[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
"Suppose it would have passed unanimously.

That wouldn't make it a wise or just law."

Actually that would increase the chances that it was. But the reason I said it was important was because a lot of people are implying that most senators didn't even want this prohibition. Whether that is true or not would determine future strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression/opinion is that internet gambling is, for most senators, an unimportant issue, and that many of them would have voted, had it reached the floor, based on politicial expediency. Unfortunately, this is bad for poker, because in quick soundbite world, anti-poker wins. Poker gets lumped in with gambling, 'think of the children' is a powerful phrase, whether it applies or not, Leach can say something about about terrorists and money laundering and scare people on the fence. Whether the overall argument is incoherent doesn't matter because the soundbites are good, and once the bill is going to pass anyway, many congressman will vote on these type of issues with the winning side rather than later be branded as an opponent of whatever catchphrase version of the legislation comes to define it in the public eye. It is always easier for a politician to say "we did something about X" (or a campaigning politician to say "the Congress did something about X, and my opponent voted no"), when X is a bad piece of some larger issue than to explain the complexities of a balanced overall response. Campaign commercials and news clips are only so long.

Also, on these secondary issues, I think it is much more likely that congressmen will just vote with their Party leadership, rather than foirm an independent opinion. There are way too many minor issues for them to become really concerned with each one, voting with the Party must be an easy default on the ones they don't care/know much about.