Wow the host of that morning show is a complete uneducated dumbass.

Pawlenty has a brand-new Twitter account at http://twitter.com/Pawlenty (it's really him -- see http://www.timpawlenty.com ). Let's welcome him to Twitter!

With all the Internet freedom supporters on Twitter, I believe we can make this viral. So, let's all send Pawlenty tweets with our opinion of this action.

Some examples:

PLZ send Gov. Tim Pawlenty (at Pawlenty) a tweet expressing outrage over his Internet censorship plans http://******/uNvv PLZ RT! #liberty

@Pawlenty I object to your attempt to censor the Internet. PLZ reconsider. I'll keep your actions in mind in '12 http://******/uNvv

(links are to my blog....feel free to use, or substitute with a different article)

What did he say about it?

Short answer, he's law abiding, apparently poker is illegal in this state, therefore it should be dealt with.

The efforts of John Willems, director of Minnesota ’s Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division may cause a bad beat on the entire Minnesota poker community. Minnesota currently has high unemployment numbers, foreclosures, swine flu outbreaks, and a multi-billion dollar debt and yet Willems insists that the poker community needs to be shut down. Minnesota government officials should instead look to proactive solutions like regulation that could provide sorely needed funds.

Willems and his division efforts are both ineffective and shortsighted in their crusade against online poker. In Kentucky , Governor Steve Beasher attempted to implement legislation that would prohibit online gambling similar to the proposed efforts in Minnesota . Beasher renounced online poker sites alleging that they are predatory. His efforts were cut short when the Kentucky Court of Appeals blocked the state from overtaking the domain names of the online gambling sites. The actions taken to combat online gambling from Beasher have in fact created a backlash against the once popular governor. During his reelection bid the governor won by a wide margin of 59% to 41%. However, according to WHAS11/SurveyUSA, Steve Beasher’s approval rating is down to 48% with a disapproval rating of 46%. Surely the poker issue isn’t the only reason for the downslide, but it certainly is a factor.

We can gain significant insight from the Beasher example. For starters there is minimal legal precedent for prohibiting online gambling from a legal perspective. Internet law is an evolving judicial process and the fact that Minnesota is basing their prohibition based on a 1961 precedent is ludicrous. However, there is now a precedent, which conveys that ones efforts to hinder online poker play can be detrimental to a political career as illustrated through Beasher. Lastly, this process has shown how shortsighted and naïve many of our elected official are concerning online poker. Our country faces trillions of dollars in debt and we have an online community that will fully support regulation and willingly contribute billions of dollars in revenue to our government. There is an old saying in politics that “it might be more worthwhile if we stopped wringing our hands and started ringing our congressmen.” It is very concerning that officials across the country have failed to even understand the issue from another perspective as shown by leaders like Beasher. Their inability to understand complex issues from many viewpoints is a main contributing factor to the woes of our country.

I don't know if it's appropriate to blame live rooms like CP for this until it is known that they are actually in favor of it. It could very easily just be a moral thing the governor is pushing for himself. It's possible they are pushing it and/or support it too. But they were trying this in Kentucky too where they don't even have live casinos so it's not like they have to have some other motivation besides, "we just think it's really evil."

I like these bullet-points better and I think I would even prefer that letter to the politicians (even in bullet form). It's quick and to the point and doesn't sidetrack the issue by possibly coming off as pushing another agenda such as trying to get it regulated.

These guys get a lot of letters from irate constituents for pretty much everything from gambling laws to taxes to the cost of pancakes at IHOP, etc. I really doubt they read them all.

Anyway, I think this short and quick strategy where you are getting your point across and not getting side-tracked on stuff like, "I make my living this way and you are denying me my livelihood" or other side-rants that don't help.

The part about reiterating that 'poker is a game of skill and not illegal' is appropriate. One could also say that even the recent UIGEA regulations do not make it illegal to play internet poker.

Monitor this in real-time at http://tweetgrid.com/grid?l=1&q1=pawlenty&q2=poker

In Kentucky, Gov. Beshear ran on a casino legalization platform. He said his efforts regarding online poker and gaming were to protect horse racing and the lottery from competition.

Is the implication that anyone playing limit HE online is losing money?
I should have quoted the message I was responding to... namely that this legislation is a good thing for those still playing limit online HE.

I'm going to be devil's advocate a little bit here and maybe irritate some folks.

I don't really think religious/moral motivations are a major reason that states like KY and MN try to limit online poker, although those advocacy groups will of course get behind these efforts. I think there are some legitimate concerns that the industry needs to keep under control by self-policing so that legislators don't do it for them. Other states already have actual laws specifically against playing online poker, but haven't tried to implement Internet censorship to enforce the laws. Most states have some restrictions on gambling, but haven't revised old laws to either cover or exclude online poker, which has only been hugely popular for about 5 or 6 years now.

I think organizations like the PPA, working with poker sites themselves, need to continue working to police the industry through non-legislative means to control the legitimate downside that provokes many of these legislative efforts. There is a lot of good work being done now to prevent minors playing, to give problem gamblers options to limit themselves, provide resources for people who get in trouble, and educate players that without proper skillsets, poker is gambling and they will lose. I estimate that less than 10% of online players learn the skills to earn money. The rest either lose a sensible amount for entertainment expense, perhaps while they work on improving, or they chase success that they aren't skilled enough to achieve, with money they can't afford to lose. I've seen some of this irresponsible behavior with people close to me, and it isn't uncommon. Those are the people that prompt legislative intervention. It only takes a few disaster stories for some elected official to take up the cause and make political hay out of it.

We have to accept the real fact that easy in-home access to online poker, combined with the wild popularity of pro events on TV, does cause some people to overextend themselves and lose money they cannot afford to lose. Yes, I agree that government shouldn't be a nanny and protect us from ourselves, but we all know that in the U.S. they always try to. We have to live in the real world.

So one way to combat these legislative intrusions is to continue enhancing the self-policing against the real dangers of easy access to online gambling.

Just some thoughts, you can blast me now.

I wrote my congressman this morning with the PPA form letter. His response FWIW (within 4 hours)

--------------------------------
Thank you for contacting me regarding proposed online poker legislation, specifically HR 2046.
HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, was introduced in April of this year. This bill has been referred to the House Committees on Financial Services and Energy and Commerce where it awaits further action.
As you know, HR 2046 amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibitions against interstate gambling. Given that this bill was recently introduced, I have not had the opportunity to review its details.
That said, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind such this legislation come before me during the 110th Congress. Again thank you for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you on other matters of concern or interest.


Sincerely,

Buck McKeon
Member of Congress
---------------------------

Meh

For what it's worth here is an e-mail reply from Canterbury concerning their involvement in what is motivating the states actions:

XXXXX,
Thanks for contacting us with your concerns. Let me assure you that Canterbury Park is not the motivation behind the state’s attempt to block websites. We do appreciate your choosing Canterbury and understand that you have options and will do what we can to retain your business.
XXXX XXXXXX
Canterbury Park

From:
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:11 PM
To:
Subject: [text][html][faked-from] RE: Kentucky Derby This Saturday!

I truly hope that Canterbury isn’t a motivating factor behind the actions of the state to limit my access to specific web sites. I would no-longer be willing play in your card room if this were to be true. I am a poker player and spend enough time in your room for you to care about my business and the business of like minded poker players.

I don't personally need or want the government to protect me from myself. I don't think they are particularly effective at it and, even if they were, I'd still prefer my liberty.

Poker sites have worked very hard to stop underage access and to address the other issues you mentioned. Our opponents have not only not given them credit for that -- they continue to pretend anyone with a credit card can play just by checking an "I'm over 18" box on the sign-up form and they say so publicly.

If meaningless issues like gay marriage and internet poker are so difficult for people to wrap their brain around what hope do we have for issues that are actually important?

+1

Online poker is proof that free market capitalism works in an unregulated environment. Republicans should be thrilled....

I haven't read any of this thread yet, but I got this from the PPA today. Apparently Texas is looking the other direction.

http://www.legalizetexaspoker.com/

called, emailed, and twittered.

let's flood these politicians with our opinions.

Mr. Willems stated that Canterbury Park has been hurt by online gaming. I dont think its a giant leap of faith to say that they probably have been making noise to that effect and that is part of why this is happening. And if they had they surely would not admit to it.

http://www.gcb.state.mn.us/PDF_Files/GNMarApr09.pdf


Of interest is Page 8 - actual income totals from Lottery gaming in the state.

This is why the Lottery is considered "Legal Gambling"
At issue is competition. If they allow other forms of gaming, online or otherwise, it competes with the state's lottery revenue.

B&M casinos need understand that they attract a different crowd than online poker rooms. Grandma who can't even find the power button on a computer obviously is not going to be on pokerstars.

I played at Canterbury 3 to 5 times a week till about four years ago when I started playing online. Now I go a few times a year to Treasure and avoid Canterbury because I realize how bad I had it when I played there. Im sure there are others like me.

ok, signed up on Twitter, but I'm clueless on how to leave messages on t-paw's twitter page...someone want to help me out?

Just include @pawlenty in the tweet and it will go to him.

Two things stood out in the radio clip...

No. 1 - It is strange when I play at PokerSite.NET and the river comes and all of a sudden the pot doubles in size, and it says, "Player 1 wins $5268 with a Queen High Straight," followed by, "Player 2 wins $5268 with Ace High Card."

No. 2 - I wonder how the hosts' shares of Chrysler are doing?