. I'm proud of everyone here for doing their part. In two months, we'll show that a red state Repbulican incumbent governor can run on an anti-gaming platform and still lose by double digits. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

FoF will never love us, but we may become a less attractive bone to be thrown.

[canvasbck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My immense knowledge says that any interest group worth a grain of salt would not spend one second supporting or encouraging their members to support a fringe candidate.

My immense knowledge says that an interest group that really wants to get a law changed or regulations weakened would get behind candidates who have a chance to win and change the law.

I don't want the PPA to become the LPP (Libertarian Poker Players).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it seems all you can do is tell us what NOT to do. Which candidate do we support? How do we gain their support? What's your plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Ron Paul is too far away from the mainstream to be a viable candidate. While I like some of his views, many of them are a little out there.

I believe our best approach (in the Republican primary) is to support the federalist candidate. Thompson has already seperated himself from FoF by saying that he personally opposes gay marriage but does not feel that the Federal Govt. should be the ones legislating it. It should be left up to the states. I honestly believe that he will take the same approach to gaming. He seems to be the only true "small government" candidate that has a real shot at the nomination.

Here is a good explanation of his idea of federalism:
Thompson on Federalism (http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=Federalism)

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe our best approach (in the Republican primary) is to support the federalist candidate. Thompson has already seperated himself from FoF by saying that he personally opposes gay marriage but does not feel that the Federal Govt. should be the ones legislating it. It should be left up to the states. I honestly believe that he will take the same approach to gaming. He seems to be the only true "small government" candidate that has a real shot at the nomination.

Here is a good explanation of his idea of federalism:
Thompson on Federalism (http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=Federalism)

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I made a similar point a few posts ago as well.

Basically, Ron Paul will have to move up to over 10% before he moves from a protest vote to a candidate to consider backing (IMHO), as I mentioned earlier. Giuliani is a big-time statist who's good for us mainly to keep FoF at home and to change the Republican Party (just by being who he is). Many congressional races are within a couple of percentage points, so that is a really big factor that we shouldn't discount, especially if Clinton is the Dem. nominee. For for Thompson, I think he could become the best choice for us in the Republican primary if he chooses to say pretty much anything in our favor. That's up to him.

As for the Dems, it's starting to look like it won't matter. Clinton is building a huge lead, and it continues to grow. If Obama or Edwards gains traction, we may wish to vote for either of them simply because Clinton's high negatives will draw FoF-types to the polls just to vote against her (except possibly against Giuliani...I just don't see them voting for a thrice-married, pro-choice candidate, and they've said so pretty loudly so far).

Hopefully we'll learn more before the primaries, so we can make a wise choice in the voting booth. We have time....it's just time to start thinking about it.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer /images/graemlins/grin.gif) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer /images/graemlins/grin.gif) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they might all go tell us to [censored] ourselves?

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer /images/graemlins/grin.gif) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they might all go tell us to [censored] ourselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many members have such groups as the ACLU and MoveOn, and how successful have they been in the last 6-7 years? The PPA doesn't have a lot of name recognition, or (most importantly) money to throw around, at least relatively. Not to be a killjoy, but I think you guys are vastly overestimating the effect 'we' have on the national level. If internet gambling mattered to anyone, UIGEA doesn't get tossed into a port security bill at the 11th hour. Again, I agree that most of the non-fundie GOP candidates probably privately think prohibition is stupid, because hey, who doesn't like a friendly game of poker or to bet $50 on the Redskins. But they don't care enough to make it an issue important enough for them to weigh in. And in that case, the issue will be decided by the kinds of people they appoint.

I don't have any great hope that any of the Dem candidates are actively pro-poker, but their appointments to the relevant treasury, justice and commerce positions are almost bound to be better on this issue, if only by comparison.

[dorethawsp]

Why does it seem to me that if Fred Thompson is talking about "limited government" and "federalism" that he is either:
1) Talking to business interests about getting government regulations off their back
2) Talking to anti abortion activists about allowing their states to ban abortion

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see Fred Thompson helping us. If he will, I'll vote for him, and I haven't voted for many Republicans.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Duncan Hunter. 0%
F-. CA congressman. Voted for HR 2143, banning Internet gaming by credit card, 2003. Voted for HR 4411. Cosponsored HR 4477 (Goodlatte’s ban bill). Big-time anti-gaming guy.

Pros: none

Cons: opponent of ours

[/ QUOTE ]

From Duncan Hunter's website:

http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

[ QUOTE ]
13. Gambling:

I believe gambling is a serious problem in today’s society, every much as addictive and destructive as alcohol and illegal drugs. As a result, this problem is equally deserving of as much attention in terms of federal policy. Unfortunately, those individuals who spend most of their money gambling are the ones who have the least amount to lose, often choosing to gamble instead of taking care of their families.

I also believe Internet gambling has become a problem as serious as traditional casino gambling. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that this activity serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities that can be exploited by terrorists and organized crime. It is for this reason that I cosponsored H.R. 4777 (Goodlatte-VA) which will amend federal law and bring the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to date with the Internet and other new technologies. At the same time, the bill will provide additional tools to law enforcement to combat illegal gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's good enough for an F-.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
13. Gambling:

I believe gambling is a serious problem in today’s society, every much as addictive and destructive as alcohol and illegal drugs. As a result, this problem is equally deserving of as much attention in terms of federal policy. Unfortunately, those individuals who spend most of their money gambling are the ones who have the least amount to lose, often choosing to gamble instead of taking care of their families.

I also believe Internet gambling has become a problem as serious as traditional casino gambling. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that this activity serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities that can be exploited by terrorists and organized crime. It is for this reason that I cosponsored H.R. 4777 (Goodlatte-VA) which will amend federal law and bring the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to date with the Internet and other new technologies. At the same time, the bill will provide additional tools to law enforcement to combat illegal gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reply to this at conservative site Townhall.com.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL! What a joke. He's for limited government until he finds something he wants. Then, the sky's the limit!

First of all, his position is foolishness. Drugs are very addictive. Gaming is at most addictive to 1% of people, and technology can be used to keep those 1% offline via various exclusion and detection programs. Unfortunately, this won't work under Hunter's big government prohibition plan (which involves snooping in peoples' bank accounts and Internet usage histories).

The money laundering charge is equally ludicrous. This is easily controlled, and it's proven. Check out http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia/financialserv/hearing060807.wvx and http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml . It's nothing but a red herring. Hunter simply doesn't like Internet poker, so he thinks it should be banned for everyone. That's not my definition of a small government conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

Dear Rep. Hunter,

I am a lifelong small government conservative Republican who happens to enjoy a game of Internet poker on occasion. I just read your stance on Internet gaming from your website and I must say you don't sound like a limited government conservative at all. Rather, it seems you're for limited government until you find something you want. Then, the sky's the limit!!

First of all, I feel your position is foolishness. Drugs are very addictive. Gaming, on the other hand, is at most addictive to 1% of people, and technology can be used to keep those 1% offline via various exclusion and detection programs. Unfortunately, this won't happen under your big government prohibition plan (which involves snooping in peoples' bank accounts and Internet usage histories).

The money laundering charge is equally ludicrous. This is easily controlled, and it was proven at the June 8 House Financial Services Committee meeting on the subject. Check out http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia/financialserv/hearing060807.wvx and http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml. Your position is nothing but a red herring. It seems you simply don't like Internet poker, so you think it should be banned for everyone. Sorry, but that's not my definition of a small government conservative.

As you can't trust me to make my own decisions, I cannot trust you to represent me. As such, unless you change your mind, I will not vote for you or support your campaign in any way.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer /images/graemlins/grin.gif) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many members have such groups as the ACLU and MoveOn, and how successful have they been in the last 6-7 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are both very successful (at least MoveOn, not sure about ACLU) at what they do. MoveOn is to the left what FoF is to the right. They are NOT single issue advocacy groups, which is what the PPA is. We all know how successful the NRA, another single issue group, is with 4.3 million members and have been around forever. The PPA merits attention with almost 1 million members in just about 1 year.

[TheEngineer]

New Romney info from his own campmaign website, at http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/National_Faith_Values_Committee :

Governor Mitt Romney Announces the National Faith and Values Steering Committee

Wednesday, Jun 13, 2007

Boston, MA - Today, Governor Mitt Romney announced the members of the Romney for President National Faith and Values Steering Committee, a coalition of supporters who will advise Governor Romney on matters of faith and values.

"The men and women of our National Steering Committee represent decades spent defending faith, religious expression and traditional values. I believe that our Party and our nation must stand for strong families, traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life. I am proud to be joined by these leaders in our campaign to change Washington," said Governor Romney.

The Romney For President National Faith And Values Steering Committee Vice-Chairs:

- Jim Anthony, South Carolina
- Rep. Dennis Baxley, Speaker Pro Tempore, Florida House of Representatives, Florida
- Dee Benedict, Christian Activist, South Carolina
- Jason Bonham, Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois
- Sen. Cameron Brown, Michigan State Senate, Michigan
- Nathan Burd, Director of International Program & Public Policy, Heartbeat International, Ohio
- Steve Chamberlain, Senior Pastor, Branford Evangelical Free Church, Connecticut
- Tom Coates, Vice President, Truth About Gambling, Iowa

From Mr. Coates, at www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=6E7A0341-624E-4A10-A60DF33C00DECE66 (http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=6E7A0341-624E-4A10-A60DF33C00DECE66) :

[ QUOTE ]
"Truth About Gambling" vice president Tom Coates says only 30 percent of Iowans have never entered a casino, but he's hoping the religious community rises up to build a tide against gambling. Coates says gambling has led to great "social ills." He says 19 percent of all bankruptcies in Iowa are caused by the weight of gambling debts. And Coates says the availability of gambling in Iowa has increased the number of Iowans who are hooked.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bump_Bailey]

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that F. Thompson was a federalist. He as well as Guiliani have stated that he supports the DEA's raids of medical marijuana facilities. The republican worth supporting if you care about you freedom to wager online is Dr. Paul.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer /images/graemlins/grin.gif) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many members have such groups as the ACLU and MoveOn, and how successful have they been in the last 6-7 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are both very successful (at least MoveOn, not sure about ACLU) at what they do. MoveOn is to the left what FoF is to the right. They are NOT single issue advocacy groups, which is what the PPA is. We all know how successful the NRA, another single issue group, is with 4.3 million members and have been around forever. The PPA merits attention with almost 1 million members in just about 1 year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I'm only slightly to the right of MoveOn, but to say they have accomplished anything is a stretch. Ok, Lieberman had to run as an 'independent' but other than that they're many accomplishments have been ruffling the feathers of Fox News anchors. (Which is a fine thing, mind you...) Yes, they've 'raised awareness'. But Bush is still President, we're still in Iraq, the NSA is still listening, Alito is on the Supreme Court and so on.

I've state before, and I'll state it again, you are vastly overestimating the influence the PPA can exert on the *national* level. At least directly. (Convincing the big boys in banking or Casino management to get on our side would be a big step.) If poker is what you are basing your vote on, you simply have to vote dem for the reasons I've stated above.*

*I think that for the vast, vast majority of people here, basing your vote solely on poker is a travesty. We, as a country, have much bigger fish to fry...

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

*I think that for the vast, vast majority of people here, basing your vote solely on poker is a travesty. We, as a country, have much bigger fish to fry...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are of course quite right.

But.....

Close campaigns are moved and impacts made by many single issue groups. Look at the NRA and Right to Life groups in GOP politics, perhaps Environmental and Gay Rights on the Dem side.

IMO you can not take your single issue to a candidate as a 100% live or die issue and expect significant results, their voter pools are too diverse in too many areas.

However if you are well organized and can provide the valuable volunteer hours AND have a common sense reasonable rationale for your argument, you can be heard and taken seriously. In doing so all you are saying is I expect the candidate or party to look at all issues in a common sense rational manner.


Suggesting to a candidate that they come out for unrestricted poker in exchange for your vote or donation of time and or money is a looser. Offering x amount of organized volunteer hours for a reasonable hearing of a logical and balanced look at your issue is a winner.

IMPO I believe we have the potential through the PPA's future successful efforts to move this issue to a reasonable conclusion. If you expect the PPA in its second year to over come the work of an organized 10 year effort to get you back to pre-UIGEA days I think you need to re-set your goals.


D$D

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
IMPO I believe we have the potential through the PPA's future successful efforts to move this issue to a reasonable conclusion. If you expect the PPA in its second year to over come the work of an organized 10 year effort to get you back to pre-UIGEA days I think you need to re-set your goals.


[/ QUOTE ]


Very true indeed.

[j555]

You guys are fools if you think any of the establishment candidates are going to care anything about poker players. I couldn't believe that someone actually called Fred Thompson a libertarian! Have you seen the guy's Congressional record? Thompson is not the small government conservative some people think he is. He can say he's a federalist all he wants, but you have to look at his record! His record suggests that he's anti 2nd amendment, he voted to grant illegals amnesty, supported McCain-Feingold, lobbied for a pro choice group, and he's for the Iraq war when 70% of the people are against it! He's got no shot. I don't care either way, but you should get behind an anti-establishment candidate. Paul is probably your best shot since he actually is a libertarian and has the record to back it up. Didn't he co-sponsor Barney Frank's bill?

[Legislurker]

I'm of the same mind about the Presidency. The candidates don't care. Where we need to be is UNSEATING incumbent Congressional people. Holding scalps up so they take notice, its the only way. We shouldn't look to endorse, but to beat.
If Kentucky gets the PPA moving in that way, it gives me some hope. All we need are the national Parties to do the math that avoiding us is better than ignoring us/trampling us. It won't take much to go back to pre-UIGEA. We just need to strike a little fear for the powers to be to decide its worth more to them to placate us now and get rid of our reason to organize.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm of the same mind about the Presidency. The candidates don't care. Where we need to be is UNSEATING incumbent Congressional people.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should definitely be looking at what we can do in close races in Congress.

I'd like to elaborate a little on what I said earlier about Giuliani keeping FoF at home, and Clinton bringing them to the polls to oppose her. For example, let's look at Internet gaming opponent Jean Schmidt's race. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) won re-election in '06 (her margin of victory was 1.26%), following a tough term in which she called Marine Corp. veteran Rep. John Murtha a coward for advocating leaving Iraq. Some of her supporters are die-hards for her. Others are not so strongly behind her. How does the presidential race affect this?

Well, if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, it seems many conservatives would make it a point to show up just to vote against her. The NRA would lobby strongly against her, as would other conservative groups. Jean Schmidt would receive more votes from this than she'd receive from conservatives voting against Obama or Edwards, neither of which have particularly high negatives at this point.

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, many FoF-types will not be able to bring themselves to vote for this pro-choice, thrice-married, social moderate-to-liberal big city mayor. As this election will likely be within a couple of percentage points, it doesn't take much to swing it.

Thompson will bring FoF-types to the polls, as they (right now...a lot can change between now and the primaries) perceive him as the best candidate for them who can win. Jean Schmidt would pick up votes from this.

So:

Giuliani vs. Clinton: not much effect on the Schmidt race, both neutralize one another

Giuliani vs. Obama or Edwards: hurts Schmidt

Thompson (or any frontrunner besides Giuliani) vs. Clinton: helps Schmidt

Thompson (or any frontrunner besides Giuliani) vs. Obama or Edwards: probably close to a wash


If Thompson doesn't come out for us, I think we can make a good case to support Giuliani and Obama or Edwards (either whichever is ahead at that point, or whichever comes out in support of our position before the primaries). We may be better with a big-time statist like Giuliani as the nominee (or even as president) as long as we get a better Congress as a result. Also, his election would likely cause some needed changes in the GOP.

Of course, the above discussion is based on today's polls. Things can change.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, I'm only slightly to the right of MoveOn, but to say they have accomplished anything is a stretch. Ok, Lieberman had to run as an 'independent' but other than that they're many accomplishments have been ruffling the feathers of Fox News anchors. (Which is a fine thing, mind you...) Yes, they've 'raised awareness'. But Bush is still President, we're still in Iraq, the NSA is still listening, Alito is on the Supreme Court and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Among other things MoveOn has a huge get out the vote effort which I participated in last election. To the extent that these things are effective I don't see how you can say MoveOn has not accomplished anything.

[Skallagrim]

Again, our model must be the NRA. We need to show the politicians that there are enough folks out there that will make poker a top issue in deciding their votes that we can make a difference in close elections. Doing the other thing D$D suggests will help, but some ability to influence elections is what gets noticed.

If a congressperson has a close race and knows supporting poker (or at least not opposing it) will result in getting more votes than catering to the religious right, we are 90% of the way home. I believe this is true and doable in many close elections in the next year; here in NH we have very close congressional races and a very close senate race. I intend to contact the candidates (once we get a little closer to the election) and inform them that the loss of 5000 poker playing voters is not something they can afford - in a state with a very tiny religous right and a libertarian tradition, I think this will get these cadidates either neutral or somewhat on our side.

At least I hope so.

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

And as to presidential politics, the tactic is similar. While no amount of spin could ever get me to vote republican next year (the fiasco in Iraq is just too much) unless the R. Paul miracle happens, one of the main reasons I will vote in the NH primary for Richardson or Obama as opposed to Clinton is, in fact, poker.

If the politicians get that message and see opposing legal poker as costing them votes, then we get movement in our direction.

And especially with Democrats this time: they need some issue to take some voters in the poker-playing demographic away from its recent republican leanings.

And thanks Engineer, as always, for the overall strategic impact analysis.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing the other thing D$D suggests will help, but some ability to influence elections is what gets noticed.



[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong. I fully expect to influence National elections.

What I'm saying is lets see if we can even stand up and toddle before we try to actually try to walk and chew gum, let alone expect to win the Boston Marathon.


D$D

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can make a good case to support Giuliani

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way I would ever support that guy, ever.

Besides running NYC like a police state, arresting homeless people, shutting down honest street vendors, so much much more and then has the audacity to grandstand during the 9/11 tragedy.....still today, exploiting it for his own selfish political gain.

He's also shown a wilingness to shut down long standing city card rooms.

He is no friend to poker.

No way.


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

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look, I'm only slightly to the right of MoveOn, but to say they have accomplished anything is a stretch. Ok, Lieberman had to run as an 'independent' but other than that they're many accomplishments have been ruffling the feathers of Fox News anchors. (Which is a fine thing, mind you...) Yes, they've 'raised awareness'. But Bush is still President, we're still in Iraq, the NSA is still listening, Alito is on the Supreme Court and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Among other things MoveOn has a huge get out the vote effort which I participated in last election. To the extent that these things are effective I don't see how you can say MoveOn has not accomplished anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. However, I think the GoTV is separate to a degree from the advocacy efforts.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we can make a good case to support Giuliani

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way I would ever support that guy, ever.

Besides running NYC like a police state, arresting homeless people, shutting down honest street vendors, so much much more and then has the audacity to grandstand during the 9/11 tragedy.....still today, exploiting it for his own selfish political gain.

He's also shown a wilingness to shut down long standing city card rooms.

He is no friend to poker.

No way.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with your comment on the poker rooms. I didn't say he was a friend to poker. Rather, I said his candidacy would likely be a great help to poker for reasons other than Giuliani's stand on poker itself.

I have some non-online poker issues with Giuliani as well, primarily with his stand on the Second Amendment. My poker-related issue is one I stated earlier....if he thinks online poker is illegal, we could be in real trouble.

Still, I think you'll admit that shutting FoF out of this election is very appealing. It's too bad we don't have a front-runner on our side in either party. If we did, this would be much easier.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
New Romney info from his own campmaign website, at http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/National_Faith_Values_Committee :

Governor Mitt Romney Announces the National Faith and Values Steering Committee

Wednesday, Jun 13, 2007

Boston, MA - Today, Governor Mitt Romney announced the members of the Romney for President National Faith and Values Steering Committee, a coalition of supporters who will advise Governor Romney on matters of faith and values.

"The men and women of our National Steering Committee represent decades spent defending faith, religious expression and traditional values. I believe that our Party and our nation must stand for strong families, traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life. I am proud to be joined by these leaders in our campaign to change Washington," said Governor Romney.

The Romney For President National Faith And Values Steering Committee Vice-Chairs:

- Jim Anthony, South Carolina
- Rep. Dennis Baxley, Speaker Pro Tempore, Florida House of Representatives, Florida
- Dee Benedict, Christian Activist, South Carolina
- Jason Bonham, Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois
- Sen. Cameron Brown, Michigan State Senate, Michigan
- Nathan Burd, Director of International Program & Public Policy, Heartbeat International, Ohio
- Steve Chamberlain, Senior Pastor, Branford Evangelical Free Church, Connecticut
- Tom Coates, Vice President, Truth About Gambling, Iowa

From Mr. Coates, at www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=6E7A0341-624E-4A10-A60DF33C00DECE66 (http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=6E7A0341-624E-4A10-A60DF33C00DECE66) :

[ QUOTE ]
"Truth About Gambling" vice president Tom Coates says only 30 percent of Iowans have never entered a casino, but he's hoping the religious community rises up to build a tide against gambling. Coates says gambling has led to great "social ills." He says 19 percent of all bankruptcies in Iowa are caused by the weight of gambling debts. And Coates says the availability of gambling in Iowa has increased the number of Iowans who are hooked.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Romney has supported some expanded gaming in Mass (after first trying to charge Rhode Island and other neighboring states $75 million to not do so!), but I think his addition of Tom Coates has to knock him down. How would the NRA respond if a Handgun Control Inc. bigwig were asked to join a campaign steering committee, especially with no offsetting member, or how would FoF react if he brought Planned Parenthood on board? To me personally, this drops him (which is good for me...I won't have to edit the summary in my OP /images/graemlins/grin.gif ).

So, it looks like the Republican primary is narrowing for us, as Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani appear to be the only possibilities.

[TheEngineer]

[canvasbck]

Interesting choice of words. The following quote is from a Fred Thompson campaign E-mail.

" Now that Fred Thompson is "all in," as he recently told a crowd of 1,000 cheering supporters in Florida, response to his campaign from real people has been outstanding."

Glimmer of hope?????

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting choice of words. The following quote is from a Fred Thompson campaign E-mail.

"Now that Fred Thompson is "all in," as he recently told a crowd of 1,000 cheering supporters in Florida, response to his campaign from real people has been outstanding."

Glimmer of hope?????

[/ QUOTE ]

Campaign trial ballon.....

At least they threw us a bone. I'd love to see a little meat on it but don't expect any soon.

D$D

[oldbookguy]

Yes, interesting.

If he does not get the 'Arlington Groups' support, he will have to look elsewhere, perhaps he has us in the back of his mind and Sen. Al's support does not hurt any.

Also, on that support, he cannot speak for the PPA, depending on the type of 401 C we are. Same as Dobson and FoF, they had to form a C-4 group as well for political endorsements. That is why Dobson has been so careful in saying he is speaking only for himself.

obg

[Jimbo]

The NRA is effective because they carry guns, lots of guns! What are poker players going to do? Train Chris Ferguson as a Ninja and have him fling playing cards at members of Congress?

Hard to believe any Liberal will do anythig but pass a more strigent law angainst poker, perhaps finding a way to make B&M poker more difficult to play as well.

As far as Move-on Goes they are now enraging both Reps and Dems alike with their latest campaign against a geeat General. Hardly the story of a successful group, heck the Swift Boat Veterans with pennies on the dollar comparted to Move-ON had a much greater influence in the last Presidential election. Without Soros Move-On would be stuck with one bitter mother whose son tragically died in the service of his country and a handfull of people so far to the left it scares the bejesus out of regular folk.

Jimbo

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The NRA is effective because they carry guns, lots of guns! What are poker players going to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're joking ignore this.

I've worked in the trenches with the NRA. They are some of the best volunteers on the planet on the GOP side IMPO.

They show up work hard, know their jobs, and leave the deals with the candidates to their higher ups. If your candidate is on the right side of the NRA you can't count on a better workforce!!!!


D$D

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as Move-on Goes they are now enraging both Reps and Dems alike with their latest campaign against a geeat General. Hardly the story of a successful group, heck the Swift Boat Veterans with pennies on the dollar comparted to Move-ON had a much greater influence in the last Presidential election. Without Soros Move-On would be stuck with one bitter mother whose son tragically died in the service of his country and a handfull of people so far to the left it scares the bejesus out of regular folk.

[/ QUOTE ]

MoveOn does seem to have massively overplayed its hand. Any time they get that many Democrats to vote in favor of condemning them, they've screwed up.

As for the Swifties, I think they got pretty lucky in getting Kerry to admit that the story of his secret CIA mission into Cambodia wasn't quite true. If it was just Kerry's version of his military background vs. the version told by the people he served with, I'm not sure they would have gained traction.

Personally, I think Thompson is our best bet at this point. His track record on federalist issues in the Senate is pretty convincing. I suspect he'd oppose any federal restrictions on us unless he had some awfully strong political reasons to do otherwise. But he tends to keep his mouth shut on issues that might hurt him during campaigns, so I doubt he'll adopt a position until after he wins the nomination.

Fortunately, I think it's very likely he'll win the nomination. As other candidates drop out, their voters will mostly swing to Thompson. I can't see Giuliani picking up that many additional conservative voters. The only real question is whether Giuliani can win enough delegates early (with the conservative vote split before those candidates drop out) to hold Thompson off.

[Uglyowl]

Interesting article: Profiting from Pummeling

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/weekinreview/23mbai.html?ref=weekinreview

[Legislurker]

Feb 5th coronates Giuliani as it stands. The christanzai vote is split 3-4 ways. The mexican haters have two choices. He may only get 30% of the votes in the primary, but winner take all states for delegates wins it for him.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
Feb 5th coronates Giuliani as it stands. The christanzai vote is split 3-4 ways. The mexican haters have two choices. He may only get 30% of the votes in the primary, but winner take all states for delegates wins it for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't use the term "christanazi" to refer to our opponents. It makes you look very small, and it diminishes all of us by association.

We have enough obstacles to overcome; we don't need to spend time apologizing for the poor behavior of our supporters.

Please refrain from being a continued embarrassment to your fellow online poker players.

[TheEngineer]

PPA site for this article: https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289

[TheEngineer]

Gingrich is out.

[ QUOTE ]
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.

"Newt is not running," spokesman Rick Tyler said. "It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president."


[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
PPA site for this article: https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich, the article doesn't contain any text. Thank you!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PPA site for this article: https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich, the article doesn't contain any text. Thank you!

[/ QUOTE ]

The site that hosts my article is down. :-(

[journalist0082]

Is anybody betting on who's going to win the presidential primaries? Or anyone know where I could find people who are? I'm writing a blog about it.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PPA site for this article: https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich, the article doesn't contain any text. Thank you!

[/ QUOTE ]

The site that hosts my article is down. :-(

[/ QUOTE ]

It's back up. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Is anybody betting on who's going to win the presidential primaries? Or anyone know where I could find people who are? I'm writing a blog about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

With out any odds considerations and this far out, if forced I say Thompson vs Obama in the General. That is if you are looking for a pre-season superbowl type pick.


D$D

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Is anybody betting on who's going to win the presidential primaries? Or anyone know where I could find people who are? I'm writing a blog about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you looking for specific primaries or overall nomination? If it is nomination then the money implies the following odds:

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

<u>Democratic</u>

Clinton 67%
Obama 16%
Gore 8%
Edwards 7%
Other 2%


<u>Republican</u>
Guliani 35%
Thompson 24%
Romney 23%
Paul 6%
McCain 5%
Other 7%

[IndyFish]

Some interesting developments concerning our evangelical friends. Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?ex=1348891200&amp;en=9cadb51f2cd53f99&amp;ei=50 89) Not sure if this has been posted yet anywhere. If so, my apologies.

Go Giuliani!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Some interesting developments concerning our evangelical friends. Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?ex=1348891200&amp;en=9cadb51f2cd53f99&amp;ei=50 89) Not sure if this has been posted yet anywhere. If so, my apologies.

Go Giuliani!

[/ QUOTE ]

Good article. LOL at an FoF candidate who can't win the Republican nomination thinking he or she can somehow win the general election. Giuliani really could be the beginning of the end for the party dominance of this small faction of the U.S. electorate. I don't know if that translates into a good reason for us to vote for him or not (I don't personally want to vote for someone hostile to us regardless of what it does to FoF, and I don't know if he's hostile to us or not), but it would be an outstanding result.

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some interesting developments concerning our evangelical friends. Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?ex=1348891200&amp;en=9cadb51f2cd53f99&amp;ei=50 89) Not sure if this has been posted yet anywhere. If so, my apologies.

Go Giuliani!

[/ QUOTE ]

Good article. LOL at an FoF candidate who can't win the Republican nomination thinking he or she can somehow win the general election. Giuliani really could be the beginning of the end for the party dominance of this small faction of the U.S. electorate. I don't know if that translates into a good reason for us to vote for him or not (I don't personally want to vote for someone hostile to us regardless of what it does to FoF, and I don't know if he's hostile to us or not), but it would be an outstanding result.

[/ QUOTE ]

My line of thinking is that FoF and others like them seem to be the driving force behind the rally to ban online poker. Even if a candidate is not on our side, if he isn't "100% against us" he may not bother with gaming at all. We're a tiny issue for most of the country. If the evangelicals don't have a voice in the white house I consider that a good thing.

Of course, if Giuliani came out against us publicly and threatened to enforce UIGEA to the limit then that would be different.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
My line of thinking is that FoF and others like them seem to be the driving force behind the rally to ban online poker. Even if a candidate is not on our side, if he isn't "100% against us" he may not bother with gaming at all. We're a tiny issue for most of the country. If the evangelicals don't have a voice in the white house I consider that a good thing.

Of course, if Giuliani came out against us publicly and threatened to enforce UIGEA to the limit then that would be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted some stuff on this thread along those lines as well. In fact, Giuliani's effect on FoF voters would be even bigger on Congressional races. Dobson publicly came out against Thompson last week, so that's good news for us as well. And, they're not crazy about Ron Paul either, as they want laws enforcing their vision of American (like UIGEA). The Republican primary should be straightforward: Thompson, Paul or Giuliani. We should be able to use the mid-Dec. polls to determine the best candidate to back.

The Democratic primary looks less and less relevent every day, as Clinton seems to be running away with the nomination. We'll know more as the primaries get closer, of course.

It's not too late for Obama but, the way things stand today, I'd probably recommend folks in states where independents cannot vote in primaries consider switching to the Republican Party just to vote in the primary against FoF.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The Democratic primary looks less and less relevent every day, as Clinton seems to be running away with the nomination. We'll know more as the primaries get closer, of course.

It's not too late for Obama but, the way things stand today, I'd probably recommend folks in states where independents cannot vote in primaries consider switching to the Republican Party just to vote in the primary against FoF.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see her winning in the general and most Dems seem to agree. Unless there is some sort of "third" party candidate her internal negatives are just too high to gain a plurality of the vote.

She's too old and Obama to junior to her in her mind for her to take the bottom of the ticket and hope for a Pres run from Veep in 8 years. I just don't see her living in the Naval Observ given how she felt about the Gores.

I just don't see it. Given the tension in the Hil-Obama camps I just don't see a marriage there, and that is about the only thing that might work IMO.

Edwards is cute and young enough to run for second but I don't see him carrying enough to push Hil over the top in a general, well unless the Repug totally impolodes and pulls a Dole.

On the GOP side things are even messier as TE has pointed out. Ruddi is a nighmare, as is Mit. Fred has enough distance from the current Admin and Congress but I don't know if he has the chops for the long run. As it is all he seems to have is some old 41 hands and some self-pro-claimed "smart money GOP'ers."

We'll have a much better idea where the candidates are on the 15th when the quarterly money race numbers are out....


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see her winning in the general and most Dems seem to agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally don't see Clinton winning the general election either (though I don't think it's as impossible as you do; there could be a third party candidate, as you noted, or Rudy could win the Republican nomination), but I didn't say she could. I not quite sure about the reference to her being Obama's VP; it's not like the Democratic Party nomination process has ever had much to do with electability. Do you see Obama coming back at this stage by claiming to be more electable? It's surely not impossible, but he'll have to make a move soon.

He's running well in Iowa; he'll have to move ahead there soon while making up some ground nationwide. We'll know more in a couple of months.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I not quite sure about the reference to her being Obama's VP; it's not like the Democratic Party nomination process has ever had much to do with electability.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't see her being Obams's running mate on either end of the ticket. Stranger things have happened and that is about the only winning combination on the DEM side as I see it.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you see Obama coming back at this stage by claiming to be more electable? It's surely not impossible, but he'll have to make a move soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said money wise he's gone against her toe to toe. IMPO that is the race before the leaves fully change. The October 15th release of fund raising and expenditures.

Obama matched her dollar for dollar and didn't take and PAC money in the process, with a much bigger small donnor non-capped base, people he can go back to for more, a great position to be in. Polling at this point is pretty much meaningless IMPO, it's all name recoginition. What really counts is how much $$ Hil is spending on campaign staff and campaign trash to keep her number maxed out IMO.

As long as Obama can keep out rasing her in small donor donations the nomination is his for the loosing. Hil has tried to pull a page out of W's book and lock up the nomination before the first snowflake falls by locking down the money and party officals in the states. IMO she's not there yet.

Again the $$ race results on the 15th will tell us a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
He's running well in Iowa; he'll have to move ahead there soon while making up some ground nationwide. We'll know more in a couple of months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iowa is a strange animal, and fickle as hell. But it is a good show place for a fantastic ground game. Hil has been there and done that. This is Obama's chance to further outshine her. Iowa and NH are purely retail politics you have to have the time and money to sit in a lot of small halls and quite a few kitchen tables. You can't do that if you are out chasing every buck that isn't already committed.

Last time I heard any thing Edwards had a nice operation there, but again noting recent. He with his campaign experience might really mix up the game there.

Again the cash on hand for the quater ending yesterday will be a big indication of how much Hil is spending to keep her numbers up. If Obama again has a ton of donors he can go back to like he has in the past and she has capped out most of her's she will have to work harder than he does.

The GOP nightmeare would be something like Hil's not electible and running Edwards and Obama, again this is problematic as Obama is junior to Edwards but Obama is seen as the DEM rockstar, JFK in a photo negaitve. Sorry if any find this offensive, but we're talking about the GOP nightmare and JFK was junior to Johnson and made a hell of a ticket.

The GOP money number will also show us how much "smart money" that all the "Friends of Fred" can raise, but be ready for the "we just announced" spin if they aren't very impressive. His anouncement date was both cover as well as a shot over the bow to Mit and Rudi, again depending on the final numbers. You can imagine how frantically they were accounting every dime in the last 48 hours.. LOL!

Campaing finance games. Of course there will be the wispers about who got stiffed on bills due before 9/30 and paid after the report...........


D$D

[TheEngineer]

More positive Thompson news:

[ QUOTE ]
Thompson also doesn't support the Federal Marriage Amendment (defines marriage as between a man and a woman), which this week prompted one of his key campaign consultants, Bill Wichterman, to walk out. Wichterman, who previously served as conservative outreach director for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had been considered an important "get" for Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
Some interesting developments concerning our evangelical friends. Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?ex=1348891200&amp;en=9cadb51f2cd53f99&amp;ei=50 89) Not sure if this has been posted yet anywhere. If so, my apologies.

Go Giuliani!

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't get too fired up about this. Support for 3rd party candidates who don't have obscene amounts of money tends to drop drastically as the election nears. In 2000 Nader was consistently polling just under 10% for much of the race, but he ended up getting less than 3% of the popular vote.

I'm not saying that a reactionary religious candidate won't impact the race, but I do think that the impact of such a candidate would be small. So small that it wouldn't be enough to make it worth voting for or against Giuliani on that issue alone.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some interesting developments concerning our evangelical friends. Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?ex=1348891200&amp;en=9cadb51f2cd53f99&amp;ei=50 89) Not sure if this has been posted yet anywhere. If so, my apologies.

Go Giuliani!

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't get too fired up about this. Support for 3rd party candidates who don't have obscene amounts of money tends to drop drastically as the election nears.

So small that it wouldn't be enough to make it worth voting for or against Giuliani on that issue alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The initial concern from the GOP side is that if Obama doesn't come out well in the $$ race given the tight almost corination aspect of the primaries timeline, he would have to pull at least one convincing win out of the first 3 northern states as SC should be a lock for him. Any thing else and it is hello Mr. First Lady(molester) Bill Clinton.

Given the politics on the GOP side, and any air of inevibility to Hillary or a good 2nd on the ticket and the GOP will need every single vote it can get to defeat the DEM's in 2008. Even a small loss of key votes or support could doom any chance of a Pres. race early and possibly make November a down ballot massacre.

I am heartend by Thompson firing the FoF fool. This and the timing of Dobson's trial ballon either means, Wichterman is bucking for a campaign manager job or Thompson was saying go ahead we don't need or want a fringe group like the FoF. IMPO its a little to early to tell. If I had an inside peek at his quarterly $$ numbers I'd be willing to take a side.


D$D

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some interesting developments concerning our evangelical friends. Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?ex=1348891200&amp;en=9cadb51f2cd53f99&amp;ei=50 89) Not sure if this has been posted yet anywhere. If so, my apologies.

Go Giuliani!

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't get too fired up about this. Support for 3rd party candidates who don't have obscene amounts of money tends to drop drastically as the election nears.

So small that it wouldn't be enough to make it worth voting for or against Giuliani on that issue alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The initial concern from the GOP side is that if Obama doesn't come out well in the $$ race given the tight almost corination aspect of the primaries timeline, he would have to pull at least one convincing win out of the first 3 northern states as SC should be a lock for him. Any thing else and it is hello Mr. First Lady(molester) Bill Clinton.

Given the politics on the GOP side, and any air of inevibility to Hillary or a good 2nd on the ticket and the GOP will need every single vote it can get to defeat the DEM's in 2008. Even a small loss of key votes or support could doom any chance of a Pres. race early and possibly make November a down ballot massacre.

I am heartend by Thompson firing the FoF fool. This and the timing of Dobson's trial ballon either means, Wichterman is bucking for a campaign manager job or Thompson was saying go ahead we don't need or want a fringe group like the FoF. IMPO its a little to early to tell. If I had an inside peek at his quarterly $$ numbers I'd be willing to take a side.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I understand your point, but I disagree with (what I think) are the conclusions you're drawing. Specifically, the visceral hatred many Republicans feel toward Hillary Clinton makes it IMO far less likely that reactionary Christians will support a 3rd party candidate. In fact, even if a less polarizing figure was to be nominated by the Democrats, I think history shows that support will wane significantly for a non-billionaire 3rd party candidate as the general election nears. Due to this IMO inevitable effect, I don't think it makes it worth either supporting or opposing Giuliani on this basis alone. In terms of "electability" I think there are much more important factors.

[Legislurker]

I think we're overlooking the wild card. A radical change in Iraq. A big suicide bomb, or even some kind of political rapprochment could change the dynamics. Iraq going well means McCain might make a comeback. If it goes poorly, look for RIchardson to become a contender. Hillary's campaign is BANKING on the status quo. She has zero cred with the zealous anti-war crowd. If corpses pile up, she will fall in the polls. If it goes well, she may get the nomination to face a tougher Republican challenge. Thats her weakness.
Another may be Obama's appeal on Feb 5th. I think his support is underpolled and a lot more democratic. He needs money less than any top tier challenger as he is getting committed volunteers reminiscient of Bush 00. Cant overstress the importance of a cheap national staff. Romney is paying thru the nose(albeit rich one) for his organization. No other Republican is poised for a major national push. Edwards has some troops out there, but he has a horrible message.

Im thinking FoF knows the Armageddon is coming. The 3rd Party move may be a shrewd push. Keep your electorate voting and inspired. Bash queers, gambling, and science at the same time as collecting coffer clings. This is the sort of thing blacks or the unions should have done in the 80s if they wanted input in the Democratic Party. They could elect Hillary, humble the National Republican Party, and call the shots for 3-4 cycles. Or, we could get lucky and their candidate could be a child molester, and FoF disband. But, I think they will run a candidate as they have lawyers, signatures, and an organized media machine. And, I think it may boost their standing. Sad.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I understand your point, but I disagree with (what I think) are the conclusions you're drawing. Specifically, the visceral hatred many Republicans feel toward Hillary Clinton makes it IMO far less likely that reactionary Christians will support a 3rd party candidate. In fact, even if a less polarizing figure was to be nominated by the Democrats, I think history shows that support will wane significantly for a non-billionaire 3rd party candidate as the general election nears. Due to this IMO inevitable effect, I don't think it makes it worth either supporting or opposing Giuliani on this basis alone. In terms of "electability" I think there are much more important factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I have no points, only opinions based on limited knowledge.

While the general concensus is Hillary on the top of the ticket against a well financed non-primary crippled GOP'er is a race. But Hillary scares the hell out of the GOP and the ticket combinations can possibly hit on a winner that include her IMO.

If you add in any type of additional ballot mess like any type of third part candidate then your race becomes something less than a coin flip. The GOP has been burned by Perot and was almost burned by Nader. A half decent showing in any singlke state and Liberman might be running for the top slot in '08.

Any 3rd party candidate with a 1/2 a$$ed Karl Rove if they wanted to knows they can swing the outcome if that was their goal.

I don't put it past Dobson to try to do exaclty that against a less than 100% FoF candidate, at least now from here, how long it might last is an open question. If he has any power ot thinks he does, he might try to mix up a couple of early primaries with a good few later showings in strategic states just to demand a seat at the convention back room table. Then if he doesn't get his full measure of his imagined worth, take his ball and go home or look for another game.

Personally I don't think Dobson can raise the money to be a factor, most of his messages are crap and his support's make most "on-line poker is RIGGED!" posters look complety reasonable by comparision.

I just said the GOP has a major fear of a 3rd party candidate messing up a tight race.


D$D

[Emperor]

Don't discount Dobson's power to raise money.

He has 30Million listeners over 2000 radio stations
He runs a giant media conglomerate that generates propaganda for their followers.

I used to listen to Dobson religiously until he started down the Anti-Poker path. However I still believe he could raise more money than God.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't discount Dobson's power to raise money.

He has 30Million listeners over 2000 radio stations
He runs a giant media conglomerate that generates propaganda for their followers.

I used to listen to Dobson religiously until he started down the Anti-Poker path. However I still believe he could raise more money than God.

[/ QUOTE ]


You and Legislurker might just be right, and the GOP may have a lot more to worry about than I thought. I know of dobson of course but have never really looked into him as a real political player.

The GOP's nightmare is Hillary, but from what I've seen, and again I'll know more 10/15 but my feel is Obama is the one who could win in most senarios. That is why IMO Thompson is in the race on the GOP side. He is they only thing on the GOP side apporaching rockstar status. He also has a few really sharp operators in his camp.....


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't discount Dobson's power to raise money.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pre-full release PR battle is going on.

Ron Paul claims to have raised 5M and did it not spending a dime according to his PR "buzz."

Mit is writing a lot of personal checks.

Thompson claims almost 10M on 80,000 donors, not bad for less than a month of "offical" campainging. We'll have to see how many are capped.

Most of the rest were non-news.

Some 3rd Quarter PR pre-release spin wrap up. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1007/Thirdquarter_wrap.html)

On the Dem side.

Hillary made a another major push to act like the inevitible candidate by announcing $22M raised and a total of about $62M so far, but $10M she transfered from her Senate campaign coffers.

Obama's numbers if nothing else cropps up from the full report are really impressive, IMPO. $75M raised on 350,000 donnors?!? That's an average of $214.00 if my math is correct. In addition $4M for the general already?

"More than 350,000 Americans have already signaled the kind of change they want in Washington by contributing to the Obama campaign," spokesman Bill Burton said. "We have raised a historic $74.9 million in dollars available for primary spending, without transferring one cent from any other campaign fund and with no money from federal lobbyists or PACs."

Now that is a pre-release PR statement!



D$D

[Coy_Roy]

Obama whoring himself to the church :


Obama: GOP doesn't own faith and values

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/07/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Obama whoring himself to the church :


Obama: GOP doesn't own faith and values

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/07/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome! I think the Democrats have a real hope of peeling some Christians from the GOP. Hopefully that will help both parties in the long run.

Many mainline Protestants have long felt they have no home in the Democratic Party. They don't really align with the anger of folks like Dobson, but they've had nowhere else to go. As a result, Dobson has been able to hold the Republican Party hostage to a degree. In fact, I'm sure the establishment would kick Rudy out if they could. I'm sure they're chagrined by the fact that voters are making the decisions for them.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Obama's "kingdom" is one where he's helping the poor and things like that...not passing restrictive laws on people's behaviors.

[Coy_Roy]

I'm not sure why the link is down now but I originally found the story through Drudge.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
Obama's "kingdom" is one where he's helping the poor and things like that...not passing restrictive laws on people's behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're right, but imo, the last thing we need is the two parties competing for the "moral" vote.

Pro-Gamblimg legislation may have trouble finding a sympathetic "ear" in either.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obama's "kingdom" is one where he's helping the poor and things like that...not passing restrictive laws on people's behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're right, but imo, the last thing we need is the two parties competing for the "moral" vote.

Pro-Gamblimg legislation may have trouble finding a sympathetic "ear" in either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so, too. I should clarify that his idea of "Kingdom", based on what I've read him say, LEANS toward the former and not the latter.

[Coy_Roy]

This link here seems to be working:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/08/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

....and I see that someone has posted what I believe to be a very truthful comment:

"Neither Obama nor the GOP is correct in pushing faith-based agendas in government. Both parties should avoid these agendas because they violate the first amendment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." We need someone for president who can respect freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, such as presidential candidate Ron Paul."
Posted By Jon, Jacksonville, FL : October 7, 2007 8:33 pm

[Skallagrim]

The Hillary coronation is hardly a done deal yet. I live in NH, she is strong here, but hardly has a lock on things - most folks are still waiting to make up their minds.

Hillary is probably the worst of the front running Dems for us, but she is still better than any republican 'cept for Paul.

I have serious qualms about Hillary primarily because I think she panders too much to big-money interests, but I dont fear her like I fear Guliani. I do agree however that a H v. G race for the president is a FOFer's worst nightmare.

Lots of interesting developments to come, I think.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

I hope Obama pulls ahead in NH soon. He's far better for us than Clinton.

I agree with you on the Republicans, except Thompson may or may not be on our side. I think I probably sound schizophrenic on Giuliani, as I think his candidacy could be great for us in keeping FoF-types at home on Election Day (great for Congress), but could be bad short-term, given his propensity for heavy-handed enforcement.

[Skallagrim]

Yeah, I should keep an open mind about Thompson only because of D'Amato...and he did say gay-marriage is a state issue (thus actually NOT pandering to FOF), maybe there is hope for him after all.

Giuliani is a fascist, relatively speaking. His idea of Freedom is whatever he (as the government) says you are allowed to do. I cant imagine that "freedom" ever including an ability to play poker any where he can stop it. Whats really scary to me is that most americans wont care about this aspect of "Mr. 9/11" - hell, most dont even realize that aside from a few good speeches he really messed up both before and after 9/11 in terms of what he actually did. I do hope most americans will reject him because of his Iraq position however, but a lot can change in Iraq in a year. We shall see....

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I should keep an open mind about Thompson only because of D'Amato...and he did say gay-marriage is a state issue (thus actually NOT pandering to FOF), maybe there is hope for him after all.

Giuliani is a fascist, relatively speaking. His idea of Freedom is whatever he (as the government) says you are allowed to do. I cant imagine that "freedom" ever including an ability to play poker any where he can stop it. Whats really scary to me is that most americans wont care about this aspect of "Mr. 9/11" - hell, most dont even realize that aside from a few good speeches he really messed up both before and after 9/11 in terms of what he actually did. I do hope most americans will reject him because of his Iraq position however, but a lot can change in Iraq in a year. We shall see....

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points. Based on how things stand today, if we're lucky, it will be Thompson (unless Paul gains traction, and he has shown recent signs of that) vs. Obama. Giuliani in the general election at least helps us with Congress. If Giuliani wins the nomination and loses the general (which is what I think would happen), that wouldn't be a bad result at all. I should clarify that I never hinted that Giuliani would be a good president....my comments have all been about his positive effects as the nominee.

[TheEngineer]

I'm going to post my article on DailyKos, at www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer (http://www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer) , at 8 pm this evening, in case anyone would care to comment.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to post my article on DailyKos, at www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer (http://www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer) , at 8 pm this evening, in case anyone would care to comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/174214/664

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to post my article on DailyKos, at www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer (http://www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer) , at 8 pm this evening, in case anyone would care to comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/174214/664

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's good that the poker message is getting out to other forums. However, I think the comment battle between yourself and the dailykos poster illustrates a weakness of our cause. Our libertarian supporters tend to use loaded language and discuss the issue by using terms that are strongly associated with libertarianism. I think this has the effect of turning off people who may be sympathetic to our cause, but are not sympathetic to the libertarian cause. The more neutral language we use the better, and the less we use libertarian terms like "nanny staters" the better.

Again, I think it's great you're posting this stuff around the internet, but I fear the libertarian slant may at times do more harm than good for our single issue.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to post my article on DailyKos, at www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer (http://www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer) , at 8 pm this evening, in case anyone would care to comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/174214/664

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's good that the poker message is getting out to other forums. However, I think the comment battle between yourself and the dailykos poster illustrates a weakness of our cause. Our libertarian supporters tend to use loaded language and discuss the issue by using terms that are strongly associated with libertarianism. I think this has the effect of turning off people who may be sympathetic to our cause, but are not sympathetic to the libertarian cause. The more neutral language we use the better, and the less we use libertarian terms like "nanny staters" the better.

Again, I think it's great you're posting this stuff around the internet, but I fear the libertarian slant may at times do more harm than good for our single issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good comments. Thanks. I do like posting to several forums with different ideological slants to see how our arguments play. I have a blog on the conservative site Townhall.com for the same reason. I speak the "language of conservatism" (I'm a native speaker, so to speak), so I get positive responses there, for the most part. I'll try to learn the "language of progressives" as well. I suppose I could read their sites (Greenpeace, PETA, etc) and books to understand the mindset better.

I had only two folks respond at DailyKos this time, and both happened to be anti-gaming (they weren't going to be sympathetic with our cause no matter what). I've had more positive responses at DailyKos in the past, but there are obviously many lessons to be learned on how to win over progressives. Many, like Barney Frank, identify with social libertarianism. Many others clearly don't.

I did stop calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party. Isn't that enough? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to post my article on DailyKos, at www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer (http://www.dailykos.com/user/TheEngineer) , at 8 pm this evening, in case anyone would care to comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/8/174214/664

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's good that the poker message is getting out to other forums. However, I think the comment battle between yourself and the dailykos poster illustrates a weakness of our cause. Our libertarian supporters tend to use loaded language and discuss the issue by using terms that are strongly associated with libertarianism. I think this has the effect of turning off people who may be sympathetic to our cause, but are not sympathetic to the libertarian cause. The more neutral language we use the better, and the less we use libertarian terms like "nanny staters" the better.

Again, I think it's great you're posting this stuff around the internet, but I fear the libertarian slant may at times do more harm than good for our single issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good comments. Thanks. I do like posting to several forums with different ideological slants to see how our arguments play. I have a blog on the conservative site Townhall.com for the same reason. I speak the "language of conservatism" (I'm a native speaker, so to speak), so I get positive responses there, for the most part. I'll try to learn the "language of progressives" as well. I suppose I could read their sites (Greenpeace, PETA, etc) and books to understand the mindset better.

I had only two folks respond at DailyKos this time, and both happened to be anti-gaming (they weren't going to be sympathetic with our cause no matter what). I've had more positive responses at DailyKos in the past, but there are obviously many lessons to be learned on how to win over progressives. Many, like Barney Frank, identify with social libertarianism. Many others clearly don't.

I did stop calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party. Isn't that enough? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Greenpeace and PETA aren't "progressive" orgs per se. Its true fringe environmental groups embrace radical progressive ideas, but most sensible Progressives align more with NRDC or The Sierra Club. PETA is just for nuts. IF I was progressive I wouldn't want to be assicoated with a group whose biggest public face is Pamela Anderson.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Obama's "kingdom" is one where he's helping the poor and things like that...not passing restrictive laws on people's behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right. Obama said in the last debate his favorite scripture is the Sermon on the Mount. In it Jesus talks about peacemaking, empathizing, humility, charity, etc. in order to reach the kingdom of heaven. My pastor interprets "kingdom of heaven" to be a "heaven on earth" where everyone acts Christlike. So maybe this is the "kingdom" Obama was referring to.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Obama's "kingdom" is one where he's helping the poor and things like that...not passing restrictive laws on people's behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right. Obama said in the last debate his favorite scripture is the Sermon on the Mount. In it Jesus talks about peacemaking, empathizing, humility, charity, etc. in order to reach the kingdom of heaven. My pastor interprets "kingdom of heaven" to be a "heaven on earth" where everyone acts Christlike. So maybe this is the "kingdom" Obama was referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, theres exactly zero politics in the Sermon on the Mount. Its straight to the INDIVIDUAL. You. The more I have read about Obama's preacher, the more worried I am. The man is a cut and dried racist.

[PugsMcGee]

Ron Paul is the greatest candidate possible for not only poker players, but also for the American people.

RP wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, which has obviosly needed to be done away with for years now. The Federal Reserve is not even owned by the government, they're a totally seperate corporation that can create money at whenever it wants.

Second, RP wants to do away with Income Tax. Income Tax is one of the most pointless and illegal things that Americans have been fooled to believe is a law. THERE IS NO LAW THAT MAKES YOU PAY INCOME TAXES. If you say that we need Income Taxes to pay for schooling, police stations, fire stations, etc...well we don't! Those things are payed for by state, local, and property taxes. Okay, so we need Income Taxes to pay for the War right? NO! The cost of the War is virtually the same as the amount of money the government makes off of Corporate Taxes. So where does Income Tax go? Inside the pockets of the people who are in control of it all. This needs to be abolished, and RP supports that.

Last, RP supports getting the troops out of the Middle East. The simple fact of the matter is that we can not afford and it just doesn't make sense for us to have troops there anymore. He's one of the only candidates that makes a point of bringing the troops home.

Overall, Ron Paul is the best possible candidate for poker players and Americans as a whole.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul is the greatest candidate possible for not only poker players, but also for the American people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad Paul's candidatcy will be doomed on the quality of his spammers alone!


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

Priceless!

Wicked Witch of Georgetown!! (http://drudgereport.com/)

D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul is the greatest candidate possible for not only poker players, but also for the American people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad Paul's candidatcy will be doomed on the quality of his spammers alone!


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Obama's "kingdom" is one where he's helping the poor and things like that...not passing restrictive laws on people's behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right. Obama said in the last debate his favorite scripture is the Sermon on the Mount. In it Jesus talks about peacemaking, empathizing, humility, charity, etc. in order to reach the kingdom of heaven. My pastor interprets "kingdom of heaven" to be a "heaven on earth" where everyone acts Christlike. So maybe this is the "kingdom" Obama was referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, theres exactly zero politics in the Sermon on the Mount. Its straight to the INDIVIDUAL. You.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, that's a convenient and unfortunately popular opinion. But it is precisely INDIVIDUALs who do politics. Many churches and the Christian right conveniently leave the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount out of their "politics." It would be a better world if they did not.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul is the greatest candidate possible for not only poker players, but also for the American people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you're black. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=12438027&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Pos t12438027)

[TheEngineer]

Romney Wins Conservative 'Values Voters' Straw Poll
Saturday, October 20, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303776,00.html

Two former governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, shared the limelight on Saturday, handily winning the top two spots in a straw poll of "values voters" conducted by the conservative Family Research Council in Washington.

In the straw poll Romney came in first with 1,595 votes, followed closely by Huckabee with 1,565.

Significantly, however, Huckabee won more than half of the 953 voters who voted at the conference; Romney received 99 votes among conference attendees, with the overwhelming majority of his support coming from voters online.

Ron Paul finished in third place with 865 votes, followed by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson with 564 votes.

The straw poll, conducted online and at the....

[Legislurker]

RP has long had solid anti-abortion credentials. And he is a Grade A homophobe. Those are the two issues those people vote on. He may not back the ban gay marriage amendment, but most of the candidates don't. Maybe his anti-war stance plays with some of the people there. RP scores high in theory on God, guns, and gays.

[gamblerNC1]

At the moment, Ron Paul is the most powerful man in national politics, bar none. Can he win the Republican nomination? Of course not. Can he win the general election? No way. Can he mount a third party bid for the White House and make the Republican Party’s bid in the general election all but a waste of time? Without a doubt.

The Republican Party had best wake up to that fact and start to give him the pulpit he wants and deserves, instead of treating him like a joke. If he decides to run on third party ticket, he will attract many of the right wing crowd, even more so if Rudy gets the nomination. Paul stands for less government and is adamant in his support of pro-gun, pro-life and conservative financial responsibility. More important to us, he is totally against any restriction on the internet, including poker.

Like him, hate him as you choose, but he is in position to make demands on the Republican Party. Paul, I cannot believe, thinks he has a chance at the White House. But he does want the chance to get his message out, and if the mainstream media continues to all but ignore him, he may decide to run third party to get his revenge and make sure Americans at least get a chance to hear what he has to say.

I can think of nothing that would better bring the topic of the UIGEA into the mainstream discussion more than Paul’s independent bid for the White House. My gut feeling on this is he will run if he continues to feel slighted by his party. He has shown he has the money and grassroots support to get more than enough votes to cause some real problems. Hey, but what do I know, you die hard Republicans keep booing him because he wants to end the war and laughing at him because he has some radical ideas that don’t fit your platform and we will see.

Is the threat of a third party bid in order to bring the party into line dirty? Maybe, but no more so than attaching the UIGEA to the port security bill. I am not sure if I would vote for him, but I applaud his courage in standing on that stage, in front of what is a hostile crowd of deep-dyed red Republicans and tell them some truths they do not want to hear. He deserves respect for that, but if the Republican Party continues to deny him that, he may turn out to be as big of a headache for them as the war in Iraq.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
At the moment, Ron Paul is the most powerful man in national politics

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you drunk?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
At the moment, Ron Paul is the most powerful man in national politics, bar none.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a bit of an overstatement, given that any Republican candidate is an underdog at the present time, but Rep. Paul clearly has power to mess things up for the GOP. If Giuliani is the nominee, I could see him running as an independent or as a Libertarian. He's 72, so it's not like he can wait eight years to run again, especially if he feels he's saving conservatism by running (like Goldwater, who knew there would be brighter days for limited government conservatism ahead).

If Paul runs and it looks like Giuliani has no chance against Clinton, it's hard to imagine the FoF crowd not running someone as well, maybe even Dobson himself (I don't see them lining up behind Paul, despite his pro-life record...they like big government). Dobson is 71...he may not want to go out without making a statement to the GOP as well. There's a chance the FoF crowd would rather lose and show their power (i.e., "see, without us the GOP can't win") than lose with Giuliani and allow the small government GOPers to make that claim.

One could imagine each of the three factions of conservatism running its own candidate. Regardless, this will be a very interesting election.

[meelo]

Has anyone seen the survey put out by the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling? Evidently they surveyed each of the Presidential candidates on gambling expansion and Mike Huckabee was the only Republican to respond (with a negative stance on I-gaming, no less).

See the last two paragraphs of this article: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2007/oct/26/566652047.html

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone seen the survey put out by the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling? Evidently they surveyed each of the Presidential candidates on gambling expansion and Mike Huckabee was the only Republican to respond (with a negative stance on I-gaming, no less).

See the last two paragraphs of this article: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2007/oct/26/566652047.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he's a well-known anti-gaming zealot.

Maybe we should write to these candidates so they hear from us. I've sent Duncan Hunter (another big opponent of ours) a few emails.

[meelo]

I've just learned that he was the ONLY candidate to respond. NCALG/GE must be giving themselves a huge pat on the back for that one.

[TheEngineer]

https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289

Updated for latest polling and some Ron Paul info. No other real changes, as none of the candidates have publicly changed their positions.

[TheEngineer]

Frank Rich wrote a nice piece on the weakening of the religious right, at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion .

[ QUOTE ]
Abortion and same-sex marriage landed at the bottom of that list; fighting poverty outpolled abortion as a personal priority by a 3-to-2 margin. To see just how large a gap separates that evangelical electorate from the values organizations that purport to speak in its name, just look at the Values Voter Summit that the Family Research Council convened to much press attention in Washington last weekend. In a survey of participants to determine which issue would be “most important” in choosing a presidential candidate, the summit’s organizers didn’t even think to list the war, health care or fighting poverty among the 12 hot-button options.

The Values Voter Summit’s survey of the attendees’ presidential preferences showed just as large a disconnect. Rudy Giuliani came in next to last (behind Tom Tancredo, ahead of John McCain) in the field of nine candidates, earning only 1.85 percent of the vote. By contrast, among white evangelicals nationwide in the CBS News poll, he was in a statistical dead heat for first place with Fred Thompson; indeed, Mr. Giuliani’s 26 percent among evangelicals nearly matches his showing among all Republican voters. The discrepancy between the CBS poll and the summit survey leaves you wondering who exactly follows Dr. Dobson and Mr. Perkins beyond the ticket buyers who showed up for their media circus last weekend at the Washington Hilton.

Of late Dr. Dobson has been throwing a hissy fit about Rudy’s rise, reminiscent of his 2005 condemnation of the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants for appearing in what he labeled a “pro-homosexual video.” Apparently suffering from the delusion that he has the pull on the right that Ralph Nader once did on the left, he has threatened to bolt to a third party. But for all this huffing and puffing, Dr. Dobson and his stop-Rudy brigade are as politically hypocritical as the Reverend Haggard was sexually hypocritical.


[/ QUOTE ]

[sevencard2003]

seeing that i could never vote for anyone whose pro-abortion i might be persuaded to vote for Ron Paul since hes prolife. id like to find a president whose not hostile to online poker if possible, but i sure dont wanna elect a hillary clinton who will do much damage to this country with her radical leftwing policies.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Frank Rich wrote a nice piece on the weakening of the religious right, at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion .

[ QUOTE ]
Abortion and same-sex marriage landed at the bottom of that list; fighting poverty outpolled abortion as a personal priority by a 3-to-2 margin. To see just how large a gap separates that evangelical electorate from the values organizations that purport to speak in its name, just look at the Values Voter Summit that the Family Research Council convened to much press attention in Washington last weekend. In a survey of participants to determine which issue would be “most important” in choosing a presidential candidate, the summit’s organizers didn’t even think to list the war, health care or fighting poverty among the 12 hot-button options.

The Values Voter Summit’s survey of the attendees’ presidential preferences showed just as large a disconnect. Rudy Giuliani came in next to last (behind Tom Tancredo, ahead of John McCain) in the field of nine candidates, earning only 1.85 percent of the vote. By contrast, among white evangelicals nationwide in the CBS News poll, he was in a statistical dead heat for first place with Fred Thompson; indeed, Mr. Giuliani’s 26 percent among evangelicals nearly matches his showing among all Republican voters. The discrepancy between the CBS poll and the summit survey leaves you wondering who exactly follows Dr. Dobson and Mr. Perkins beyond the ticket buyers who showed up for their media circus last weekend at the Washington Hilton.

Of late Dr. Dobson has been throwing a hissy fit about Rudy’s rise, reminiscent of his 2005 condemnation of the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants for appearing in what he labeled a “pro-homosexual video.” Apparently suffering from the delusion that he has the pull on the right that Ralph Nader once did on the left, he has threatened to bolt to a third party. But for all this huffing and puffing, Dr. Dobson and his stop-Rudy brigade are as politically hypocritical as the Reverend Haggard was sexually hypocritical.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Dobson hit a narrow demographic window. An entire generation of Democratic voters was dying(Depression/WWII)
and party allegiance was in flux. The generation behind them trended narrowly Republican and wasnt too educated or secular. Now that they are dying he is running hard up against Nixon era Democrats who have never been wholly comfy with the Republicans. After you get under 55 or so Dobson has very low appeal. Self-identified younger evangelicals under 30 arent even supporting Republicans at 50%. If Bush was pulling in close to 3/4 of that demographic in 04, we have some hope of getting rid of their pull in a few more cycles.
Maybe Im too old to see the benefit in my lifetime of getting rid of those [censored], but its slowly coming.

[TheEngineer]

Another good article on the changing religious right: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html?

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
In a survey of participants to determine which issue would be “most important” in choosing a presidential candidate, the summit’s organizers didn’t even think to list the war, health care or fighting poverty among the 12 hot-button options.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what is fascinating (read: sick, hypocritical, WTF???) about the "religious" right. They don't care about not killing people or helping the needy or the Golden Rule or anything central to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which is (is supposed to be???) the heart of what being a Christian is. Just fascinating ....

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Another good article on the changing religious right: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html?
[ QUOTE ]
“I think that a superpower ought to be the exemplification of a commitment to peace,” Carter told Hybels, who nodded along. “I would like for anyone in the world that’s threatened with conflict to say to themselves immediately: ‘Why don’t we go to Washington? They believe in peace and they will help us get peace.’ ” Carter added: “This is just a simple but important extrapolation from what a human being ought to do, and what a human being ought to do is what Jesus Christ did, who was a champion of peace.”

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm ... Jimmy Carter more "religious" than the "religious" right?

Thanks for the link TE.

[DeadMoneyDad]

Has anyone else looked at the 3rdQ reports and the personal disclosure reports?

Hillary keeps all her own money in a checking account???

She has been in gov't way too long!

Obama is paying more pros than previously thought his monthy nut is bigger than Hils.

Some interesting stuff.

Mitt is $17 million in debt and climbing!

Ron Paul can't get even 20% of his money from women, that is disturbing.


D$D

[Legislurker]

Mitt is worth a healthy 9 figures. Money isnt an issue with him.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Mitt is worth a healthy 9 figures. Money isnt an issue with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone knows that, I hope his campaign finance guy is not on a precentage basis.


D$D

[Tuff_Fish]

As if we didn't already know.

link (http://www.igamingnews.com/index.cfm?page=artlisting&amp;tid=8013)

This is unfortunate since Huckabee seems pretty grounded in some respects.

Tuff

[Legislurker]

Huckabee with the nomination would be funny. At least Mondale and Dukakis won their home states, Huckabee could be the first candidate to lose every state in the nation.

[MayorHerb]

FWIW, on Al Gore:

Gore Played Poker (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4D91031F932A15755C0A9669C8B 63&amp;sec=&amp;spon=&amp;pagewanted=print)

Nothing tremendous.. I've had a beer with him, and he's my horse. We can't get the sucker out of the gate, and don't necessarily expect to get any of you to ride along, but he's not an evil uber goober as people think. (Especially the anarchists)

Still got one or two tricks but we're out of time and he's a stubborn mule. He's stuck on saving the world. Go figure.

[TheEngineer]

Latest polls:

Iowa Democratic Caucus
ABC News/Washington Post Poll
Barack Obama 30% ?
Hillary Clinton 26% ?
John Edwards 22% ?
Bill Richardson 11% A
Joe Biden 4% A
Dennis Kucinich 2% A
Chris Dodd 1% F
Unsure 3%
Other 1%

Iowa Republican Caucus
RCP Average
Romney 27.8% F
Huckabee 20.3% F
Giuliani 13.7% ?
Thompson 11.7% ?
McCain 6.5% F
Paul 4.5% A+

New Hampshire Democratic Primary
RCP Average
Clinton 36.0% ?
Obama 23.0% ?
Edwards 13.2% ?
Richardson 8.4% A

New Hampshire Republican Primary
RCP Average
Romney 33.0 F
Giuliani 18.4 ?
McCain 16.2 F
Paul 6.8 A+
Huckabee 6.6 F
Thompson 4.8 ?

Democratic Presidential Nomination
RCP Average
Clinton 42.7 ?
Obama 23.0 ?
Edwards 12.2 ?

Republican Presidential Nomination
RCP Average
Giuliani 28.0% ?
Thompson 14.8% ?
Romney 12.7% F
McCain 12.2% F
Huckabee 9.2% F
Paul 4.6% A+

[TheEngineer]

NH just announced their primary date. Here is where the 2008 primary and caucus calendar stands through Feb. 5:

Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses
Jan. 5 Wyoming Republican caucuses
Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary
Jan. 15 Michigan primary
Jan. 19 Nevada caucuses
Jan. 19 South Carolina Republican primary
Jan. 26 South Carolina Democratic primary
Jan. 29 Florida primary
Feb. 1-2 Maine Republican caucuses
Feb. 5 Alabama primary
Feb. 5 Alaska Democratic caucuses and Republican congressional district convention
Feb. 5 American Samoa Democratic caucuses
Feb. 5 Arizona primary
Feb. 5 Arkansas primary
Feb. 5 California primary
Feb. 5 Coorado caucuses
Feb. 5 Connecticut primary
Feb. 5 Delaware primary
Feb. 5 Georgia primary
Feb. 5 Idaho Democratic caucuses
Feb. 5 Illinois primary
Feb. 5 Kansas Democratic caucuses
Feb. 5 Massachusetts primary
Feb. 5 Minnesota primary
Feb. 5 Missouri primary
Feb. 5 Montana Republican caucuses
Feb. 5 New Jersey primary
Feb. 5 New Mexico Democratic primary
Feb. 5 New York primary
Feb. 5 North Dakota caucuses
Feb. 5 Oklahoma primary
Feb. 5 Tennessee primary
Feb. 5 Utaho primary
Feb. 5 West Virginia Republican convention

[RufiloCaptn]

We need to nominate non beltway insiders from both parties, and ultimately need see an expansion of other parties. A two party state isn't a democracy.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
We need to nominate non beltway insiders from both parties, and ultimately need see an expansion of other parties. A two party state isn't a democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to see Ron Paul (if he doesn't get the nomination), Lou Dobbs, Bloomberg, and Nader all run third-party, and if at least two of them could get into the debates it would be awesome.

[TheEngineer]

I downgraded Huckster from F to F-. From http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289 :

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Huckabee
F-. Baptist minister, former Gov. of Arkansas. As governor, he opposed the Arkansas state lottery.

When asked "Last year, Congress voted overwhelming to criminalize most forms of Internet gambling. This year some members of Congress are promoting legislation to legalize Internet gambling. If such legislation passed, would you veto it?" [an incorrect statement, by the way...playing wasn't criminalized at all] by the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Huckabee answered "yes"!!!!.

Pros: None.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours...may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I downgraded Huckster from F to F-. From http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289 :

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Huckabee
F-. Baptist minister, former Gov. of Arkansas. As governor, he opposed the Arkansas state lottery.

When asked "Last year, Congress voted overwhelming to criminalize most forms of Internet gambling. This year some members of Congress are promoting legislation to legalize Internet gambling. If such legislation passed, would you veto it?" [an incorrect statement, by the way...playing wasn't criminalized at all] by the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Huckabee answered "yes"!!!!.

Pros: None.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours...may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

----- Original Message -----
To: information@explorehuckabee.com
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:54 PM
Subject: My view of Gov. Huckabee

Dear Governor Huckabee,

I am a lifelong conservative Republican who happens to enjoy a game of Internet poker on occasion. Your response to the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling’s candidate integrity quiz, where you stated that you support a federal prohibition on Internet poker, doesn't sound like the stand of a conservative. Rather, it seems you're for limited government until you find something you want. Then, when that happens, the sky's the limit!

First of all, I feel your position is foolishness. If your concern is compulsive behaviors, gaming is at most addictive to 1% of people, and technology can be used to keep those 1% offline via various exclusion and detection programs. Unfortunately, this won't happen under your big government prohibition plan (which involves snooping in peoples' bank accounts and Internet usage histories). Besides that, it's a question of freedom. Why should the rest of us be prevented from enjoying a game of poker in our own homes?

Your position is nothing but a red herring. It seems you simply don't like Internet poker, so you think it should be banned for everyone. Sorry, but that's not my definition of a conservative.

As you can't trust me to make my own decisions, I cannot trust you to represent me. As such, unless you change your mind, I will not vote for you or support your campaign in any way.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I downgraded Huckster from F to F-. From http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289 :

[ QUOTE ]
Mike Huckabee
F-. Baptist minister, former Gov. of Arkansas. As governor, he opposed the Arkansas state lottery.

When asked "Last year, Congress voted overwhelming to criminalize most forms of Internet gambling. This year some members of Congress are promoting legislation to legalize Internet gambling. If such legislation passed, would you veto it?" [an incorrect statement, by the way...playing wasn't criminalized at all] by the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Huckabee answered "yes"!!!!.

Pros: None.

Cons: Sworn enemy of ours...may as well vote for Kyl or Goodlatte.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's disgusting that this is even an issue. People can [censored] gamble if they want to, period, end of story, not debatable, eat a [censored] dick and die if you're stupid enough to think it should be illegal.

Violent revolution soon please.