2008 Presidential Primaries

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they might all go tell us to [censored] ourselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many members have such groups as the ACLU and MoveOn, and how successful have they been in the last 6-7 years? The PPA doesn't have a lot of name recognition, or (most importantly) money to throw around, at least relatively. Not to be a killjoy, but I think you guys are vastly overestimating the effect 'we' have on the national level. If internet gambling mattered to anyone, UIGEA doesn't get tossed into a port security bill at the 11th hour. Again, I agree that most of the non-fundie GOP candidates probably privately think prohibition is stupid, because hey, who doesn't like a friendly game of poker or to bet $50 on the Redskins. But they don't care enough to make it an issue important enough for them to weigh in. And in that case, the issue will be decided by the kinds of people they appoint.

I don't have any great hope that any of the Dem candidates are actively pro-poker, but their appointments to the relevant treasury, justice and commerce positions are almost bound to be better on this issue, if only by comparison.

[dorethawsp]

Why does it seem to me that if Fred Thompson is talking about "limited government" and "federalism" that he is either:
1) Talking to business interests about getting government regulations off their back
2) Talking to anti abortion activists about allowing their states to ban abortion

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see Fred Thompson helping us. If he will, I'll vote for him, and I haven't voted for many Republicans.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Duncan Hunter. 0%
F-. CA congressman. Voted for HR 2143, banning Internet gaming by credit card, 2003. Voted for HR 4411. Cosponsored HR 4477 (Goodlatte’s ban bill). Big-time anti-gaming guy.

Pros: none

Cons: opponent of ours

[/ QUOTE ]

From Duncan Hunter's website:

http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

[ QUOTE ]
13. Gambling:

I believe gambling is a serious problem in today’s society, every much as addictive and destructive as alcohol and illegal drugs. As a result, this problem is equally deserving of as much attention in terms of federal policy. Unfortunately, those individuals who spend most of their money gambling are the ones who have the least amount to lose, often choosing to gamble instead of taking care of their families.

I also believe Internet gambling has become a problem as serious as traditional casino gambling. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that this activity serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities that can be exploited by terrorists and organized crime. It is for this reason that I cosponsored H.R. 4777 (Goodlatte-VA) which will amend federal law and bring the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to date with the Internet and other new technologies. At the same time, the bill will provide additional tools to law enforcement to combat illegal gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's good enough for an F-.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
13. Gambling:

I believe gambling is a serious problem in today’s society, every much as addictive and destructive as alcohol and illegal drugs. As a result, this problem is equally deserving of as much attention in terms of federal policy. Unfortunately, those individuals who spend most of their money gambling are the ones who have the least amount to lose, often choosing to gamble instead of taking care of their families.

I also believe Internet gambling has become a problem as serious as traditional casino gambling. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that this activity serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities that can be exploited by terrorists and organized crime. It is for this reason that I cosponsored H.R. 4777 (Goodlatte-VA) which will amend federal law and bring the current prohibition against wireline interstate gambling up to date with the Internet and other new technologies. At the same time, the bill will provide additional tools to law enforcement to combat illegal gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reply to this at conservative site Townhall.com.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL! What a joke. He's for limited government until he finds something he wants. Then, the sky's the limit!

First of all, his position is foolishness. Drugs are very addictive. Gaming is at most addictive to 1% of people, and technology can be used to keep those 1% offline via various exclusion and detection programs. Unfortunately, this won't work under Hunter's big government prohibition plan (which involves snooping in peoples' bank accounts and Internet usage histories).

The money laundering charge is equally ludicrous. This is easily controlled, and it's proven. Check out http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring060807.wvx and http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...ht060807.shtml . It's nothing but a red herring. Hunter simply doesn't like Internet poker, so he thinks it should be banned for everyone. That's not my definition of a small government conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

Dear Rep. Hunter,

I am a lifelong small government conservative Republican who happens to enjoy a game of Internet poker on occasion. I just read your stance on Internet gaming from your website and I must say you don't sound like a limited government conservative at all. Rather, it seems you're for limited government until you find something you want. Then, the sky's the limit!!

First of all, I feel your position is foolishness. Drugs are very addictive. Gaming, on the other hand, is at most addictive to 1% of people, and technology can be used to keep those 1% offline via various exclusion and detection programs. Unfortunately, this won't happen under your big government prohibition plan (which involves snooping in peoples' bank accounts and Internet usage histories).

The money laundering charge is equally ludicrous. This is easily controlled, and it was proven at the June 8 House Financial Services Committee meeting on the subject. Check out http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring060807.wvx and http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...ht060807.shtml. Your position is nothing but a red herring. It seems you simply don't like Internet poker, so you think it should be banned for everyone. Sorry, but that's not my definition of a small government conservative.

As you can't trust me to make my own decisions, I cannot trust you to represent me. As such, unless you change your mind, I will not vote for you or support your campaign in any way.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many members have such groups as the ACLU and MoveOn, and how successful have they been in the last 6-7 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are both very successful (at least MoveOn, not sure about ACLU) at what they do. MoveOn is to the left what FoF is to the right. They are NOT single issue advocacy groups, which is what the PPA is. We all know how successful the NRA, another single issue group, is with 4.3 million members and have been around forever. The PPA merits attention with almost 1 million members in just about 1 year.

[TheEngineer]

New Romney info from his own campmaign website, at http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press...lues_Committee :

Governor Mitt Romney Announces the National Faith and Values Steering Committee

Wednesday, Jun 13, 2007

Boston, MA - Today, Governor Mitt Romney announced the members of the Romney for President National Faith and Values Steering Committee, a coalition of supporters who will advise Governor Romney on matters of faith and values.

"The men and women of our National Steering Committee represent decades spent defending faith, religious expression and traditional values. I believe that our Party and our nation must stand for strong families, traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life. I am proud to be joined by these leaders in our campaign to change Washington," said Governor Romney.

The Romney For President National Faith And Values Steering Committee Vice-Chairs:

- Jim Anthony, South Carolina
- Rep. Dennis Baxley, Speaker Pro Tempore, Florida House of Representatives, Florida
- Dee Benedict, Christian Activist, South Carolina
- Jason Bonham, Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois
- Sen. Cameron Brown, Michigan State Senate, Michigan
- Nathan Burd, Director of International Program & Public Policy, Heartbeat International, Ohio
- Steve Chamberlain, Senior Pastor, Branford Evangelical Free Church, Connecticut
- Tom Coates, Vice President, Truth About Gambling, Iowa

From Mr. Coates, at www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=6E7A0341-624E-4A10-A60DF33C00DECE66 :

[ QUOTE ]
"Truth About Gambling" vice president Tom Coates says only 30 percent of Iowans have never entered a casino, but he's hoping the religious community rises up to build a tide against gambling. Coates says gambling has led to great "social ills." He says 19 percent of all bankruptcies in Iowa are caused by the weight of gambling debts. And Coates says the availability of gambling in Iowa has increased the number of Iowans who are hooked.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bump_Bailey]

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that F. Thompson was a federalist. He as well as Guiliani have stated that he supports the DEA's raids of medical marijuana facilities. The republican worth supporting if you care about you freedom to wager online is Dr. Paul.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To put it more shortly, this issue is really, really, really not on the radar of any viable candidate of either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this possible with an advocacy group (PPA) rapidly approaching 1 million members? Is there another advocacy group anywhere near this size that gets zero attention one way or another from all the major candidates? Why doesn't the PPA (glad you're on the board Engineer [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) demand a position from each of the candidates? I'd especially like to hear Obama's position as I think he may support us.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many members have such groups as the ACLU and MoveOn, and how successful have they been in the last 6-7 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are both very successful (at least MoveOn, not sure about ACLU) at what they do. MoveOn is to the left what FoF is to the right. They are NOT single issue advocacy groups, which is what the PPA is. We all know how successful the NRA, another single issue group, is with 4.3 million members and have been around forever. The PPA merits attention with almost 1 million members in just about 1 year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I'm only slightly to the right of MoveOn, but to say they have accomplished anything is a stretch. Ok, Lieberman had to run as an 'independent' but other than that they're many accomplishments have been ruffling the feathers of Fox News anchors. (Which is a fine thing, mind you...) Yes, they've 'raised awareness'. But Bush is still President, we're still in Iraq, the NSA is still listening, Alito is on the Supreme Court and so on.

I've state before, and I'll state it again, you are vastly overestimating the influence the PPA can exert on the *national* level. At least directly. (Convincing the big boys in banking or Casino management to get on our side would be a big step.) If poker is what you are basing your vote on, you simply have to vote dem for the reasons I've stated above.*

*I think that for the vast, vast majority of people here, basing your vote solely on poker is a travesty. We, as a country, have much bigger fish to fry...

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

*I think that for the vast, vast majority of people here, basing your vote solely on poker is a travesty. We, as a country, have much bigger fish to fry...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are of course quite right.

But.....

Close campaigns are moved and impacts made by many single issue groups. Look at the NRA and Right to Life groups in GOP politics, perhaps Environmental and Gay Rights on the Dem side.

IMO you can not take your single issue to a candidate as a 100% live or die issue and expect significant results, their voter pools are too diverse in too many areas.

However if you are well organized and can provide the valuable volunteer hours AND have a common sense reasonable rationale for your argument, you can be heard and taken seriously. In doing so all you are saying is I expect the candidate or party to look at all issues in a common sense rational manner.


Suggesting to a candidate that they come out for unrestricted poker in exchange for your vote or donation of time and or money is a looser. Offering x amount of organized volunteer hours for a reasonable hearing of a logical and balanced look at your issue is a winner.

IMPO I believe we have the potential through the PPA's future successful efforts to move this issue to a reasonable conclusion. If you expect the PPA in its second year to over come the work of an organized 10 year effort to get you back to pre-UIGEA days I think you need to re-set your goals.


D$D