Spoke with my Congressman yesterday

[Push_Fold]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Games of chance are strictly forbidden by Deuteronomy 7"


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, did you read Deuteronomy 7? I looked it up out of curiosity, and it has absolutely nothing to do with games of chance. It's about Israel wiping out all other nations in the promised land.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol I remember that episode too and I thought to myself those Harvard nerds have never read the Bible.

[Jay Cohen]

That was a refreshing and encouraging post until he got wishy washy on how he would vote. The problem is many of these pols are afraid to go on record against a bill like this. Heaven forbid he should make the same articulate argument to those who support the bill if he vited against it.

[LesJ]

He called back this afternoon and left me a message (I was in a meeting at work). He says that we were both wrong and that he has co-sponsored this and wants to talk to me some more about the issue. I obviously am not sure what to think about this. Hopefully we will be able to hook up sometime tomorrow.

Les

[Vollycat]

Ok wait...you're telling me that this guy says he is against the new law but is unsure he would vote against it...AND THEN remembers he IS a cosponser to the bill??? Yikes, I hate politicians. Everything is a deal. 'You sign my bill, I'll sign yours--so long as I still get the money.' Rediculous. Nothing is about the merits/policy. All about the money and deals.

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]


Umm, did you read Deuteronomy 7?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. I'm sorry you didn't get the reference.

[DING-DONG YO]

Wow, that is disheartening. I wonder what he means by "we're both wrong"? You're wrong now too?

Thanks for post OP, can't wait to hear the next update.

[Berge20]

I am not surprised it all that he may have been a co-sponsor and not known. Staff handle a vast majority of things in the process, so it is highly possible it was done at that level.

Edit - They just probably looked at past history on similar measures after being contacted by constituents in support of the Goodlatte/Leach bill and made a judgement.

However, I am very surprised that he called you back directly unless you know him personally (and not just met once or twice). Nothing personal, but given their schedules and the sheer volume of requests for personal answers to questions like this it isn't common. Props to Lewis.

[LesJ]

<<<I wonder what he means by "we're both wrong"? >>

Both he and I believed he was not a co-sponsor of the bill. I guess I simply looked over his name when I glanced at the list of co-sponsors a few weeks ago. Looking today, he is clearly listed.

[LesJ]

<<<However, I am very surprised that he called you back directly unless you know him personally (and not just met once or twice). >>>

You are correct. I know him personally, being one of a very small handful of people that was working with him before his 1994 Republican Primary battle ended up being a special election due to the death of 40 yr Democrat Incumbent William Natcher. I had alot of fun and l learned alot about politics running up and down the road with him that Spring.

I have maintained a great deal of respect for him thru the years and I sincerly hope I am not disappointed in how this turns out, although I fear I will be.

Les

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not surprised it all that he may have been a co-sponsor and not known. Staff handle a vast majority of things in the process, so it is highly possible it was done at that level.

Edit - They just probably looked at past history on similar measures after being contacted by constituents in support of the Goodlatte/Leach bill and made a judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge nailed it. Happens all the time.