You are just plain wrong.

I've seen virtually nothing from any so called tea party type politicians that they support our fight for poker playing rights.

There are a few in the Tea Party that will support us, but not many, in my opinion. There are far too many conservative Evangelical Christians in the Tea Party (who make up around 50% of the Tea Party) to allow the group to give us their support (http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=386).

I sure hope so. It's a real shame he's gone almost two full decades without any competitive challengers in the primaries or the general. Hopefully this will show weakness on his part, finally encouraging a tough challenge.

More excellent news: A Google search for "Spencer Bachus" returns the BigGovernment.com column at #3, one ahead of his Wikipedia column. :-)

Thanks for the content filled reply.

2 words Gambling and Regulation. Both these words are antithetical to right wing ideology.

It's more complicated than that. The right has a historic opposition to gaming, but that's clearly becoming less important and far less relevant to the rank-and-file as time goes on. This is because younger conservatives typically believe in limited government, and gaming bans are the opposite of that.

Of the conservatives who do oppose gaming, for many it's no bedrock position. Rather, it's something they've always heard conservatives are supposed to believe. They are very open to discussion on why it's time for the movement to move beyond opposition to poker.

Id like to believe this isnt true, and it may even be untrue among rank and file tea party/right wing folks, but the (admittedly very early) returns from the leadership arent good. Bachmann, Palin, DeMint...all clearly terrible for poker. Even Rand Paul was endorsed by Dobson, which doesnt bode well for us.

Its not all bad (Freedomworks is the obvious example), but we have a long way to go to get the right on our side.

Some are with us, some are against us, and most don't care much either way (but likely oppose wasting political capital in the fight against us). None oppose us as strongly as Kyl, Goodlatte, Bachus, or Dobson do.

The rank and file, that's accurate.

Bachmann and DeMint are clearly against us and are willing to oppose us. Palin, I'm admittedly extrapolating from other areas. They may not be as passionate against gambling as Kyl or Bachus, but they definitely are against us.

Sarah Palin blasts Spencer Bachus, calling out the "Bachus bigger government agenda"! Check it out at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...-ed-royce.html.

She hates Bachus for other reasons and is still probably against us, although its good to see that incompetent get his.

Its possible this whole flap does end up costing Bachus the committee chair. Republicans aren't going to put Michelle Bachmann high up in leadership, but they may sacrifice this idiot's leadership post.

Bachmann opposes us. DeMint's position is not known, nor is Palin's.

Poker is a game of incomplete information.

What is your best guess on Jim Demint's position on online poker?

He was quoted yesterday saying that you aren't a fiscal conservative unless you are a social conservative.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/09/ji...arent-a-fiscal

Don't you think its probably best to proceed assuming he will not be on our side?

EDIT: Yes, I know this is a slanted article, Im not endorsing the op-ed portion of the piece. I just took the first link I found, its widely reported that DeMint said this.

In 2006, Palin was opposed to expansion of gambling in Alaska.
(Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_palin.htm)

I don't think it's a leap of faith to say she would not be on our side.

Its good news anyways if it helps get Bachus gone, but I just don't think we should have any illusions that some of the so-called leadership of the Tea Party is anything but bad for us.

Freedomworks is a good ally and many of the new Congresspeople should be on our side given their campaign platform, but we need to hope they don't fall too much under the spell of some of these folks in Washington that are working to be viewed as Tea Party leaders and are either openly anti-poker (Bachmann) or who we can conclude with a high, high level of confidence will be anti-poker (DeMint, Palin).

FWIW, Jim DeMint voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card, while a member of the House of Representatives in June of 2003 (Bill HR 2143)

(Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.02143:)

I suspect he may vote against us if a freeestanding bill happened to cross his desk, but he's clearly not out there advocating for a ban on online poker.

FRC is trying to influence him pretty hard. They just sent out an email asking their members to pray for him:

True, but back then those bills passed by wide margins. Even Robert Wexler voted for that bill.

Players were not speaking out (in fact, they were busy telling others to stay quiet so things would not change) and no U.S. based companies were offering services, so Congress had little reason to support us. Fortunately, things have changed.

Again, I'm under no illusions that DeMint is a supporter, but he's clearly not out leading efforts to ban the game.

I dinged her for this during the 2008 election.

I don't think she's a supporter either, but she's clearly not leading the charge in opposition.

When I say against us, I mean likely to vote against any proposal favoring us, unlikely to support bringing poker legislation to the floor, and more than likely to be willing to spend at least some amount of political capital against us.

I dont mean to say Palin and DeMint are the next Jon Kyl.

I do suspect the way Bachmann has approached our issue is not a bad best guess for how Palin or DeMint would approach poker regulation should they ever be forced to take a stance on the issue.

Which means Im having a hard time finding someone involved in Tea Party leadership (and we can debate on whether that label means anything) in Washington who is a likely supporter of ours.

You keep posting this link, though I don't know if you are their shill or are trying to attack the Tea Party. Do you know that the Public Religion Research Institute is a left wing group? They have a very biased agenda. The PRRC holds themselves out as unbiased, but they are simply the lap dogs of their funding sources. Here are some of their funding sources.

http://www.arcusfoundation.org/pages_3/home.cfm

http://www.nathancummings.org/

This is a much more accurate portrayal of the Tea Party demographics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Thanks for the Wikipedia link on the Tea Party.

Those demographics make me feel much better about the Tea Party and them helping out on our issue.

Back in the day, politicians were proud to stand up and speak out against our right to play. I don't expect any of that from this crowd. I definitely don't think they'll try to round up other lawmakers in the cloak rooms to get them to back a ban on online poker.

Rather, I expect some will vote against licensing bills, some won't really care and could break either way, and some will support us. The good thing is that these guys don't have a history of voting against us like many incumbents do. They also don't have decades-long relationships with FoF and their lobbyists that cause us some problems with some senior lawmakers.

So, while we may have taken a half-step back this election, those seeking a ban did as well. That simply means the status quo is stronger in comparison.

I believe the status quo will drive action. No one in Congress likes the idea that only offshore companies can offer poker services to Americans, so this reverse protectionism creates its own political momentum.

Rep. Ron Paul is, though it's questionable if he's a true Tea Partier. Senator-elect Rand Paul is likely to be supportive. If he's not, at least it's very unlikely he'll back any kind of bans. Joe Heck in NV is a supporter as well.

I think many others present opportunities for us. We'll at least have an opportunity to make our case.

I full expect Jim Demint and Sarah Palin to support any push for a ban.

For the new guys, especially in the House, in general this seems true. My worry is that, if the leadership is against us, these guys end up getting coopted and soft anti-poker sentiment becomes the default as a whole.

PPA has been pretty adamant that the status quo can't last. If that's true, then a half-step back for us is a step forward for our opponents. The status quo can't last and we can't pass legislation logically implies bad things for us.

Either that or the status quo has a little more shelf life than we have previously thought/portrayed.

Our high water mark is a bill out of one committee in the House. I don't see any bills on the table banning online poker. I guess there is momentum, and logically there seems like there should be momentum, but the evidence seems to be that most of Congress doesnt care very much.

Ron Paul sure is. Joe Heck is, although I wish we had known that before the election and not endorsed his opponent without asking his thoughts. I think the inclination of a number of Tea Party folks will be to support us, although Im not sure how much they will drive the agenda or how willing they will be to spend capital on our cause.

What's the evidence Rand Paul will be supportive? Do we have any statements from him or have you guys in Kentucky gotten to speak with him? That would be awesome. I see his endorsement by James Dobson and say my best guess is that he will be against us, but I have very little confidence either way. With the information available to me, I definitely don't feel comfortable saying he'd be a supporter.

This is true. I think a good goal for the next two years on the Federal level should be to try and get every member of Congress on the record for or against online poker so we know better how to proceed in the critical 2012 election season and to try and leverage the state directors to organize a local meeting with every member of Congress.

Federal legislation isn't going anywhere in the next Congress, but if the PPA could get everyone on record and swing a race or two next cycle where poker players could actually be identified as the primary swing factor (So far we have maybe the Leach race, we've influenced other races as secondary factors which is helpful but different from what I'm taking about) that would be meaningful progress and a good guidepost for membership to measure the PPA's accomplishments IMO.