Will the Reid-Romney tax issue cloud the prospects for support of Reid-Kyl ?

[DonkeyQuixote]

The cloud Harry Reid has generated, with the "Romney Taxes " allegations, has gotten pretty acrid. I think it was the RNC chair who called Reid a "dirty liar" this morning on CNN.

I am NOT considering whether it is right, wrong, dirty or even an effective issue or whether Romney can/will release more years' tax filings.

Will the Reid campaign attack on "taxes" prevent sufficient Republican support of Reid's prized online poker legislation ?

I think it may, and accordingly lower my estimate of bill passage from 50% down to about 35%, because:

1. If Romney wins in November, he will not cotton to anything stamped Reid. Senate Republicans would have to live with him after January 20, not an easy sell to cross him as the incoming President.

2. If Romney loses in November, because this is his version of Eagleton's Psychiatric therapy, then one meaningful factor to watch will be the reshuffled Senate make-up.

3. Dean Heller, and Jon Kyl, really will matter to any outcome in the lame duck. Maybe this better be called the Kyl - Reid bill going forward ?

Interested in how this line of attack by Reid might affect efforts to get bi-partisan support for a poker bill bearing his name, not general election discussions or rants about Harry or Romney.

[LetsGambool]

Im glad someone started this thread, I was having the same thoughts this weekend. Republican Senators supporting Reid's pet project seems pretty unlikely until this tax flap is solved.

I dont necessarily think this will be relevant come the lame duck, but it can't help.

[sofocused978]

Reid def hasn't made many friends on the other side of the aisle this past week. Not like R's ever liked the guy anyway.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Im glad someone started this thread, I was having the same thoughts this weekend. Republican Senators supporting Reid's pet project seems pretty unlikely until this tax flap is solved.

I dont necessarily think this will be relevant come the lame duck, but it can't help.

I think it merits a thread, as a siginficant story with respect to bi-partisan efforts to pass a "Reid" bill.

(Interestingly, even Senator Graham, in condemning Reid, did NOT say that Romney had paid taxes or that the substance of the charge was false, instead saying Reid was lying about "knowing" what he alleged:

"What he did on the floor of the Senate is so out of bounds. I think he's lying about his statement, of knowing something about Romney," Graham said on CNN's "State of the Union".)

In a poker context, Graham believes that Reid is bluffing, but apparently does not have a hand strong enough to call by himself on the underlying issue of Romney's taxes.

There are only two players in the hand Harry is playing, and one of them is running for President. Unfortunately, bad blood may spill over into another hand, the passage of poker legislation.

[Grasshopp3r]

Perhaps Reid is ok with torpedoing a Federal bill so that Nevada can move forward on its own. That would certainly explain why a Federal bill has not been done thus far.

Remember that Reid is no stranger to using his position to do private deals. Nevada is littered with Reid projects that were enabled through Congress.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by Grasshopp3r

Perhaps Reid is ok with torpedoing a Federal bill so that Nevada can move forward on its own. That would certainly explain why a Federal bill has not been done thus far.

Remember that Reid is no stranger to using his position to do private deals. Nevada is littered with Reid projects that were enabled through Congress.

(You mean the Harry Reid Hi-Tech Park, for example ?)

I disagree with your read on Reid on this one. I don't think he is trying to torpedo a federal bill in favor of Nevada moving on its own on a State-by-State basis.

I think Nevada interests really want a federal bill that blesses the State as a regulator and enables Nevada licnesees to move ahead of the potential pack. The theme resonates here pretty universally.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by Grasshopp3r

Perhaps Reid is ok with torpedoing a Federal bill so that Nevada can move forward on its own. That would certainly explain why a Federal bill has not been done thus far.

Remember that Reid is no stranger to using his position to do private deals. Nevada is littered with Reid projects that were enabled through Congress.

If I thought the Nevada casinos would be OK with that, Id think what you describe and pissing on Heller in the process would be the most likely thing happening. I think his backers really want a Federal bill though. Its just not as high priority for Harry as keeping majority leader status. Im sure if he accidentally torpedos i-poker but weakens Romney enough to hold 50 votes in the Senate, he'd live with that trade.

[As armas]

I don't think it will. The consequences of doing nothing at the federal level are simply too much for the republicans. I don't see them deciding to let the states do whatever they want with internet gaming just to throw the middle finger at Reid.

A more interesting question is who has the most to lose by the feds doing nothing. The R's really don't want a situation where lots of states have decided to increase revenue by offering online slots, blackjack, roulette, along with poker. It would be a online gaming free for all. At that point it would be too late to reverse course, and they know it. That free for all however is also a big threat to Vegas casinos. It becomes less attractive to fly to Vegas when you can play blackjack online via a video link to a real dealer.

[ScreaminAsian]

Obama and Romney are playing this hand; Reid is a heckler who happens to be making some really salient points.

[buddyspal]

The casinos want ipoker, the gov., the legaslature and the economic development board want ipoker. If dirty harry screws them he and his kid will never win another election in nv. Our gaming control board has passed everything we are ready to go.Dirty harry will not see another dime from the casinos if he botches this.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by As armas

I don't think it will. The consequences of doing nothing at the federal level are simply too much for the republicans. I don't see them deciding to let the states do whatever they want with internet gaming just to throw the middle finger at Reid.

A more interesting question is who has the most to lose by the feds doing nothing. The R's really don't want a situation where lots of states have decided to increase revenue by offering online slots, blackjack, roulette, along with poker. It would be a online gaming free for all. At that point it would be too late to reverse course, and they know it. That free for all however is also a big threat to Vegas casinos. It becomes less attractive to fly to Vegas when you can play blackjack online via a video link to a real dealer.

For the most part, Republicans who are socially conservative are also strongly in favor of States rights, even a guy like Chad Hills who isn't a politician viewed the issue of internet gambling being declared a State issue by POTUS as a victory.

The one area where the extreme left wing and the extreme right wing differ (though both against online gambling) is that the Democrats against online gambling view it as the Federal government's job to save every child from it's danger, the Republicans against online gambling are fine letting the State make that decision, since for the most part they come from States that would vote against it.

Kyl is fairly unique, a Republican somewhat against online gambling from a State that has already sold out on the issue of gambling to the Tribes, whose common enemy with Reid's commercial casinos is State lotteries.

So it wouldn't be viewed as something to lose for online gambling to remain a State decision by most social conservative republicans, no more than getting Roe v Wade or ACA overturned and having those issues decided at the State level would be, in fact, any time an issue can be kept/returned to the State level it would be considered by them a victory.

[uke_master]

I don't think this past week or two is particularly significant. Tensions in the senate have been acrimonious for ages, and it is a given that during the election season - which still has a long way to come - things will become even more hyperpartisan electioneering. It isn't like harry reid has tonnes of buddies in the republican senate at the best of times.

The whole point of a lame duck is that it gives people some opportunity to set the previous months aside and pass some bills that don't normally get considered during the rest of the session. That doesn't mean it will necessarily work, but pointing out a few peaks in the hyperpartisan election season doesn't negate the argument for doing this in the lame duck.

[LastLife]

Originally Posted by buddyspal

The casinos want ipoker, the gov., the legaslature and the economic development board want ipoker. If dirty harry screws them he and his kid will never win another election in nv. Our gaming control board has passed everything we are ready to go.Dirty harry will not see another dime from the casinos if he botches this.

He was already considering retiring before the 2010 election. I doubt he runs again in 2016.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by uke_master

I don't think this past week or two is particularly significant. Tensions in the senate have been acrimonious for ages, and it is a given that during the election season - which still has a long way to come - things will become even more hyperpartisan electioneering. It isn't like harry reid has tonnes of buddies in the republican senate at the best of times.

The whole point of a lame duck is that it gives people some opportunity to set the previous months aside and pass some bills that don't normally get considered during the rest of the session. That doesn't mean it will necessarily work, but pointing out a few peaks in the hyperpartisan election season doesn't negate the argument for doing this in the lame duck.

Yeah, agreed with all of this with the caveat that if he wants to pass this in the lame duck he needs to start laying the groundwork to get some R's on board now. That's, on the margin, harder than if he wasn't calling out Romney.

Hopefully just a news cycle or two and it will fade to background noise, but definitely bears watching IMO.

[Grasshopp3r]

Google Harvey Whittemore and Reid, which should get you started.

Also, the hook to come to Vegas will be live tournaments, accomodations, promos, etc. The same argument about splitting the gambooling pool was made when the Indian Gaming Act was ushered through Congress; the effect of Indian Gaming was to expand the pool of gamboolers, not split the pie. I see ipoker in the same way.