Early House Report Card

[BluffTHIS!]

From that article on the proposed rule change coming up for a vote:

"Under the proposed rule, any senator who instituted a hold would be required within six days after raising it to submit a Notice of Intent to Object to Proceeding that would state their name, the date, the matter at hand and the reason for issuing the hold. Any hold lifted within six Senate working days after it is placed would not have to be disclosed."


So all that means is that holds will have to be publicly known in order not to expire after a few days. Sen. Kyl won't have any problem with being outed for blocking the bills we seek to have passed. And his one hold will still be sufficient to totally block consideration of same in absence of a filibuster breaking super-majority who wishes otherwise.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Right.

[ QUOTE ]
Any senator can place a secret hold on any bill. This hold is basically a threat to filibuster same if necessary, which means that if a bill doesn't have the support sufficient to break a filibuster (60+), the leadership won't waste the time holding committee hearings or having debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That far from a veto.

[ QUOTE ]
And please don't think that I believe the efforts are wasted in the house *as long as* one then has a politically realistic endgame plan which is using the language crafted in the house to try to get attached in conference committee to must pass legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barney Frank is a powerful committee chair. Obviously the idea is to get this through his committee and then get it attached to something. Sometimes you act like all politics is backroom deals. We do need to demonstrate political strength and support to get this attached to a good bill.

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe otherwise, and since there is a finite amount of time before the end of this Congressional session, then why aren't you making this effort and giving reports on the senate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don’t you? It would be more productive than posting unfounded negativity.

Sorry I’m doing enough to suit you. You do realize I’m one guy with a full-time job who also tries to get in plenty of poker hours, don’t you? Now I’m supposed to write reports on the Senate while making some effort to get legislation attached to must-pass legislation. How would I get legislation attached to anything? Hell, you’re probably wondering why I’m not publishing my own magazine and starting a cable network while I’m at it. Sorry pal…what I do is ask everyone here what we should do, then I post the consensus. That’s all. You want someone to do more……perhaps you should check your mirror before complaining that others aren’t doing enough.


[ QUOTE ]
*If* this bill passes the house, you won't have the months of lobbying/letter writing time, that you have expended here once that bill hits the senate. And since it is in fact likely you need 60+ support in the senate, it is all the more imperative to be working on the senate *now*.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I recommend YOU get to work.

Cheers.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe otherwise, and since there is a finite amount of time before the end of this Congressional session, then why aren't you making this effort and giving reports on the senate?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have an opinion on how we should proceed, why not post it, rather than putting down of efforts of those who are actually doing something?!?!? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I'd like to hear your plan. Unless your only plan is that one where we don't actually need votes...just a magical backroom deal.

[TheEngineer]

Didn't we just go through all this?

What the Real Focus Needs to Be This Year to Legalize/Help Poker

[BluffTHIS!]

Sure and you felt it necessary to litter that thread with multiple posts slicing and dicing everything I said. And you didn't prove your point at all because you ignore political reality which includes not only the grassroots activism at which you excel, but also the *effective* strategy to translate that grassroots activism into results, at which you do not excel.

You ignore the fact that I am on your side. I just feel it necessary to constantly reiterate the point, that has been agreed with by our forum insiders (i.e. knowledgeable about how the political process works in Congress), that the only way we get what we want is by attaching our language to another bill which is must pass. Stating that truism isn't negative at all. It is realistic.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
the *effective* strategy to translate that grassroots activism into results, at which you do not excel.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that I cannot attach "our language to another bill which is must pass", so I don't see why you feel the need to keep posting this as if I'm a failure for not making that happen.

My strategy has produced far more results than your strategy, which seems to consist of putting down the people who are doing the work.

If you have a way to get our language added to a must-pass bill, please enlighten us all.

[ QUOTE ]
You ignore the fact that I am on your side.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sentence is the only evidence I have of that.

[TheEngineer]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
And you didn't prove your point at all because you ignore political reality which includes not only the grassroots activism at which you excel, but also the *effective* strategy to translate that grassroots activism into results, at which you do not excel.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Situation:

Opponents of online gaming took ten years to pass UIGEA, all while they controlled Congress and the White House (Clinton was no friend of ours). They passed it by getting an up-or-down vote of the freestanding vote in the House, after winning the same vote in committee. They sneaked it through the Senate as UIGEA (not 'IUGEA') once they had this victory.

One year later, Rep. Frank introduced IGREA. He recently stated that he needed 50 cosponsors before he'd feel strong enough to put the bill up for a vote. After all,a loss here puts us back in square one.

Me: Rep. Frank says he needs more cosponsors, so we should help him out. Seems he knows the political process, and he's certainly been a fierce advocate for us. I start a thread requesting people to write and call good prospects. Additionally, I remind people every single week to write to their senators, as we'll have business there someday. The PPA does the same....they send emails to people in promising districts to ask them to immediately call Congress.

BluffThis!: BluffThis thinks it's all backroom so it must be so. Not only is it so, but it must be repeated ad nauseum, although there's nothing we can do except what we're already doing....generating political support for our position. So, he starts a thread saying Frank is wrong...Rep. Frank doesn't need 50 cosponsors for IGREA, and he (Frank) is a fool to think so. Bluff knows this because he heard it from an unnamed person here who "understands how things really work".

[ QUOTE ]
Sure and you felt it necessary to litter that thread with multiple posts slicing and dicing everything I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply replying to your posts to me.

[Uglyowl]

Back to point,no need to argue, lets save that for opponents.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
8/5 Update, by Region:

<font color="white">.....................</font> With Us<font color="white">.....</font>Neutral/Unknown<font color="white">.....</font>Against us
Northeast<font color="white">............</font>40%<font color="white">.....................</font>49%<font color="white">..................</font>11%
West<font color="white">...................</font>41%<font color="white">.....................</font>41%<font color="white">..................</font>18%
Midwest<font color="white">..............</font>25%<font color="white">.....................</font>45%<font color="white">..................</font>30%
Territories<font color="white">............</font>25%<font color="white">.....................</font>25%<font color="white">..................</font>50%
South<font color="white">..................</font>18%<font color="white">.....................</font>34%<font color="white">..................</font>47%

The Northeast has 83 reps (plus one vacant seat), the West has 97 reps (plus the other vacant seat), the Midwest has 100 reps, the territories (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) have four delegates, and the South has 154 reps.

As can be readily seen, the South is strongly against us. There are 284 non-Southern reps: 35% with us, 45% neutral/unknown, and only 20% against us. Of the 131 congressmen rated F, F*, or F-, 73 are Southern (56%).

[/ QUOTE ]