Counter Offensive, How we deter our politicians and keep our game - Page 8

NorthDakota · #71 10-25-2006, 10:25 AM

There are a lot of people missing the point... Missouri Laws mean nothing... Democrat/Republican/Libertarian Mean nothing...

The only thing that matters is having an effect... By Concentrating on a pivotal Swing State and focusing the energy of the poker playing community on that one Swing State if succussful shows the elected officials what they are up against...

It doesn't matter who the frickin candidate is... It's about uniting and presenting ourselves to the Nation...

faustusmedea · #72 10-25-2006, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jon Kyl was elected to the U.S. Senate from Arizona in 1994 and re-elected in 2000, after having served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves on the Senate’s Finance Committee, where he chairs the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, and on the Judiciary Committee, where he chairs the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security. As chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, he is one of six members of the Senate Republican Leadership.

This guy is toxic to online gaming. In 1997 he introduced S.474
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...p;summ2=m&
Ten years ago! And of course he didn't give up between then; actually seeing some of his legislation pass the Senate only to die in the House. This guy is public enemy #1 for online poker. Send money to Pederson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm down with the Mccaskill money, but I checked the link above. Holy crap!! If you go there, have a look at the co-sponsors. My beloved (sw) Senator Feinstein is on the list as is Lieberman, Reid, etc. Democrats are no more on our side than Republicans. I think the op's idea is good and have contributed. I STRONGLY recommend staying on point and not getting into the Demo-Repub argument. Neither will listen unless we show we can hurt their incumbency.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't stay on point, when you completely and totally miss the point. My post has nothing to do with Dem vs Rep. It is absolutely true that Democrats have supported anti-gambling legislation over the years. HOWEVER, it is equally true that Senator Kyl has been THE leading crusader in the senate against online gaming. Remove Kyl and you remove a powerful zealot against our game. While its certainly possible a Dem might step up and craft legislation, so far all of these bills have been Republican originated with Democrat co-sponsor. Its politics and there will always be backscratching and gambling doesn't have a lot of friends anywhere.

Back to the message; Kyl is losing steam in his fight. One of the things to remember about Kyl is with Frist retiring, he moves up the seniority rankings consolidating and increasing his power in the Senate. Moreover, if he is there, getting a carve-out is going to be double tough. Removing this one guy would be an important step forward.

NorthDakota · #73 10-25-2006, 11:01 AM

I'd love to see Kyl lose... I hear ya clucking... But there is no reason to divide and be conquered... The Missouri race is more of a toss up and that is the point... It's a Key Swing State...

The Poker Community is nowhere near united enough to tackle Arizona and Missouri... Maybe in the Future but right now all energy should be targeted in one direction and the Missouri race is closer...

And to anyone debating Republican or Democrat at this time... That is a Division in our ranks and it will doom us... This effort has to remain non partisan...

addictontilt · #74 10-25-2006, 11:06 AM

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post7785392

Need suggestions in this thread, we are starting to unite and come up with ideas of how to fund, please help.... You're right, filtering through parties, will cost us

Wake up CALL · #75 10-25-2006, 11:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of people missing the point... Missouri Laws mean nothing... Democrat/Republican/Libertarian Mean nothing...

The only thing that matters is having an effect... By Concentrating on a pivotal Swing State and focusing the energy of the poker playing community on that one Swing State if succussful shows the elected officials what they are up against...

It doesn't matter who the frickin candidate is... It's about uniting and presenting ourselves to the Nation...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your points, herein lies the trouble. How is anyone going to either know or believe (including the winning candidate) that online poker players made any difference at all in a coin-flip situation? Can anyone here spell V A R I A N C E ? If you only want to make a point that we are a powerful group you need to make a public stand in a not so close race and attempt to turn a probable loser into a winner to get the point across. In other words if the candidate we choose to support loses the close race does that mean we had no effect? Likewise if they win it means the same, not much at all.

Please look at this realistically from the perspective of a poker player and it is easy to see we may get drawn out on and go BUSTO, win or lose.

faustusmedea · #76 10-25-2006, 11:08 AM

Again, to the point. The original post seeks to point out a close Senate race which could swing the balance to the Dems. Could happen, might not. Nevertheless, even if the Senate comes under Democratic control and John Kyl is still in his seat; he will continue to work behind the scenes to solidify and consolidate the gains he made this year in fighting online gaming. You don't work on an issue for your entire senate career and then abandon it.

If the Rebuplicans maintain control in the Senate, this guy will be even more dangerous because his rank ensures powerful committee chairmanships; a path to making sure gaming is part of the agenda.

So while I agree a Democratic senate would likely be less enthusiastic about gambling legislation, a senate without John Kyl would be dramatically less enthusiastic about gaming legislation.

S474
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...p;summ2=m&
S627
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...p;summ2=m&
S692
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.00692:

Insp. Clue!So? · #77 10-25-2006, 11:53 AM

This war will not end with one Senate election, or three, or whatever. There is no reason to "concentrate" that which can be replicated nationwide. You have the power to stimulate millions of young voters with a very powerful message...the theft of their freedoms by hacks and bluenoses of whatever political stripe...and message that has the added benefit of being the truth.

Remember, much of the impetus behind the 1776 revolution was anger over unfair taxes on tobacco. It took a nasty war to galvanize masses of youth in the 60s, but other, seemingly lesser issues can also set of poitical firestorms.

The real point is, target some money if you like at this or that vulnerable candidate but recognize that all these excellent ideas need to be deployed and used to their fullest, and in the broadest possible measure. There is a critical mass of 23 million players, and millions more just attaining political adulthood. That's the makings of a personal liberty revolution and if poker is the catalyst then all the better.

NorthDakota · #78 10-25-2006, 12:21 PM

Uncle... I don't care if Kyl is the Target... I would happily support Kyl's opponent... But Somehow Someway... Voices have to be united for effect...

23 Million Players is a great number to start with... But 9 million of those are republicans... 9 million are democrats... 4 Million are Libertarians and 1 Million are for Jean Luc Pacard...

Of the 23 Million Players... 3 million are mad but don't know where to turn and 19 million are either unaware or oh welling it away and saying it was fun while it lasted and 1 Million are wondering how come the moon seems to follow them at night...

You can't unite all of these people by confusing the issue... Have you ever tried to decide what Restaurant to take the family... One Kid wants McDonalds... The other kid want's Taco Bell... The Wife wants Seafood and you Buffalo Wings... Finally you just say the heck with it because no concessions are made and it's TV Dinners at home...

The reason people are getting excited about this idea was because it's possible if enough people got behind it... They could make a difference in a close race... In a Close Election where National Power is being decided... The Movement(if that's what you call it) is just getting started... There isn't enough right now to make a difference nationwide... One State seems plausible but it will never happen if the few numbers we have right now can't decide... Republican or Democrat... Arizona or Missouri...

Put the devisive issues behind you and focus on the issues that can unite... Poker and Freedom of Choice...

I now believe the issue is hopeless because of the unscientific Poll of Posters on this website... The 20 People posting and reading this website can't come to a consensus...

Uncle!!!

faustusmedea · #79 10-25-2006, 02:24 PM

Well....

If you want to take a macro approach, then I favor breaking the system completely. Until we have public financing of campaigns (true reform), our government belongs to funded groups. While at first this might seem logical in a capitalistic society, what has happened is so much of the process revolves around chasing the money, not a lot of real work gets done. In the above race, the two candidates will end up spending over 20 million dollars! What job is so important its worth buying for $20M?

Uglyowl · #80 10-25-2006, 03:24 PM

Intersting development in this race

Limbaugh Says Fox Was Acting
Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill (D) "thought she had a winner when actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, endorsed her in an emotionally powerful commercial," according to the Kansas City Star.

"Then Rush Limbaugh jumped feet first into the petri dish, accusing Fox of 'exaggerating the effects of the disease.'"

My note: He later apoligized after his listeners took him to task