[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I feel politics does make for unsavory necessary alliances at times. To the extent that the PPA can put a favorable ball into play on behalf of poker players, we can benefit. However, just lending bodies/numbers and donating money will not result in a favorable direction.)

[/ QUOTE ]


Although I have expounded at length about the PPA not representing its base membership and all the goals those players have, everyone, myself included, understands that limited resources, of both time and money, dictate short term priorities. But even putting aside structural issues with the PPA, and the wider goals of promoting legalization of poker in all venues with no artificial barriers to entry to favor certain parties, it seems clear that the following are the short term priorities *this year*:

1) Seeking to pass Frank/Weixler or a derivative of same this year via attachment to must pass legislation;

2) Neutering the regs if the above fails as likely;

3) Aiding in the judicial fight against online gambling restrictions, especially by helping to cure any issues of standing that current litigants friendly to us might have (and note again that this shouldn't cost the PPA a dime as the litigants should underwrite all the PPAs expenses on same since it is to their own benefit).


Since #1 is a longshot in any short term time frame, then it is critical to achieve some success on #s 2 or 3. But if the PPA fails on those as well, especially due to a refusal to even adopt those last two as goals this year, then given the other deeper shortcomings in the PPA, there will simply be no reason to support it for the long term. The performance of the PPA on those 3 short term priorities should be the basis for judgement of their worthiness and credibility for the long term.