Sorry if this is more political than legislative, but that is the nature of this thread. Here is my political philosophy in a nutshell.

Pure libertarianism is a fantasy. It is impossible to attain because it runs counter to human nature, just as would a socialist utopia. In the end you are going to have to serve somebody.

If there was no government at all would you be free? I don't think so. You would be controlled by your neighborhood crime boss, your local militia leader or whoever filled the power vacuum when the government disappeared. In fact you would likely be far less free than you are today or under any European style socialist regime.

The conservative movement today including the Tea Party is made up of a loose coalition of libertarians, evangelical Christians and big business. In order to attain and stay in power they must pander to all of these groups. When I hear phrases like "small government" or "get the government out of people's lives" I know they are talking about lower taxes, less regulation (of business not individuals), and the elimination of consumer protections and the social safety net.

If conservatives are successful at limiting government power the vacuum must be filled by someone and in this case it will be filled by large corporations and religious organizations. The result will be the sacrifice of consumer safety, less spending on crumbling infrastructure and paradoxically more laws that promote "family values."

When I think of conservatives in power, I don't think of limited government and freedom. I think of little or no access to health care (if my job gets outsourced), no security in my old age, greatly increased military spending, no consumer protections such as food and drug safety etc, and a government that wants to mettle in the smallest of my personal affairs on moral grounds. It seems to be the worst of both worlds.

I believe in a government that provides a strong social safety net, significant consumer protections and solid, modern infrastructure, with a great deal of protection for personal freedoms. And yes I understand that I will have to pay more in taxes for it.

I believe that the federal government must be strong enough to counterbalance the other powerful forces that would control my life, namely big business and religion. I simply do not trust that corporations or religious leaders have my best interest in mind, so even though the government option is less than perfect it is my best option.

I will vote for any party that stands for these things. Right now that would not be the Republicans or the Tea Party.

Apology not accepted. Everything else you said had nothing to do with poker. It was an eloquent defense of your views. But its only relevance to this forum is that it appears voters like you would not support the tea party even if they did openly support online poker. So be it. Further discussion belongs elsewhere.

There are true "freedom loving" elements within the Tea Party. But so far the majority of the candidates they have put forward (O'Donnel, Angle and Buck) are also clear social conservatives, at least in the past. I have not heard a one of them renounce this past. That Palin and Bachman also consider themselves Tea Party supporters scares me. The willingness of those two to legislate the correct way to live your life (as they see it) is legendary.

So I am still very wary of the Tea Party. But I haven't completely closed my mind. Rand Paul is also very friendly towards the social conservatives, but at least he recognizes the value of personal freedom.

I need to see some ACTUAL TEA PARTY CANDIDATES, not just some prominent supporters, show real commitment to principles of personal freedom that go beyond paying minimal taxes and having minimal government regulation before I would consider them a positive influence in the fight for openly legal poker.

Skallagrim

And you think that Libertarianism is a fantasy? Have you ever heard of Benjamin Franklin's saying that those who desire security and freedom will deserve neither and receive neither? Government can't give you what you desire. Big government enables big business and big religion.

I don't think many really want absolute Libertarianism which is close to just anarchy. I like to drive on roads just as much as the next guy
however I would like a lot more Libertarian influence in our political worlds.

Good post Skall but I think some discussion of politcal reality is important since some people who are on our side are still likely to put their political leanings in front of our right to play when it comes time to vote. It takes only a little bit of attentiveness to see that the our agenda is completely counter to the GOPs agenda and while yes you might have some fringe supporters there the democrats agenda and ours is much more compatible. I think some people want to have their cake and eat it too. Its the only way I can comprehend any kind of support for the GOP from someone who is putting Ipoker regulation at the top of their list.

^^^Right, If only the democrats were in power over the last 4 years then we would have passed an online poker bill already

4 years isnt much time for something like this in our government especially considering where we were and what has been going on in the country during that time. Now if it had been 6 years or 8 years then I think you would have a point as it is I am impressed how close we got in those 4 years considering the previous.

I read it the night it came out. It was a joke. Unspecific. ******ed. The numbers have been crunched and its a laughable multiplier of the deficit. The ultra-rich right has spent 30 years trying to manufacture policy for not paying taxes, and its finally descended into utter stupidity. It made me nostalgic for Newt for god's sake. I guess i expected better out of 2p2 people than to blindly accept ignorance in place of thought. Are you that hostile towards anything and everything government you are willing to blindly accept spoonfed garbage in place of sound policy?

If you think merely ignoring racism in Tea Party somehow excuses you from being racist, you can't be convinced.

+1..............The Tea party "leaders" that are not social conservatives will not upset that part of the coalition for poker. Dick Armey may write an op-ed for poker, but in the backroom Tony Perkins and Franklin Graham know he is on their side. The goal is power, and the point of power for them is to reward their donors, and to stay in power. That means appeasing social conservatives, or at the least upsetting them as little as possible. Realpolitik.

We should support the Tea party people who support us and oppose the Tea party people who oppose us. We should treat the Dems. and Reps,, the same.

In my home district our congressman is corrupt and lazy. He supports poker rights more often than not, so far. His opposition has not stated his position on poker. I will hold my nose and vote for our current SoB.

Obama claimed that after 20 years of Jeremiah's antics.

Yeah I hated his race speech. Lets face it though, one of Obama's biggest problems relating to "middle America" is that he never lived "there" much. Hawaii, Indonesia, Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago aren't the "heartland". Kansas somewhat but I am not sure how much time he spent there. And, when he did his grandmother is constantly afraid of and disparaging ******s. So, his preacher is an ignorant, blowhard racist. So was Billy Graham, but Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Carter, and the Bushes all brought him in the White House. Allowing people to mock him as a Muslim, a mad African anti-colonialist, and other words is somehow the "correct" and just way to respond to Obama's failure to get "white rage"? Standing in a sea of rage and hatred is the correct way to pursue a desire for lower taxes and less government? For a brief time, we were almost out of a white vs black nation, but we are being dragged back into it. Toss in Hispanics, and its sad.

Folks, especially you jonaspublius, can we at least try and keep the politics in this thread focused on poker politics?

Some of you like the Tea Party in general; some of you despise it. That is a very important discussion, but one that belongs in the Politics forum.

The issue for this forum is whether the emergence of the Tea Party makes our poker agenda more or less likely to pass. So far I see it as more likely to hurt our chances because I don't believe the majority of the current Tea Party candidates will hesitate to expand government to further their (prior) commitment to a "conservative" social agenda. I also continue to hope I am wrong about that.

Skallagrim

FoF and Dick Armey are not allies at all. They've gone after one another many times.

Conservatism is not nearly as monolithic as you portray it here.

+1 I totally agree with this.

I kind of feel like I started some of the political arguments with my earlier post. Sorry about that.

Skall, until the 2012 elections, you are partially correct. TEA Party Republicans will not take on the religious conservatives. They will still need them for a GOP majority and President. Also, they will be too busy fighting Obama.

After the 2012 elections, if they can thoroughly take over the GOP, then they can ignore, or take on, the religious right on issues like gambling, especially online gambling, on the grounds of freedom from government. If the TEA Party cannot thoroughly take over the GOP after the 2012 elections, then I expect it to become a third party movement.

TEA Party members are much more Libertarian than many in the GOP. Also, unlike the Dems, if they take the side of freedom from government and apply it to online gambling, then we won't have HR 2267 type bills, but repeal of federal gambling laws.

Since the Dems have not passed any federal licensing of online poker in 4 years, IMO they really aren't that friendly to us. They just see online poker as some potential revenue source. This might be better than the prohibitionist nanny state FOF Republicans, but it is not as good as the freedom loving TEA Party like Dick Armey.

The problem is that it will take years for the TEA Party to have a majority in Congress if they ever do. So, IMO, federal legislation licensing or permitting online poker is very unlikely for the next 2 years minimum; especially since the latest from Sen. Reid seems unfavorable.

This is why I think that the PPA should take the litigation route sometime in the first half of next year. I don't see a better alternative for the next 2-3 years.

There is just so much naivete in these threads. My party is good, yours is evil...blah blah blah.

Here is a thought. Evaluate a candidate based on his positions and vote for him/her regardless of their party affiliation.

I saw just as many dems vote for uigea as repubs yet we blame the repubs because they were in power. Now that the Dems are in power and things have not been reversed we give them a pass and continue to blame the repubs.

Most of you have blinders on.

The words are:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).

LG, I 'm sure that you are correct. I always thought that the actual quote included the idea that those who give up freedom for security will get neither. But Benjamin Franklin's quotes and sayings tend to get mixed up by many sources. TY

Really? Unfortunately, dogma prevails at the top. Armey is really meaningless as he will never again ascend elective office. The real leaders going forward will be the ultra rich donors and the ones who win in November. All the national ticket Tea Partiers are hardline christian conservatives. No abortion even for rape or incest unites them. Polling shows self identified tea partiers are a majority christian conservative. The demographics match up almost exactly for tea partiers and christian conservatives as well. Its not a question of "true believer" fiscal minded "tea partiers" reclaiming the GOP from christian fanatics. This is the christian fanatics are taking over the GOP with THEIR candidates. Remember when Tony Perkins threatened to run if an "unacceptable" Republican looked likely to win the primary, or if John McCain dared stray very far? He doesn't have to now, he has Palin, Santorum, and Bachman, et al. Rove woke them up with targeted get out the vote activity in 2000 and bringing them into the power fold. Social media fueled what was already brewing from that. This ain't a Cato Institute revolution. Where is this push going to come from move them from christian conservatism? Give me one leader running for office in 2010 who will influence the Tea Party away from social conservatism?

+1

Frankly, the Tea Party has in part simply been a way for socially conservative Republicans to rebrand themselves after souring on the GOP. I don't see the Tea Party being our salvation on the poker issue.

IMO, that's more reflective of the ascendancy of the pro-life position in American politics than it is of anything else.

Surprising. I had figured they'd be majority liberal Zoroastrians.

This isn't the shocking development you seem to think. Rather, every time the modern GOP finds itself out of power, it reconstitutes itself as a party of limited government, as we saw in the run-up to the 1994 elections. This way, a temporary coalition of limited government types and those who want only to limit the power of Democrats is formed. Once in power, the GOP shifts over time to be a big government party itself, kowtowing largely to the wing seeking moral issue statism while paying lip-service only to limited government principles (mostly as talking points used in opposition to Democratic legislative proposals). Once the coalition fractures and the GOP loses power, the process repeats.

+1 - Less government unless it is legislating morality, which many of them will be all for

A recent survey (http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=386) done showed that:

* Nearly half (47%) also say they are part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement. Among the more than 8-in-10 (81%) who identify as Christian within the Tea Party movement, 57% also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement.

* They make up just 11% of the adult population—half the size of the conservative Christian movement (22%).

If this survey is representative of the Tea Party, I would not expect any help from them on our agenda.

First I am grunching:

The Tea Party seems to be the fiscal side of the Libertarian Party. As far as the social side of it, where I believe the poker issue will fall, they probably hold there own individual beliefs and don't see it as a party issue.