Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
How about a more constructive question. Assuming Frist's current tactic fails does he have any other possible fallbacks for getting this thing through this session that we might need to prepare for? Just trying to do some positive, pro-active thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he could still try and get it passed by unanimous consent, assuming that he and Kyl can overcome the holds on the original piece of legislation. But at that point it will be so late in the session that this seems unlikely. The fact that Frist is going with this DoD tactic perhaps also suggest that the holds were solid, and the unanimous consent route wasn't going to work.

From my POV, by this time next week there will either be a >=90% chance of passage or <=5%. It's going to be a stressful week.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how many of your ridiculed my 75% change of passage perdiction? Where there is an evil politician, there is a way...and most all politicians are evil - particularly during election season.

---Leavenfish

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kind of like the guy that goes all in when dominated, sucks out, and then berates the rest of the table. If the bill passes, it doesn't mean there was a 75% chance of passage...just means you happened to get lucky...kind of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Touchy.

Of course I hope I am wrong and I have never berated anyone as you well know. Your attempt and a cute analogy does not hold water. I was simply pointing out that certain people have sometimes tried to make short work of any opinion that this thing was likely to pass by saying essentially that others and myself were claiming the sky was falling or not very politically astute. Quite the contrary. I live in TN and what has always tipped my thoughts towards 75% has been my argument that Frist and Co. would pull out all the stops to get this thing passed in an election year - if only to make it appear to certain constituents that they can be trusted to 'get things done' by core party faithful. And they appear willing to do just that. It's sad...but a reality that a politicans level of ethics usually goes out the window when election time comes.

---Leavenfish

[Zele]

You can still get 100% edge on your prediction over at tradesports.

[Mr.K]

I think Nate is right that opponents of the gambling legislation will see their equity either skyrocket or plummet by the latter part of next week. We are nearing decisive moments in this debate, although it isn't ever really over until the session is gaveled out for the year.

Here's an update from Congressional Quarterly:

"Lawmakers are dusting off proposals including Internet gambling curbs and gang violence crackdowns in hopes that lingering legislation can catch a ride on a must-pass defense bill. But negotiators on the fiscal 2007 defense authorization insist they want to keep it clean.

Several bills stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee have been mentioned as last-minute additions to the defense measure."

The article mentions legislation aimed at reducing gang violence (S 1555), legislation to reduce recidivism among newly released prisoners (S 1934), the Internet gambling measure (HR 4411), and offshore drilling legislation (S 3711). The article goes on to say that:

"Despite the maneuvering to include such legislation in the defense authorization bill (HR 5122), House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said a conference report will be filed early next week.

'This is not going to be a Christmas Eve conference like it was last year,' said Hunter, referring to the fiscal 2006 defense authorization (PL 109-163), which was not cleared until late in the year due to negotiations over military detainee issues."

Commenting on defense-related issues in the bill that are still unresolved, the article says:

"Unresolved issues in this year’s version of the bill include provisions affecting military chaplains, prescription drug benefits for reservists and limits on predatory lenders."

The predatory lending piece is specific to military personnel, for those wondering.

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Nate is right that opponents of the gambling legislation will see their equity either skyrocket or plummet by the latter part of next week. We are nearing decisive moments in this debate, although it isn't ever really over until the session is gaveled out for the year.

Here's an update from Congressional Quarterly:

"Lawmakers are dusting off proposals including Internet gambling curbs and gang violence crackdowns in hopes that lingering legislation can catch a ride on a must-pass defense bill. But negotiators on the fiscal 2007 defense authorization insist they want to keep it clean.

Several bills stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee have been mentioned as last-minute additions to the defense measure."

The article mentions legislation aimed at reducing gang violence (S 1555), legislation to reduce recidivism among newly released prisoners (S 1934), the Internet gambling measure (HR 4411), and offshore drilling legislation (S 3711). The article goes on to say that:

"Despite the maneuvering to include such legislation in the defense authorization bill (HR 5122), House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said a conference report will be filed early next week.

'This is not going to be a Christmas Eve conference like it was last year,' said Hunter, referring to the fiscal 2006 defense authorization (PL 109-163), which was not cleared until late in the year due to negotiations over military detainee issues."

Commenting on defense-related issues in the bill that are still unresolved, the article says:

"Unresolved issues in this year’s version of the bill include provisions affecting military chaplains, prescription drug benefits for reservists and limits on predatory lenders."

The predatory lending piece is specific to military personnel, for those wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds good, right?

[donger]

Mr K. who else should I call to try to express outrage at this bill being jeopardized? I've called both m y senators and the rep from my state who's in the HASC, even though he's not my rep. I am freaking out and want to take as much action as possible, even if it won't have much effect.

Also, is there any one particular thing I should mention for maximum impact? I have just been saying that I'm unhappy with how Frist is trying to attach unrelated riders to a bill that affects so many of our nations troops and asking for said senator/congressperson's help in stopping him.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

FWIW, federalism issues over the National Guard also seem to be contentious.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213889,00.html

...anyway the CQ article strikes me as reasonably favorable. The fact that there are an number of bills in thus bucket makes it seem like the debate will be one of procedure/protocol, rather than the policy merits of the bills. And we have evidence that senior confereees like Hunter and Sessions are in a no-nonsense mood, particularly with a number of issues that are more germane to the DoD authorization also remaining controversial.

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr K. who else should I call to try to express outrage at this bill being jeopardized? I've called both m y senators and the rep from my state who's in the HASC, even though he's not my rep. I am freaking out and want to take as much action as possible, even if it won't have much effect.

Also, is there any one particular thing I should mention for maximum impact? I have just been saying that I'm unhappy with how Frist is trying to attach unrelated riders to a bill that affects so many of our nations troops and asking for said senator/congressperson's help in stopping him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Call Frist's office.

202-224-3344

Say, "The men and women of the US Military are too important to jeopardize the expediant passage any legislation meant to help them by attaching language that is both controversial and utterly unrelated to the bill."

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Nate is right that opponents of the gambling legislation will see their equity either skyrocket or plummet by the latter part of next week. We are nearing decisive moments in this debate, although it isn't ever really over until the session is gaveled out for the year.

Here's an update from Congressional Quarterly:

"Lawmakers are dusting off proposals including Internet gambling curbs and gang violence crackdowns in hopes that lingering legislation can catch a ride on a must-pass defense bill. But negotiators on the fiscal 2007 defense authorization insist they want to keep it clean.

Several bills stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee have been mentioned as last-minute additions to the defense measure."

The article mentions legislation aimed at reducing gang violence (S 1555), legislation to reduce recidivism among newly released prisoners (S 1934), the Internet gambling measure (HR 4411), and offshore drilling legislation (S 3711). The article goes on to say that:

"Despite the maneuvering to include such legislation in the defense authorization bill (HR 5122), House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said a conference report will be filed early next week.

'This is not going to be a Christmas Eve conference like it was last year,' said Hunter, referring to the fiscal 2006 defense authorization (PL 109-163), which was not cleared until late in the year due to negotiations over military detainee issues."

Commenting on defense-related issues in the bill that are still unresolved, the article says:

"Unresolved issues in this year’s version of the bill include provisions affecting military chaplains, prescription drug benefits for reservists and limits on predatory lenders."

The predatory lending piece is specific to military personnel, for those wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds good, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems that way. The #1 guy not to get mad regarding this bill would be the Duncan Hunter, he's the Armed Service Chariman, and the bill is prob his #1 yearly concern. He's saying don't lump anything in it, even stuff that sounds good like reducing gang violence.

But I am smart enough to defer to Nate, Mr. K, and Berge for their opinion. This is just mine.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]

But I am smart enough to defer to Nate, Mr. K, and Berge for their opinion. This is just mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please keep in mind when reading anything I write in this forum that I'm a layman, not an insider like Mr. K and Berge. I'm just trying to address this problem like I would a poker hand, by making the best use of limited information that I can.