I think that went fairly well. I heard a chorus of I's and only one nay. Before he even started it did seem that Bacchus was resigned to losing this one.

Honestly, this vote should be a landslide. If it's not, there must be quite a few members that just decide to follow Bacchus lead, nobody else was much interested in speaking out against it.

How could a tight ass like Bacchus have such a great name?
You hear the name and figured he got to be stewed before Ted Kennedy most days.

Was Bacchus the one who sounded like he was whining because basically some college kids made more online gambling than he raisded in campaign contributions?

Bacchus was the only one that voiced opposition to the bill.

1. Seemed like Barney and Clay were surprised that the sports leagues came out against this bill at the last minute, despite being in discussions about it up until today, this is a bad sign.

2. Bacchus is rallying the troops, he'll get enough republitkins to be present to vote this down later.

RIght now FoF, the sports leagues and Bacchus are twisting arms, you can be sure of it

In recessat 3, will they be back today?

The plan was to come back just to vote on this bill later today, it may be a while before they come back though.

you're predicting defeat?

yeah

We used to go boozin and crusin with a bad news guy. We left him in a strip mine.

Just being realistic based on what I saw happen at the hearing. I mean they passed it on a voice vote with like 10 members there, now they're going to a rollcall vote.

It's obvious what is happening, Bacchus is rallying the troops to muster another defeat.

Hope I am wrong tho.

Would congressman Franks try it again if he did not think he had 33votes?

My congressman is on this committee, he is getting a call now.

While what you say is probably true, (i.e. Bacchus is probably trying to "rally his troops"), another reason that he requested a rollcall vote is so that the votes are made part of the formal record. This way, in the upcoming election and future elections, they'll be able to say things like "OGM THIS GUY VOTE FOR GAMBLING HE WANTS U TO LOSE U HOUSE WITH MOUSE."

I don't exactly expect it to pass in a landslide, but I wouldn't say this move is necessarily indicative of the bill being doomed to failure.

I thought the reason Bacchus wanted a timeout was to shore up enough Republican support so he could call it a “partisan” amendment once it did pass. That word is a bit radioactive and can’t help its future success if it can be attached.

But, I don’t know

True

thinking you have the votes, and actually having them are two different things.....and I point to his surprise at the sports leagues coming out against this at the last minute

I just called Congressman Kanjorski. Maybe, just maybe it will keep his vote on our side.
I urge all with a congressman on Franks committee to call them, now.

If the sports leagues do nix this, we need a campaign aganst the NFL etc and some beer companies.

1. They can opt out IIRC.
2."Remember when I told you to vote no by telling you things I made up, causing angry people from your area to call you and they called you again telling you to vote yes today? Okay, vote no."

Good strategy...if you have a majority in either part of congress.

Just got an action alert from the PPA, something is up

Full Tilt and their front organization the PPA would like nothing more than to squash their #1 online competitors: Bookmakers.

You either believe in freedom or you don't. To support a bill that is anti-sports but pro-poker makes you no better, at least from where I sit, than the subjectivist/special interest philosophy that dominates the political arena.

A = A, always.

A cannot equal B sometimes and A others. To support a law that says some skill games are ok (poker) but some skill games are not (sports betting) is indefensible from anything other than a moral relativism type framework.

Ironic since Howard once plied his trade as a sports bettor and several equity owners for FTP are beards for the bigger sports betting syndicates.

Part also is so after it passes Bachus and his cronies can twist words like he does arms and portray the supporters as not protecting children from gambling EVEN though the UIGEA does not anyway.

Point out in calls, ESPN Fantasy allows 13 year olds to have accounts, Pepsi has a promo right now, age 13, buy a pepsi, go online to see if you win a feee MP3 dowbnload, if not, enter a lottery for other prizes, yes, AGE 13.

This is gambling too and children are allowed to play.

obg

Make the call.

obg

Frank thought he had the votes the last time, and look what happened there.

But there is no solid evidence whatsoever that a majority of either house support anything that helps us or hurts the UIGEA.