Interesting ... potential DoD bill clusterfu*k

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if it doesn't pass, that might be even better, because he can tar Democrats with the "OBSTRUCTIONIST!" brush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to follow these threads but I haven't heard much about the Dems other than Mr. K's comments on immigration above. Doesn't this same logic mean the Dems are going to do as much as they can to stay out of the way so that they won't be labeled obstructionist?

And that, with infighting rather than the Dems taking the blame, the Republicans absolutely have to find a way to compromise and pass this bill so that they don't appear incompetent? Historically, the Republicans always seem to be able to unite at the end of the day.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "meaty" issues from a campaign politics standpoint are things like the wiretapping bill and some of the piecemeal immigration policies that Congress could consider this week. These are digestible chunks of policy that lend themselves well to soundbytes, whereas the public will roll its eyes at words like "authorization" and "appropriations". Under any scenario this week, a number of "must-pass" bills will not in fact pass until after the elections, and the public largely won't know or care.

However, I think Hastert may perceive the opportunity for a soundbyte if there's a blow-up of some kind on the DoD Authorization this week, particuarly if Senate Democrats like Dick Durbin refuse to roll for him. Of course, this is ironic on a couple of levels, not least of which because Hastert's gambit is far more likely to hold up the legislation than anything the Democrats might do. But "obstructionist" is one of those labels that just seems to stick to Democrats, just like "flip-flop" does.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if we manage to dodge this particular bullet (the DoD bill), aren't we still in huge trouble if/when the Senate considers an omnibus spending bill after the elections? People are resistant to adding extraneous stuff to the DoD legislation, but the omnibus bill is all about lumping extraneous stuff together in one big opposition-proof package. It will be loaded with pork, so it's unlikely to be blocked/stalemated, and the process-based arguments about how wrong it is to tack iGaming stuff into a defense bill won't carry any weight when it comes something like that.

Maybe Berge or K can comment further, but I'm actually very pessimistic about our overall chances here regardless of what happens with the DoD Authorization. Frist has demonstrated that he's willing to fight for this thing, and even if he can't succeed in hitching in onto this particular piece of legislation, he shouldn't have a problem attaching it to some other bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bill will remain a serious threat until the gavel sounds on the lame duck session, although if there's a 1994-like Democratic sweep of the midterms, it might be on life support.

Just how serious is something we can speculate about later. The thing it's important to remember is that the political tides shift very quickly -- just think about how much drama there has been on this one small issue (internet gambling) in the past 2-3 weeks -- so there's definitely some gain to be had by getting the issue off the table at a time when Frist appears to be hot & bothered about it. By November, he could well decide to spend his political capital elsewhere.

[Mr.K]

Tim Curran knows his stuff. Good catch Nate.

[nrog]

We reported it a week ago and are happy to confirm today that it is true. NROG received confirmation TODAY (9/25) that there is NO gambling legislation in the DOD bill and Sen Frist has no intention of acting on this legislation before elections. A source very close to Frist also told NROG today that the Senator may attempt to try something during the lame duck session but "..it doesn't look like this bill is going anywhere this year."

Press release here: http://www.saveonlinegaming.com/news...IST_092506.doc

We urge you all to join our fight today. Thousands of you have done so already but if we need to march into battle this November to stop Congress agian we will need tens of thousands more. NROG pledges to finally take this issue to the American people using mass media. We now have some time...please join us. www.saveonlinegaming.com


Jay Bailey
National Right for Online Gaming (NROG)

[Mr.K]

Forgive me for being skeptical, but I will again say that until we have a conference report signed and filed, we don't know [censored]. If anyone should be hesitant to "confirm" that things look good, it should be you, Jay, in light of the events of last week.

Here's the latest from CongressDailyPM:

"The FY07 defense authorization conference report is also tentatively scheduled for a vote later in the week, but may remain stalled until the lame-duck session. Speaker Hastert has pledged not to bring the bill to the floor unless Senate Armed Services Chairman Warner agrees to the addition of federal court security legislation and a controversial Republican measure aimed at immigrant gangs."

"Despite hoped-for approval this week, prospects are uncertain for final action on the FY07 defense authorization conference as negotiations between House Speaker Hastert and Senate Armed Services Chairman Warner remain stalled. After failing to come to a deal last week, Hastert pledged this weekend not to bring the bill to the floor unless Warner agreed to the addition of stalled federal court security legislation and a controversial Republican anti-gang immigration measure. Both proposals face opposition in the Senate, but the anti-gang bill, which is part of the House GOP leadership's border security agenda trotted out to court voters for the November mid-terms, faces the most problems with Democrats."

"...For his part, Warner has pledged not to allow any extraneous provision on the defense authorization bill that does not have unanimous bipartisan support. House Armed Services Chairman Hunter also has indicated he wants approval before the October recess, saying he does not want the authorization bill dragging into December, like last year's bill, with a multitude of additions delaying passage.
House Republicans tried last December to attach campaign finance reform legislation addressing 527 groups to the FY06 defense authorization bill, only to drop the effort at the last minute, but GOP leadership aides downplayed the comparison. A spokesman for Hastert said the speaker is committed to attaching both provisions to the defense authorization conference report. "The speaker will not move this bill until these critical security measures are included in it," Hastert's spokesman said today."

"...With Hastert sticking to his guns, the defense authorization bill appears primed to be delayed into November's lame-duck session. One congressional aide reported that while the Defense and Homeland Security appropriations bills were discussed in a morning meeting of senior Republican Senate staff, the defense authorization bill was noticeably absent from the discourse."

So things are looking like they'll be delayed until lame duck for the DoD bill, but you never know for sure. Events can turn on a dime, and we could be here tomorrow talking about a conference report being voted on later in the day.

Likewise, we have no idea what other procedural tricks Frist may have up his sleeve, so caution and patience are the best policies until the session is gaveled out.

[Sephus]

mr. buzzkill. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
WOOT!

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you say "WOOT!" the last time NROG "confirmed" something? IF so, how did you react when they had to retract their confirmation in a desperate plea for action only four days later? Caution and patience, people. The more conclusive the claim, the less likely it is to remain true in a legislative environment like the one we're in right now.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOOT!

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you say "WOOT!" the last time NROG "confirmed" something? IF so, how did you react when they had to retract their confirmation in a desperate plea for action only four days later? Caution and patience, people. The more conclusive the claim, the less likely it is to remain true in a legislative environment like the one we're in right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, but i guess i figured that this time the nrog guy would make sure his info was reliable.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOOT!

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you say "WOOT!" the last time NROG "confirmed" something? IF so, how did you react when they had to retract their confirmation in a desperate plea for action only four days later? Caution and patience, people. The more conclusive the claim, the less likely it is to remain true in a legislative environment like the one we're in right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, but i guess i figured that this time the nrog guy would make sure his info was reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then I have a bridge I want to sell you. (kidding!! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img])

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
We reported it a week ago and are happy to confirm today that it is true. NROG received confirmation TODAY (9/25) that there is NO gambling legislation in the DOD bill and Sen Frist has no intention of acting on this legislation before elections. A source very close to Frist also told NROG today that the Senator may attempt to try something during the lame duck session but "..it doesn't look like this bill is going anywhere this year."

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh no. Here we go again.