A note of appreciation to Mr. K, Berge, and Nate is in order first ...
A note of appreciation to Mr. K, Berge, and Nate is in order first. A long time ago I had lobbied on the Hill, these guys were unselfish and incredibly accurate with their analysis of the unfolding situation that night.
A number of 2+2ers in this Forum were well aware of what was coming down that night. Despite various so-called "poker advocates' arrogant assurances to the contrary, the [censored] was going to hit the fan.
We had been reviewing available bills for Frist to latch on to. The threads would reflect this history.
When John Warner very publicly had told Frist to go [censored] himself, we had been heartened; same thing when Arlen Spector refused to allow his Bill to be Fristed. However, we knew damn well that the Safe Ports Bill was open, calls to Rep. Peter King's offices had proven fruitless.
A lot of posters here do not understand the deluge of "assurances" and "guarantees" we had received from third parties for weeks that "nothing' was going to pass in 2006. All you had to do was look at the votes, actors and legislation to know these political neophytes were whistling past the graveyard. That frustrating experience can explain a lot of 2+2 posters' skepticism with which any claims now to "represent poker players" or "represent online gaming" or this or that bill is THE only feasible answer.
The world did not end; the UIGEA did NOT make online poker illegal. The market for meeting consumer demands became a lot less efficient, while returns did not sufficiently reward a perceived legal risk for public companies' managements tastes. Private entrepeneurs were left in the forfront of meeting US players demands for the legal provision of poker services online.
|