I don't know much about John Boehner. I do see he has an F rating, how bad for Poker is this?

http://www.congressionalpoker.org/details/6/45.html

He's not Been elected speaker yet but is likely too be. Boehner isn't great for us but neither was Nancy Pelosi

Boehner is touting to reduce the size of gov. Yeah we'll see...........

Not long ago, it would have been thought to be a disaster if Boehner were to become Speaker. And make no mistake, he is definitely not an ideological ally.

BUT, there is an interesting dynamic that could bring him to our side, and that is the fly in the ointment concept. The PPA will be a strong force in opposing ANY anti-gambling legislation that may be proposed. But Boehner can remove the PPA obstacle by letting poker-only legislation go through. Then he and his anti-gambling colleagues will have a much better chance of passing tougher anti-gambling legislation. And the "poker is a game of skill" argument makes this type of compromise more palatable to them.

This is why I remain optimistic. Ironically, it may actually be better for poker if the anti-gambling crowd are very determined to do something.

This is why the PPA is awesome. It took a lot of effort to position our cause in this way.

well said Freewheeler, that is an optimistic viewpoint, but one with a solid foundation none the less....great points about the PPA.

Is there a reason why he was given an F? This is all that I could find on Boehner.

Op Ed by Boehner in the Onion

While he is the front runner for the position many of the new Republicans were voted in on Tea Party platforms.

Lets just wait and see.

Click on the link in the OP and there's a pdf letter from Boehner stating his position and reasoning, he even addresses the skill based argument. I am not optimistic about him changing his mind.

Here is the relevant passage from Boehner's letter:

IMO, this is both a statement that he supports the UIGEA and that he would favor federal legislation to license and regulate iPoker.

Yes. His rail is against illegal gambling. His quote shows that he is fine with legalized, regulated gambling. We need the PPA to pay the man a visit.

I missed the tiny link on the PPA site. I thought that his Onion parody was more amusing.

I don't see how that letter alone earns an F from the PPA, which should be reserved for those that actively promoted the UIGEA and prohibition of poker, not just his concerns about money laundering and illegal gambling.

He voted for HR 4411, the bill that became UIGEA, and he sent that letter. Someone like that typically gets an F, which is generally appropriate. However, Rep. Boehner's letter is obviously more nuanced than the typical anti-poker response letter. With that, I emailed PPA with my recommendation that he be bumped up. So, he's now rated "?".

This was a good move. That letter was pretty reasonable, given his base.

Should contact him soon before the new "wave" of republications forget their newfound ideals.

Congressman Boehner made some statement about personal freedoms and small government in his interview on Fox last night. Unfortunately, I can't find a written transcript. However, if he openly speaks of such things, he might be "persuadable" or at least these comments can be used in discussions with and about him. He is either a potential friend of our cause or an outright hypocrite.

people saying boehner may not be that bad.... lol, cmon guys. u think he will do anything remotely progressive? or that he will live up to being a true conservative?

if u think either of these things then im sure u think his skin is made from something other than leather

so does every other republican, ur point is?

Some republicans, just like some democrats. Would you rather have the nanny staters or the social conservatives when they both do the same thing? Stop hating and try to be constructive.

It's amazing how much hate for the Repubs gets spewed on this site. They seem to forget how many dems voted for UIGEA and also forget that when they had TOTAL CONTROL of Congress they did nothing to repeal it or pass legislation to legalize and regulate poker.

We need to educate people on BOTH sides of the aisle.

And some others on this site forget that UIGEA was spearheaded by Senator Bill Frist, a Republican, in attempt to cater to social conservatives in preparation for a run for the Presidency at that time. Getting rid of online gambling was on the Republican Party platform, not the Democratic Party platform.

They also forget that Frist snuck the UIGEA into must-pass legislation (Safe Ports Act) at the last minute and that many Democrats (and Republicans) did not even know that the UIGEA was attached to that legislation. Those Democrats (and Republicans) that did know that UIGEA was attached to the Safe Ports Act were not going to vote against the Safe Ports Act because of the UIGEA being attached. Of course, Frist knew this would happen and he would get his UIGEA passed.

In other words, many Democrats (and Republicans) did not really vote for UIGEA, per se. They voted for the Safe Ports Act.

This I fully agree with.

firstly, im not american. secondly, i realize the democrats have their issues on this front as well (and if i were american i wouldnt be a democrat either)

but its undeniable the republicans are a million times worse for online poker than the democrats. if u dont think so then im the wallet inspector

also grasshopper, just so i know are u saying that the democrats are the nanny staters but the republicans arent?

Here is the vote tally for HR2267: http://financialservices.house.gov/M...oll%20call.pdf

That list is split by party. Can you tell where the republicans begin? I'll give you a hint, its when you start getting tons of nays. HR2267 passed 41-22. That sounds nice. Now let's break it down by party.

Democrat: 34 for, 4 against 90% in favor of regulating online poker.
Republican: 7 for, 18 against. 28% in favor of regulating online poker.

And nobody was given a chance to rationally vote for or against the UIGEA. It was attached, by and for exclusively republican interests, to a must-pass bill. It is definitely not in our interest to make this a partisan issue but the reality is it already is. Republicans have to pander to social conservatives to stay in office. Online poker and social conservatives don't mix well.

The republicans gaining control of the house is undoubtedly one of the single worst things that has happened to online poker's chances to seeing regulation anytime in the near future. While the fight must continue, the chances of seeing regulated national (as opposed to intrastate) poker before 2013 are close to zero unless we see a miracle during the lame duck session.

I wish the framers of the constitution would have had something about not being to add totally irrelevant stuff (like UIGEA) to bills (Safe Port Act). Its so completely ridiculous that they do this kind of crap I don't even have the words to describe it.

For years I've heard this Frist attachment incident tossed around. What completely baffles me is how this seemed to nonchalantly happen. Then on the flip side, everyone says a hr2267 attatchment is nearly impossible and will take a 'miracle.'. So was uigea a 'miracle' passing? If Frist did it so easily, why can't Frank or Reid get the same done this lame duck just as easily? Why is it so impossible? It sounds like a pretty easy process on the surface, but can someone lay out the reasons for us why it isn't?

I don't think it was nonchalant at all. Frist knew he wouldn't have to face any political consequences for his actions. He had already announced he would be resigning from the senate in 2006. He attached the UIGEA as an attempt to rally religious zealots for his planned run at the presidency. He would either be the president and above political squalling, or he'd be out of politics. I think we'd have a much better chance of seeing a lame duck poker legislation attachment if Reid lost his office for similar reasons to Frist. As is, he'd have to face the political consequences of an attachment for 6 more years so I strongly doubt we'll see any lameduck attachments from him.