Face-to-face with incumbent HoR candidate

[jamzfive]

I happen to live in the same neighborhood as my town's council president, who is always stumping for the local Republican candidates.

Tonight, as a registered Republican (hold your boos, please!) I have been personally invited to a gathering at his home which will be attended by the incumbent Republican candidate, Jim Gerlach (6th district, Pennsylvania). I don't know the format of the evening (prepared comments, meet-and-greet, other?), but I might possibly be able to get a brief face-to-face encounter with him.

With everyone focused on "kicking the bums out", should I bother going? (I actually have a standing Wednesday night appointment I'd have to bail on to attend this GOP love-fest.) If I go, what should I be prepared to talk about?

I don't want to play the part of the brash, young, hot-head (I am, *by far*, the youngest homeowner in my upper-middle class neighborhood [thinly veiled BRAG]) whose priorities are in the wrong place by focusing on online Poker, when everyone else is talking about the economy, Iraq, torture, etc. This isn't going to be a big auditorium where I can step up to a mic, say my piece, and disappear into the night.

I'm open to opinions.


jb

[Soul Rebel]

There are several intelligent arguments that can be made without even mentioning that you happen to play poker. Namely, ask why the government would want to walk away from a $15 billion/year industry that is being regulated and taxed in the UK? You can also ask about your concern over more and more freedoms that are being restricted by the republicans. Whether you like gambling or not, its hard to disagree with the fact that this is not China, that Americans should be able to do wtf they please on their computer at home.

I personally would ask how he feels about the fact that additional security measures proposed by the Democrats for the port security bill were refused by the Republicans (these measures included increased security in state and federal courthouses and additional domestic mass transit), yet internet gambling made it on there. Then ask him why you should continue to vote Republican when this is how they've been operating for the last 6 years.

[4_2_it]

Since you are invited to someone's home you should behave as a well-mannered guest. This is not a rally so a confrontation will do nothing but create bad blood.

You should go and play it by ear. If the opportunity presents itself, bring up online poker (not the Port Act) with some of the other guests and see what the general reaction is and go from there. I have been to a number of these types of events and have found them to be pretty laid back and enjoyable evenings.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you are invited to someone's home you should behave as a well-mannered guest. This is not a rally so a confrontation will do nothing but create bad blood.

You should go and play it by ear. If the opportunity presents itself, bring up online poker (not the Port Act) with some of the other guests and see what the general reaction is and go from there. I have been to a number of these types of events and have found them to be pretty laid back and enjoyable evenings.

[/ QUOTE ]Good advice,not just in this situation,but in general.You dont want to make it seem that you are there to have a confrontation.But if you are observant,im sure you might be able to find a spot to express your views without offending anyone,or making anyone feel uncomfortable.People have a big problem when attempting to change someones thoughts.They think the way to do it is to bash them in the face with their own ideas,when you really at first just want to get in and plant that seed sorta speak.I myself even am guilty of this sometimes,but im learning [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Moneyline]

You may want to approach it from this angle. Tell the candidate that, while you are a Republican, you are disappointed in your party's pursuit of a "values agenda" when there are much more important issues for governement to be taking on. Let him know that you are disappointed in the online poker ban, and that you want your party to concentrate on more important issues in the future.

That's how I'd handle it, anyway. GL

[pa3lsvt]

Ask him if he's going to reply to my letter regarding his "Yes" vote on HR 4411. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I'm also in the PA-6 so he has no chance of getting my vote unless I hear from him, although I'm not terribly thrilled with having to vote for Lois as the alternative. (I'm registered Independent FWIW.)

Seriously, if he or his staff isn't going to be responsive to communications from <u>undecided</u> voters at this point in the election process it's a very bad sign. I'll have to assume he had nothing to tell me that I'll agree with in the absence of a reply.

I'd also add that the barrage of ads telling me why I shouldn't vote for Lois do nothing to convince me to vote for him. They're both slinging mud, but at least she is running more positive ads than he is. Given a toss-up, I go with the candidate that had more positive things to say and/or less negative things to say in their TV spots and mailed literature. I got 4 today, one each: pro-Lois, pro-Jim, anti-Lois, anti-Jim. Today was a wash, but it was one of the few times I received pro-Jim material and I've seen lots of anti-Lois. I realize that his campaign doesn't run most of the anti-Lois ads (and the Republican Committee for whatever is behind them), but it still reflects poorly on him.

Feel free to pass on any of those points tonight. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[doormat]

I would politely bring up the question of where our democracy (or more precisely, republic) is headed when a law affecting millions of people and costing billions in shareholder equity can be passed with no debate, and in fact with many senators not even reading it, all to further one man's agenda.

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
I would politely bring up the question of where our democracy (or more precisely, republic) is headed when a law affecting millions of people and costing billions in shareholder equity can be passed with no debate, and in fact with many senators not even reading it, all to further one man's agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am assuming it's a fundraiser. So the politician expects attendees to raise issues important to them. Raising an issue isn't rude. Tell him that you are concerned about the law regarding online poker. Point out the hypocrisy of the horse racing exemption and state-run lotteries. Tell him that you appreciate Republican policies that result in more personal freedom and not less. Talk about poker being a game of skill. Ask him to reconsider his position.

[jamzfive]

Thanks all for your input.

I did attend this event. I was surprised by how few people were there, especially from my neighborhood. There were about 35, at most. Many of these were working the campaign, or were already involved in local politics already. Maybe a dozen were under age 40. Also present were my retiring State Representative (Jacqueline Crahalla), and the GOP candidate running to replace her (Mike Vereb). It was not a fund-raiser. Much emphasis was placed on getting folks (read: Gerlach supporters) to actually go to the polls and vote next Tuesday.

Anyway, Gerlach arrived around 7:20 pm, mingled a little while, and we eventually all gathered in the kitchen, where he introduced himself, his political/public service history, and talked about his family, etc. Then he opened up the floor to questions. The questions were pretty standard for Southeastern PA (with some really local issues brought up, due to the state representative candidate being in attendance) - social security, budget deficit &amp; national debt, suburban sprawl &amp; congestion, property taxes, slots &amp; tax relief, Gerlach's record (vis a vis the claims his opponent is making about him on TV and the radio).

I behaved myself during the Q&amp;A period, as the crowd did not seem sympathetic towards gambling, especially in light of the slots issue here in PA. Corruption always finding itself into the workings of casinos specifically came up. (For those not aware, Pennsylvania has legalized slot machines as a new source of revenue to fund a variety of programs, including property tax relief. The licensing of these "casinos" has been an absolutely horrible and corruption-filled process.)

After the Q&amp;A session, Gerlach remained a little while longer. Just before leaving, he passed through the room that just I and one other neighbor were chatting in. We introduced ourselves, thanked him for coming out, he thanked us, etc. So I took advantage of what I figure is an incredible opportunity and shared my thoughts with him, literally one-on-one, in a practically empty living room.

I kept it simple and said that I was disappointed by UIGEA. Apparently, I've been reading too many posts here - he did not know what this was at first, and I had to clarify "Internet Gambling, attached to the SAFE Port Act". I emphasized that while I understood how it ended up passing, that I knew he had voted for the bill when it passed the House back in July. I said that I thought it trampled on the right to privacy. I allowed that the issue is multi-layered, as Congress generally respects the states' rights to regulate gambling, but that I thought that there had to be a better answer than prohibition, and that all the law would do is drive the business underground, which would make it even more dangerous. I said a little more, but I don't remember it all, as my brain was sort of on auto-pilot.

He responded that he had been hearing some of the same things elsewhere, and that he was realizing that a lot of people like playing some poker online (he went right to the poker link, I realized I hadn't tried to separate "poker" from "gambling" in general... oops). He even said that even his son had mentioned to him the popularity of online poker, and the impact the law would have. He stated that he wasn't fully knowledgeable about all the issues involved, but that that law might be something they should look at again in the next Congress.

And that was that. A fairly empty reply, but better than him attempting to defend the Act as necessary or whatever. At least I got a chance to say it to his face, and he got to hear it from someone he thinks is a "supporter".

jb

[j2zooted]

good job, you did what you could.