For the first time in years, the Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives, demonstrating a sweeping dissatisfaction with the Republican agenda. The Democrats need to win in Montana and Virginia to control the Senate, as well.
As I write this article the day after the 2006 elections, the news services have just proclaimed victory for Democrat John Tester in the Montana race. The results of the Virginia race between Democrat Jim Webb and Republican incumbent George Allen are close, with Democrat Webb consistently holding on to a small but important lead of about 8,000 voter. As the results come in, it looks good for Democrats. (Of course, Republican incumbent Allen didn't help himself when he recently called a man at a rally who worked for Webb's campaign a "macaca," which is an African monkey.)
In all probability, Democrat Webb will win by a small enough margin that Republican Allen will ask for a recount, which will cause uncertainty in the Senate until about December, when the recount is completed.
Nevertheless, the exit polls found that 40 percent of those leaving the polls claimed their vote was a vote against President Bush. A significant number of voters said corruption was a crucial issue in their decision.
How will this election affect poker? As all our readers know, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist snuck the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act into an unrelated bill because that was his personal agenda. Although that process was not illegal, it was immoral, unethical, and corrupt, for which Frist received well-deserved criticism by both parties. Today the American people stood up to be counted, and it sent a clear message to the Republicans that we've had enough of their self-serving antics.
The voters proclaimed discontent with President Bush, his war, his taxes, and his agenda. This means the climate on Capitol Hill has changed. For one, Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Detroit easily won his seat in the House by 84 percent. He is expected to lead the Judiciary Committee, giving him a key platform to voice his views. Remember, Conyers has been the voice of reason regarding online gaming. He has consistently argued for a study aimed at regulating online gaming. He likened online anti-gaming laws to Prohibition. He was also the representative, along with 10 other Democrats, who brought suit against the president, alleging the Deficit Reduction Act was unconstitutional because it wasn't the version passed by the House. Conyers has balls. He's a strong leader, he is a watchdog for the American people, and he wants to regulate the $12 billion-a-year online gaming industry.
The Senate also has its supporters of regulating online gaming and it's time for each of us to write our Congressmen and make our opinions loudly heard. Regulate online gaming!
POSTED ON: Nov 28, 2006
We all have other passions in life besides poker. At least we should. Obviously the Schulman's have made it clear that Democratic politics is one of their passions. But If I can suggest something, if you really care about the issue of on-line gaming which I believe you do, don't alienate your conservative readers to gain support for this issue. By including your laundry list of "evils" of the Republicans, I am sure you lose support for the issue. Stick to this issue which crosses political boundaries. If you set your personal emotions aside I am sure you can see how associating the issue with the Iraq war and other unrelated issues would diminish your efforts to gain support from all poker players. I would even argue that as the publishers of Cardplayer you are actually doing a disservice to poker players by not taking full advantage of the forum you have for the issue of on-line poker. I am not saying you shouldn't support your other views, I am just suggesting it shouldn't be through Cardplayer and that you could really make a difference on this issue with a little more of a plan.
POSTED ON: Nov 24, 2006
yeah lets push for our casinos in the USA to operate online poker not these outside of the US online sites who give nothing or do nothing for our country but make mllions of untaxed dollars but with a democrat controlled congress and senate maybe its possilble now let the people play and let the money stay thats all thankyou
POSTED ON: Nov 24, 2006
Hello Fellow Card Player, I am working to try to assist in getting the legislation changed with an exemption for Poker. I am in contact with Michael Bolcerek and the fine group he has assembled at the home office. He is working very hard for this. The Web Site is excellent--one of the finest I have seen. However, the sample letter to help the members write their Congresspersons is not a good letter, and needs to be amended. It is caustic, and unnecessarily so. I am happy to discuss this with you. Also,the letter,and the PR firm missed TWO POWERFUL ARGUMENTS--VITAL FOR OUR SUCCESS: ONE--when you have a cross section of any 70 million people, most will be fine persons. It is easy to see, statistically, that at least 1 out of 70 figure to be "borderline". That translates to ONE MILLION PEOPLE. When you take away a hobby suddenly, a lot of idle time is SUDDENLY CREATED--and those 1.4 % are a risk to replace all that time in negative activity. That figure is probably low.Bush went to sleep on this point when he signed without thinking. TWO--Out of the 70 million affected, MANY are handicapped people--and many use wheel chairs. For them, traveling to casinos or anywhere is difficult. With Online Poker, they had a wonderfully safe alternative--the comfort and safety of their own homes. No Congressperson can ignore the Handicapped--nor should they. This is a powerful boost to our cause. The "Americans With Disabilities Act" is a WONDERFUL PROTECTION, and those involved with it are a powerful force of immense potential for us. This was also COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED by the letter, and the PR firm that wrote it. It is important to contact the PPA and get the letter amended--With the addition of these powerful boosts to our cause. I welcome you to E Mail me, and I will discuss this further. Be sure to put "PPA" in the subject line. Sincerely, Jeff
POSTED ON: Nov 13, 2006
Sure, Washington's law was local democratic pandering/corruption (I never said Dems were against pandering - hell, they iinvented it!). The legislator who proposed and got this law passed took an awful lot of money from indian gaming interests who wrongly saw online poker/gambling as competition. The legislator (whose name I forget - sorry) proposed the law as payback and got enough others to vote with her since she was the "expert" on the subject and told them all that this was needed to help the feds investigate "money laundering." But this column was about the federal law and there I stick with my statements.
POSTED ON: Nov 10, 2006
Skallagrim, please explain washington state then.....
POSTED ON: Nov 10, 2006
Aww come on Mr. Petersen, quit your belly aching. Everyone can easily see that the online gambling act was a part of the overall republican (Rove anyway) strategy of pandering to the religious right. I doubt any reader of this column or CardPlayer is a member of this group because if they are they are a hypocrite, everyone knows poker and gambling are sins. Though many democrats (at least those who live in fear of religious right votes) voted for the bill, neither the democratic leadership nor the leading democratic figures supported it. Most republican legislators who voted for it only did so because their leadership told them to. The religious right comprises only about 20% of the voters. The republicans pander to this group to get their votes, and that has meant that their minority agenda (including the banning of gambling) has gotten more attention then it deserves. The only way to change this was to show the republicans that pandering to this group does not save them at the polls and may actually hurt them by turning centrists to the democrats. That, with a lot of help from Bush's blundering in Iraq, is exactly what happened Tuesday. You republicans should be happy! As an independant libertarian, I might start voting republican again if they stop that pandering to the religious right. It might even lead to republicans coming up with new and better ideas. At least I hope so. Quit picking on Cardplayer for saying the obvious - the republican pandering strategy had to be stopped, and it was stopped last Tuesday when it clearly failed to carry the day. Now instead of picking on Cardplayer why dont you saddened republicans start thinking of new ways to get votes that dont involve pretending you havent mishandled a war and nanny-state laws that say you know better than me how to live my life. PS - the Dixie Chicks are back and better than ever.
POSTED ON: Nov 10, 2006
When it comes to business and politics I’ve never understood why a legitimate publication would want to alienate themselves from half their readership. This reminds me so much of the Dixie Chics scenario. They are terrific musicians and were at the pinnacle of their career when they took a political stand, sounded off, and consequently offended their fans. Card Player has grown into a legitimate source of information for poker fans over the past several months. The news is timely, the articles are both entertaining and informative, the photos and videos have improved, the audio broadcast is second to none in content and quality, and the professional player’s articles are insightful. Card Player lost any ground gained when they cut their fan base in half. <br><br>The democrats didn’t seize or sweep the elections. The votes were split so closely that recounts were conducted? This country is 50/50 on their political positions and opinions. And according to the last 3 house and senate elections, the republicans outnumber the democrats by a substantial number. The only reason the democrats took the house and senate was because of conservative voters - like me - that decided to swing the other way… this time. <br><br>There are far too many alternative sources for poker information and entertainment, and I’m sure your competition are thanking the poker gods for your recent politically incorrect editorial comments. The sad thing is that Card Player took the Dixie Chics approach and dug their heels in by following it up with this most recent entry.<br><br>In case you didn’t realize, practically the entire military base in Iraq has a conservative view, and as far as I know they were all big fans of Card Player. This has left a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth and I’m sure a large portion of your readers are searching for an alternative publication at this very moment.
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
Much is illustrated by the choice of words, to quote the author:” For the first time in years, the Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives, demonstrating a sweeping dissatisfaction with the Republican agenda.” The term seized, sounds like the author is of the opinion that something was taken wrongly or against the law. A better and more balanced phrase might be “For the first time in years the electorate voted in a majority of Democrats. One interpretation of this change could be dissatisfaction with the republican agenda, much as what too place years ago when the republicans supplanted the democrats.” The rest of the OP-ED piece could also be re written to be more accurate and balanced, however this is Card Player not the London Times.
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
As much as I agree with the Shulmans on political issues, the reality is the democrats taking over Congress will have virtually no effect on reversing the recent legislation on poker. Why? Because if a bill is passed to reinstate the old law, Bush can VETO the bill. He isn't done pandering to the religious political mullahs of the right.
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
Poker is not a partisan issue. There will never be a strong poker player's lobby if you immediately start bringing up other issues that are in no way related to poker. I don't think anyone who plays online is happy about the bill. But to blame it on Republicans alone is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. There is a long list of Democrats who voted for the bill. If the Shulmans think that those Democrats only voted for it because it was the Safe Port bill, why wouldn't they give Republicans (other than Frist, Leach and Goodlatte) the same benefit of the doubt? Because they're biased. It's your magazine, you can do as you wish. I believe your political rants will eventually alienate conservative poker players such as myself. There are other options out there. Good luck lining up behind John Conyers. Count me out. You might want to find out a little more about him before you start singing his praises.
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
Unfortunately the Shulmans do not seem to realize that, before Frist could attach the amendment to the Safe Port bill, the amendment had to pass both the House and the Senate first. Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly supported the amendment, so it was a non-issue when it was attached to the Safe Port bill. Moreover, in my home state, Maryland, which is overwhelmingly controlled by democrats, most of the counties will not even allow charity poker tournaments and the outgoing Republican governor could not get slots legislation to pass the Democratic legislature. To portray this as a Democrat vs Republican, Good vs Evil, issue is simply misinformed and misleading.
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
I think it's hilarious that the Shulman's and this website would use one single issue, that supposedly is only bad in the Republicans eyes, to lobby votes for the entire democratic party. Barry Shulman even said in his Blog that the internet unlawful gaming act was only a footnote in his disapproval of the current administration. First of all, it's not only the Republicans who are against gambling on the internet. Democrats had a major part in passing the law in Washington State that made actually playing poker online a felony, a much worse law than the law passed nationally. I am truly dissappointed in this website and both Allyn Jaffrey Shulman and Barry Shulman for sneaking their personal political agendas into the public's minds by giving scewed information and innacurate assumptions. I think we have enough of that going on in the media without it having to leak onto a poker website.
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
Although I (a Democrat) am not a Frist fan and I am in COMPLETE agreement that the recent Act stepped on certain of our liberties, calling the act of a US Senator "corrupt" (absent true corruption) because he played the political machine well....is overly harsh. US Senators, genrally, should be respected regardless of whether we agree with their politics, religon or ability to play the short stack.
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
This should not be a place to forward your political agenda, please refrain from politcal messages that don't pertain to poker.
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
Okay now the democrats have control of the house and the senate..does this mean poker is better off?? does this mean I as an internet & casino poker player can now take joy in their embracing me into their bosom..the political pendulum swings from far right to left ..much like my bankroll..but in the end who wins ? You ? Me ? probably not but the politician who will use you & me or anyone to get re-elected next time and that my friends no matter which side of the political aisle you stand will still be A BAD BEAT!! and thats Poker & politics so lets get back to having interesting POKER articles instead of political rhetoric in this magazine..cos I guarantee the politician really doesn't care ...unless they are getting part of the rake..!!
POSTED ON: Nov 09, 2006
Come on people, although I am normally more republican in my viewpoint, you can't blame the Democrats for "not reading the pork". They argued and moaned about Frist and his merry band of fools attaching the crap to the port security bill. But they can't vote against a port security bill just before elections. Ironically, politics is a bigger game played for more money than poker (just not online). The key is to have a voice. Did you know that online lotteries did not get banned, nor did horse racing online? Well, that is because they have a voice. They have a lobby, and all hell would break loose if you try to shut down an industry that has been pumping money to the politicians for years. We poker players need a voice. I am not suggesting that we need a lobby. Although it wouldn't be the worst thing, there is actually no need to join the corrupt game and play it by their rules. We can play the ace up our sleve, assuming we can muster up enough oompf to get over the procrastination and laziness that people that want to sit at home to play poker so they don't have to move (except for the index finger for clicking). We need to tell our congress people. And I don't mean just a few of us. We need to all stand up and be heard. If we don't all make noise there just won't be enough and we will have to resort to the lobby idea, would you play in a game that took an extra rake for the online poker lobby? I would. But I would rather we all let our congress peeps know how unhappy we are. Loud and clear and clean. I am reminded of a book that I read to my children before bed, (which used to be just before I would then go and play my online poker for a little entertainment), which is now illegal. From Horton Hears a Who: "We are here! We are here! We are here! We are here!". That is what the whos yelled, and it took all of them yelling, down to the very last and tiniest of them all, to be heard so their world could be saved. If we don't all hollar we will become part of the beezle nut stew. That would be a real bad beat. Now get online and email you congress person and let them know what you think. Right Now!
POSTED ON: Nov 08, 2006
"The voters proclaimed discontent with President Bush, his war, his taxes, and his agenda." His war was approved overwelmingly by both houses! Taxes? He lowered taxes so you could give less of your hard earned money to the government, both houses also approved! WAKE UP DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POSTED ON: Nov 08, 2006
Well if the Democrats don't read the pork that is attached, who is the bad guy? They signed the bill also. It is all about politics and special interests. They are both guilty. It is just a matter of time before the land based casino's who are behind this get what they want....regulation! Casinos are the ones to benefit the most from this if it is regulated along witht the pockets of the politicians who are pushing it. It will become the survival of the fittest in the poker online world and the buyouts will begin. Casinos have been chomping at the bit for years to have it regulated so they can get that big piece of the pie they were loosing to offshore. Suzy
POSTED ON: Nov 08, 2006
I'm 52 years old, and think I have voted in every election since I was 18. Yesterday, I voted for more Democrats than I had in my whole life. The "new" Republicans want to control every issue of our lives: who we marry, when and how we die, whether we have babies and what we do for fun in our own homes. Too much is too much. The voters have spoken, and they have to keep speaking.