AP story: Former Republican congressman endorses Obama's bid


That story doesn't mention gambling and it seems our old foe mainly wants a different direction in foreign policy, but surely he must also think for some reason that Obama is either more friendly to his anti-gambling stance although more likely from a nanny-state stance instead of a religious one.

How much better off will we be with a lot of FOF repubs ousted when they get replaced by Feinstein dem nanny-staters out to save us from the ills of gambling, smoking and trans-fat?


It has always seemed to me in this forum that too many posters don't realize that a nanny-state controlled/influenced dem majority in congress is barely better than a FOF controlled/influenced repub majority.


As others have opined here, a focus on effective litigation may provide the best hope for legalized online poker in the US.

So we should ignore his pro-gambling connections like Wexler?

You have a point about being careful about democratic nanny staters, but Leach's endorsement is simply part of a complex picture for Obama, nothing more.

I thought Bluff was offbase at first, but remember as background, the UIGEA got passed directly because Leach made a deal with another Presidential hopeful who thought he needed to win in Iowa.

The bottom line is that poker players are clearly better off with an Obama win than with a McCain win. It might not be by much however.

Can you share some more detail on this?

Bill Frist and Leach got into bed together and the result was the UIGEA...

LOL at thinking this endorsement has anything to do with online poker.

Basically, that's it.

Then-Senator Frist had hopes of becoming the 2008 GOP nominee, (after all, who else was there ..... John McCain ?) He developed a sudden, passionate interest in online gambling being prohibited, an issue dear to then-Rep. Leach, from IOWA. Frist pulled an expressly disavowed tactic to ram thru the UIGEA, to please Leach and also his own prospective religious-right primary base. (The underhanded, 11th hour tactic drew direct, public fire from his own Party's senior Senators, chiefly John Warner (R-Va) and Snarlin' Arlen Spector (R-Pa).)

It is likely that poker player pressure helped bag Leach in the next election. Somehow, he has gotten out and is sucking up to the Obama campaign. ,

This Leach endorsement of Obama is not Saul on the road to Damascus. There HAS to have been a deal struck. Rest assured, Leach did not undergo a miraculous conversion. I just hope the bargain was something other than "online gambling", maybe something ethanol/energy related ???

Iowa = Corn = Ethanol. I would have to think that's Leach's angle and not online gaming.

As a republican I have to completely AGREE with this.

While presidents have very little power when it comes to legislation (outside of appointing judges who will rewrite it), the department of justice takes their lead from the views of the president. Republican presidents (save Ron Paul) will have the DOJ chasing our processors out of the business at every opportunity.

I don't really think smoking and trans fats are in the same category as gambling. There is no real debate regarding the dangers of either... they are bad for us, ALL OF US, period. Gambling addiction affects a very small minority.

Protecting us when we are highly unlikely to need protection is much different than protecting us from clear danger that we may or may not be aware of the presence of, or predatory corporations who are clearly marketing to children with a product that essentially buys you an early grave, nothing else.

I see no reason that we can't hold companies to standards, like food must be reasonably healthy (ie you cant cook it with trace amounts of cyanide, bleach, laundry soap, trans fats, metal shavings etc.), and products need to be marketed responsibly (ie products that offer zero upside and are known to cause multiple serious and life threatening health problems should not be marketed as "cool for kids to try"!)

If you really feel strongly that you should be able to eat trans fats, you are being silly and qualify as talk radio host with a warped sense of what personal freedom means. Oh and try the hydrochloric cupcakes... they melt your mouth!

Exactly.

I've mentioned this many times but no one listens.

Obama himself has said in his book and many times in his voting record as a state senator in Illinois that he is completely against "the expansion of gambling".

Obama mentioned playing poker and now everyone wants to nut in their pants b/c they think he's going to legalize it online.

Way wrong IMO, but we'll see.

Obama is not going to legalize online poker. McCain is not going to legalize online poker.

Despite the fact that nanny-staters and moralists can be found in both parties, on the issue of gambling, the majority of them are Republicans.

If we are going to achieve a legislative victory it is going to come from our Democratic allies in the House (our Republican allies are too few for their leadership to allow them to advance significant legislation on this topic).

Once that legislation is passed in the House, and if the AGA gives Reid the OK to let it pass the Senate, the question will be whether the president will veto it.

Obama will not veto legislation passed by his own party and written (most likely) by some of his staunchest allies (like Rep. Wexler), especially since he will like the inevitable added tax revenue.

McCain may well veto online poker legislation opposed by the majority of his party, especially since such a veto would be the easiest payback he can think of for the moralist/evangelical support he is currently so desperate to solidify within his party.

That really is the be-all and end-all of Presidential Politics and Poker, IMHO.

Skallagrim

I have to agree with Skall here. The past two GOP platforms have called for a prohibition of online gaming, and many GOP congressional leaders are outspoken in their opposition to us. GOP allies FoF have been very passionate in their opposition to us -- they really think poker will bring down society, and that's no exaggeration. It's hard to see how that is equal to a potential that Obama might not support us, especially when many Democratic congressional leaders are outspoken in their support for our rights.

I hope both parties will come around and embrace our position, but right now House Democrats tend to support us, while House Republicans tend to oppose us. That's just reality.

Why not hold a fund raiser poker tournament for the RNC at Canterbury while they are in town?

lol