GOP OVERPLAYED HAND WITH GAMBLING BILL

[magoo]

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...bling-politics,0,6213865,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

AP November 3, 2006, 11:00 AM EST

" NEW YORK -- A Republican-sponsored effort to clamp down on Internet gambling may turn out to be a bad bet for the GOP.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which President Bush signed into law Oct. 13, has infuriated many voters who enjoy betting on sports or playing poker online, analysts said.

Other observers, however, see little threat to Republicans from the law, calling it a relatively minor matter to most voters......"

[mikechops]

http://www.newsday.com/search/dispat...target=article

Your link didnt work for me. It's about the 4 th story down on this search.

They sure lost one vote here.

[Lawman007]

Great article!

"I've been a loyal Republican for over 30 years, and I'm quitting the party I once loved," said Jim Henry, 55, who lives outside San Francisco. "Not because of the Mark Foley scandal or Middle East policy. But because the Republican Party wants to stop me from what I love to do: play poker over the Internet."

"I've talked with Republicans all over the country, and they all understand that this is a theft of our liberty," said lifelong Republican Alan Sheldon, 61, of Loveland, Ohio, whose grandmother taught him how to play poker at the age of 4.

Sheldon, who describes himself as a conservative Christian, said he would not vote Republican next week because of the new gambling law."

I'm also a former lifelong Republican who won't be voting Republican in this election. Go to the polls on Tuesday and throw these fascist bastards out of office. Enough is enough!

[Borgland]

[ QUOTE ]
They sure lost one vote here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. Even though we can still play poker, for now, I'm still pissed about the bill.

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They sure lost one vote here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. Even though we can still play poker, for now, I'm still pissed about the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jhans24]

It's not just republicans you need to vote against. Here's a list of all Members of the House and how they voted on this bill when it was up by itself.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml

90% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats voted for it. Find out where your representative stands on the issue and vote accordingly. It's not a R vs D issue, please get educated.

Josh

[Autocratic]

A. a 30% discrepency is huge.
B. You're correct that it's not all about party.

[RobDoral]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not just republicans you need to vote against. Here's a list of all Members of the House and how they voted on this bill when it was up by itself.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml

90% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats voted for it. Find out where your representative stands on the issue and vote accordingly. It's not a R vs D issue, please get educated.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

None of the people who introduced the bill were Democrats if I'm not mistaken (though there's a fair chance that I AM mistaken).

Good bills generally get some sort of bipartisan support BEFORE the final vote so the two parties can slap each other on the back and get lots of photo ops.

I'm a little suprised at the proportion of Democrats who voted for it though (thanks for the link). But I also think a lot less than 90% of the Republicans who voted for it really cared that much about the issue. But just before an election when ALL of the House members need votes, who's going to defend online gambling when it's already not legal? Won't someone think of the children?!!! (channeling Mrs. Lovejoy of the Simpsons there)

Really it's Frist and the others who used a procedural trick to get this thing passed in an unrelated bill without any real debate on its merits that we should be pissed at (and mildly irritated that the rules make this sort of thing possible in the first place). It's frankly a blatantly UNdemocratic move. What are we a bunch of godless commies that we pull the same crap the People's Republic of China did? (little John Wayne there)

Now I would argue that Republican politicians are a lot more likely to pass this sort of social regulation than Democratic politicians (also gay marriage bans, that sort of thing) but yes, the Democrats didn't really fight for it did they? I think it's a difference of opinion about the fundamental role of the federal government. I don't believe the government should be in the business of legislating morality at all, but that opens a huge can of worms there.

But there are a hell of a lot more important things than online gambling that should sway our votes. I suspect there are other things these disgruntled voters have on their minds than poker and the bill was just the last straw for them.

[saucyspade19]

[ QUOTE ]


Really it's Frist and the others who used a procedural trick to get this thing passed in an unrelated bill without any real debate on its merits that we should be pissed at (and mildly irritated that the rules make this sort of thing possible in the first place). It's frankly a blatantly UNdemocratic move. What are we a bunch of godless commies that we pull the same crap the People's Republic of China did? (little John Wayne there)



[/ QUOTE ]

Riders = incredibly common legislative tool. Pork barrel legislation is a huge part of what congress does. Not a shocker that a bill that effects so few people winds up as a rider.

The cold hard fact is, when you say how “Undemocratic” the bill is, you have to ask what is a democracy? Sure, it is protecting the rights of the individual, but in a democracy, majority rules. We, as gamblers (which is how congress perceives us, not as poker players) are in the minority here. The zealots of the religious right love this bill, and it really doesn’t matter to many other people. The proportion of people pissed about the bill compared to the people that support “moralist” legislation is in the favor of the latter.
IMO, a big reason this went through is the economic implications of shipping billions overseas. Online poker is an unregulated, multibillion dollar industry, and it certainly hurts the trade deficit. However, if our government wasn’t retarded, they would have legalized it, found a way to tax it, and then eagerly tried to get china into poker. It could be the freakini anti-Walmart, but they are too busy trying to hold down the moral vote.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO, a big reason this went through is the economic implications of shipping billions overseas. Online poker is an unregulated, multibillion dollar industry, and it certainly hurts the trade deficit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This factor is very overrated. Even if online gambling sent $10 billion overseas yearly, it would have virtually no economic impact on a national basis, and would account for less than 1% of the yearly trade deficit.