Hi Everyone:

I'm posting this thread here and TheEngineer has posted a similar thread on the Poker Legislation Forum. Due to the importance that we at 2+2 feel it has, we want this to appear in both places. The following statement, located

here, is repeated below.

Best wishes,
Mason


Poker Players Alliance Statement on I. Nelson Rose’s Attacks on Rep. Joe Barton

I. Nelson Rose, a law professor with expertise on gaming law, has chosen to attack online poker supporter Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). These attacks were made on CalvinAyre.comon October 21 st (listenhere), on OnTilt Radio on December 5 th, and in a recent column inPoker Player Magazine (here). The attacks center not on issues of the legislation itself, or even of poker-related issues. Rather, they focus on Rep. Barton’s politics and on Rose’sapparent disagreement with them. This is unfortunate and, in the opinion of the Poker Players Alliance, very misguided.

A key component of PPA’s strategy on Capitol Hill has been to garner support from bothsides of the aisle. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act passed the House in2006 (as HR 4411, a freestanding bill at the time) by a margin of 317-93. As majorities of House Democrats and Republicans alike were in favor of this bill, it has always beenclear that ultimate victory will require bipartisan support. Additionally, as manylawmakers from that era are still in Congress, it is equally clear that a win will require past “nays” to become “yays”. The poker community celebrates when this occurs.

It is disappointing that Rose has apparently chosen to insert his personal politics into our fight. Rep. Barton believes in our right to play. He was especially well-spoken and passionate in defense of our game at the hearing on online poker held by the HouseSubcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade on October 25th. He is a greatchampion for the cause and has earned the support of the poker community.

It is the opinion of the Poker Players Alliance that Professor Rose should keep his political attacks on Rep. Barton separate from activities where he is claiming to speak for the poker community.

I included a commentary on Rose's attacks of Rep. Barton in today's PPA weekly member update. It's also available for viewing online at http://theppa.org/newsletters/2011/1...-more-12202011:



We at PPA wish everyone in the poker community a healthy and happy holiday season. Thank you all for your continued support!

With poker legislation pending in the House and with the poker issue continuing to gain momentum nationwide, it is clear that 2012 will be a year of great opportunity for us. It will also be a year of challenges. That is why it is important for all of us to participate in this fight. I ask that everyone keep active in 2012 to ensure that we are heard on Capitol Hill. We can win this if we all take a stand for our rights!

To win this fight, it is vitally important for all of us to remain unified and to speak with one voice, one goal, and one mission. This is one reason PPA has been so vigilant in reaching out to the poker community with what I believe to be the most open communication of any group of our size. We need the poker community to understand what PPA is doing and why, and we need to ensure that we hear and act on the concerns of the poker community. After all, PPA is not a “they”. It is our shared fight as poker players and enthusiasts. You can expect PPA to keep this up in 2012 and beyond.

I look forward to the New Year and to the poker community continuing to make itself heard on Capitol Hill and across the country!


Speaking of unity, I. Nelson Rose, a law professor with expertise on gaming law, has chosen to attack online poker supporter Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). These attacks were made on CalvinAyre.com on October 21st (listen here), on OnTilt Radio on December 5th, and in a recent column in Poker Player Newspaper (here). The attacks center not on issues of the legislation itself, or even of poker-related issues. Rather, they focus on Rep. Barton’s politics and on Rose’s apparent disagreement with them. This is unfortunate and, in my opinion, very misguided. It is sad that Rose chose to insert his personal politics into our fight.

A key component of PPA’s legislative strategy has been to earn the support of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act passed the House in 2006 as HR 4411, a freestanding bill at the time, by a margin of 317-93. It had the support of majorities of House Democrats and Republicans alike. As we have opponents on both sides of the aisle, it is clear that we need bipartisan support for our fight. Additionally, as many elected representatives from that era remain in Congress, it is equally clear that victory requires past “nays” to become “yays”. The poker community celebrates when this occurs. I know I do, and I know you all do as well!

Rep. Barton believes in our right to play. He was especially well-spoken and passionate in defense of our game at the hearing on online poker held by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade on October 25th. He is a great champion for the cause and has earned the support of the poker community.

I believe Professor Rose should keep his attacks on Rep. Barton separate from activities where he is claiming to speak for the poker community. He ought not bring his personal politics into our fight.


PPA comes before poker media to take on the tough questions as often as possible. I hope you will find these interesting and informative.

Upcoming appearances:

• Webcast: “Poker Advocacy with Rich Muny” airs live each Monday at 8:30 PM EST on OnTilt Radio. My guest next week will be PPA Board Member & Litigation Support Network Director Patrick Fleming.

Recent appearances:

• Webcast: “Poker Advocacy with Rich Muny,” with guests poker player, author, and publisher Tri Nguyen and PPA California State Director Steve Miller (12/19)
• Website: “Poker Advocacy with Rich Muny”

Again, I thank you for your continued support and for allowing me this tremendous opportunity to represent you in this fight!

Proud to play,

Rich Muny
playerrelations@theppa.org

Every Rose has it's thorn.

Edit: Just read the article, dear god that guy is mad. He really dislikes Rep. Barton and basically says he is stupid.

I just noticed that Rose is speaking at this conference in Las Vegas in a couple of weeks:

http://www.nclgs.org/brochure.html

This is from Rose's website:

* January 6-8, 2012 - National Council of Legislators from Gaming States Winter Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. NCLGS. "Internet Gaming Legislation: Is Doing Nothing a Worse Case Scenario?" 9:45 am Jan. 8, 2011.

So my question is why is he speaking here and will we get another attack on Congressman Barton?

Best wishes,
mason

Here's a prefilled tweet to Poker Player Newspaper on the Rose article: http://clicktotweet.com/dH7Or

Their Facebook page is at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-...=wall&filter=1.

Also, let's all be sure to rate the article.

It is interesting to see how a vendetta against one person can affect many people unintentionally.

Whatcha know, politics is stupid.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with Nelson. That being said, Barton is one of the few poker friends we have in Congress.

BTW did Barton actually say this -wind turbines may “slow down the wind". Someone check his IQ.

It looks like I. Nelson has this thing pegged as we continue to get fleeced by crooks with no good reason to think a federal bill is passing anytime soon. I can't wait until next year when we're all here casting our one-times and saying, "Now THIS is gonna be the year we get online poker." *yawn*

O RLY?

Same thing I was going to do lol.

Rep. Joe Barton is an abject idiot, a man who apologized *to* BP, for the fact the government was seeking to hold BP to account for the worst oil spill environmental disaster in U.S. history. Joe Barton has voted against continuing the Voting Rights Act, and is okay with Jim Crow laws. Joe Barton flat out denies the existence of climate change.

If Joe Barton is poker's best friend in Congress, then poker needs better friends in Congress. Unless the PPA is sitting on it's own personal 200 million barrel oil reserve, Joe Barton's not going to get legalized poker across the finish line.

We all want legalized and safe online poker, but to ignore the totality of a congressman's horrible record in most other things, just because they say they'll support an issue that is absolutely nowhere near the top of what is wrong in the U.S. right now, is shortsighted. Furthermore, Joe Barton's been about a tangibly helpful as Al D'Amato in actually getting this anywhere forward.

I'd happily have to wait till 2014 for legalized PokerStars in the U.S. if it meant that douchebags like Joe Barton were retired out of power as a part of that.

/rantoff

So basically, we need to check our allies for ideological purity before they can be on our side? I didn't realize that we had such a surplus of friends that we could afford to be this picky. Yay, us!

I don't vote i the guy's district. He likes my hobby. Good for all of us. I'll be against him on his stances I don't like when those come to a vote. I can say "Support Joe B's poker bill" all I want without supporting the rest of his agenda, right? I don't think he's checking the purity of my ideology before letting me on the bandwagon. We're not trading him anything for this, right? He's supporting a pro-poker bill for his own reasons. He isn't doing it in trade for all of us backing (insert cause here). If he's on our side on this, good on him. No need for poker folk to come out of the woodwork and slam the guy. Do that during your Save the Whales meetings, or whatever. I'm all for fighting dirty in politics. It just seems strange to do so while working on your issue and doing vs. people who are on your side. Maybe I just don't get it.

Not to make this thread overly political but how are poker, oil spills, the voting rights act, and jim crow laws even related in the slightest?

Unless you live in TX his history should be completely irrelevant, as he now is clearly on the side of poker players.

I mean we have Barney Frank on our side and he is the housing markets best friend amirite?

You're right, there's "no need for poker folk to come out of the woodwork and slam the guy," just there's "no need for poker folk to come out of the woodwork" just to slam Nelson, who generally knows what he's actually talking about. Which was pretty much my point. And I did, in fact, used to live in Barton's district (though not in many years). I'll step away, because I really had no intent to politard the thread, carry on.

He bolded what was originally incorrectly posted, which was "it's." I thought he corrected it to the improper spelling too, but then I read the original post lol.

Anyways.....Barton may be dumb/smart/whatever, but when you have few allies then you must use them for your cause. I agree with the PPA that Barton has to separate his dislike for the guy and welcome his support on the poker issue.

My dislike of Barney Frank is probably equal to your dislike of Barton, yet I welcome Frank's support of Internet poker. Plus, if Barton can bring along other former anti-Internet poker members of Congress that's even better.

You need to understand that for us to get a good bill through Congress, bi-partisan support is needed, or else it won't happen. So while if you were to live in Barton's district and you voted against him for other reasons, I would certainly see nothing wrong with that. But given that Congressman Barton is there, you should be happy that he has taken up this cause.

MM

It seems to me that there's a little more going on here. Rose's article appeared in the Poker Player Newspaper which would benefit greatly from an improved environment concerning legalized Internet poker and which should much appreciate the work that Congressman Barton is currently doing in this area. So the question needs to be asked, why would they even let something like this run in their magazine?

My guess is that they just assume that Rose is a good knowledgeable writer and therefore they just publish what he sends in, and normally that would be fine. In fact, for our 2+2 Internet Magazine this is the approach we take with some of our regular writers. But perhaps now the editors of Poker Player Newspaper will become more aware of exactly what Rose writes and give it a more thorough review before they publish something like this again.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason,

It seems reasonable for a newspaper to publish opinion articles of interest to its readers that do not always reflect the opinion of the editors.

Obviously I disagree with him, but I don't think that people who hold differing views to mine should be unable to have their views aired.

I also suspect that Poker Player Newspaper is not overflowing with content, and if someone were to write a well argued article on the topic, they would probably publish that too.

True. Under Rose's mindset, I suspect some would oppose many supportive lawmakers, columnists, and others from both sides of the aisle.

If the poker community worked this way, lawmakers considering supporting poker would have to worry about attacks from some in the poker community based on that support. After all. it's not like Rose was attacking Rep. Barton all along and simply refused to stop when Barton started supporting us. Rather, Rose attacked Barton because he supports our right to play!

Professor Rose should perhaps stick to legal analysis and not jump into politics. It's like he just figured out how Washington works or something and is blown away by it. Barton is trying to pass a poker bill now and is most certainly genuine. If he weren't, I wouldn't have been standing on the Capitol lawn last summer watching him give a rousing speech supporting the game and he wouldn't be sticking his neck out on an issue politically that most others haven't touched. The factors Professor Rose states in support of his position actually lend credence to what Barton has done for the pro-poker movement in bucking the trend, accepting the logic of the argument and trying to pro-actively change the law.

Professor Rose, much respect, but in the words of a famous NFL analyst:

The fight is tough for many reasons, as evidenced by the 3-1 House vote in favor of HR 4411, the bill that became UIGEA. So yes, it's a tough fight. As the alternative is to quit, I'm glad we're here fighting the fight for our rights, and I'm pleased Rep. Barton is supporting our rights as well.

Hi Josem:

While I certainly agree with you that publications like Poker Player Newspaper have the right to publish opinion pieces, I do question this article. In my opinion, it's not an opinion piece, but simply a personal attack on a Congressman who has different political views of the author.

If for example Rose would have talked about flaws in the proposed Barton Bill which are negative in scope relative to Internet poker, then Poker Player Newspaper would be providing a service to its readers. This would be true even if there are many who would disagree with what was written. But I see nothing like this.

Instead, we are told that Barton's history was to vote against Internet poker, that he's "a not very smart, good ol’ boy," and that he's supporting supporting poker to get

Do you read it differently? If that's the case, perhaps you can explain where I might be going off track.

Best wishes,
Mason

I think reporting on the news that Rose said that is fine. As for the article itself, it's quite thin, which is quite surprising from a legal scholar such as Professor Rose. His reasoning is nebulous at best and anyone with understanding of how the Hill works should get why you can't just cite to past votes in order to nail down views of congressional voters. Also, his citation to the Christian approval rating as evidence of Barton's beliefs is not only ridiculous, it's irresponsible. There's no doubt in my mind Professor Rose is smart enough to realize why that's a weak assertion to make on that evidence. If that were written by an anonymous author, I'd likely be criticizing him for being some bored writer with no knowledge of politics, government or how Washington works who needed something to beat a deadline with.

Hey guys, let's alienate I. Nelson Rose -- one of the most respected and distinguished supporters of our cause! That sounds like a great idea.

I believe Mr. Rose has earned the right to share his own personal opinions on whatever he chooses (especially when it relates to gaming law), and honestly, perhaps the PPA could learn a thing or two about who it allows lead its causes. It's one thing to ignore a politician's history and various viewpoints as a supporter of our cause, but it is another to ignore a politician's history and various viewpoints and endorse him as a LEADER of our cause.

Taking a step back, I have no problem with Joe Barton speaking on the right to explicitly leagalize and regulate online poker. I understand Rose's beef, but agree with the PPA's overall sentiment that it is better to have a large tent right now. However, starting multiple threads calling Rose out and saturating his column with endless diatribes... that just isn't a good idea. Dissent is OK. (And it's OK to leave a comment arguing against him, but 13? Are you kidding? By the way, I think TheEngineer does great and unappreciated work. But this is just over the top.)

On a different but related note (sharing Rose's sentiment, but focusing it on another individual), I have my doubts over whether Sen. Alfonse D'Amato is the best person to lead the PPA (well the best figurehead anyway, since Pappas undoubtedly does the heavy lifting). What did D'Amato receive -- something like $240,000 from Fannie and Freddie Mac? Ignoring the validity of accepting those donations, for the perception alone that he may bend his influence to wherever the donations are coming from, he should not be leading our cause. Once again, supporting is fine, but leading... we should hold the leaders of our cause to higher standards.

Worth disclosing for the record: I have spoken with Nelson multiple times for both my current and past jobs. I have nothing bad to say about the guy professionally, except that sometimes he's a little bland when discussing all the legal particulars, but hey, that's to be expected.

I've also talked with D'Amato since he took the PPA position and he does seem like a bright guy and an ally who could help the cause in D.C. But like I said, perception should count for something.