(I couldn't decide between Obama as Jesus and Obama as Superman to illustrate this post, so I went with one of each.)
Wicked Chops Poker points to a news story here about big-name poker professionals who are openly supporting Barack Obama for president because he plays poker.
These people are deluded. Or perhaps it would be more accurate (and kind) to say that they're being bluffed.
Has Mr. Obama at any point gone on record as saying that he will work to repeal the UIGEA, or to make online gaming unambiguously legal in the United States? Not that I'm aware of. And it's not from lack of being asked. Doyle Brunson said in his blog back in February: "Jennifer Harman and I have emailed Obama and asked what his position is on internet gaming. Hopefully we will get a response from his camp." As far as I can tell, they never got an answer--at least none that has been reported publicly.
Why would he not respond to a straightforward question about his stance on Internet poker posed by the most famous poker player in the world (and the nominal proprietor of a large online poker site), one who would publicize the answer in a blog read by thousands of like-minded poker players? There are really only two possibilities. The first is that he knows that his answer would anger Brunson and Harman--meaning that he favors keeping the UIGEA in place. The second is that he either has no firm position on the matter, or he's unwilling to express one for fear of alienating one side or the other, in which case he's such a mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, spineless wimp that it's impossible to respect him.
Check out Obama's own web site. Here's a list of issues with his policy positions. Here's his "answer center" where you can search for subjects you're interested in. Go ahead--try a search for "poker" or "gambling." See what comes up. I get zero results.
Rich Muny, at the Poker Players Alliance, rates Obama a C, just a bit above McCain at D. Bob Barr, of course, gets a grade of A+. He's the only one of the three who has stated publicly and unequivocally that he's for ensuring that online poker is fully legal. Guess who gets my support?
If a politician refuses to tell you that he supports your policy preference on some question, if he won't even bother to lie to tell you he's on your side, it's because he's not. It really is that simple.
Seeing Barack Obama as God's gift to poker players is like shoving all-in drawing to a one-outer gutshot straight flush. Yeah, you might win big, but you shouldn't count on it. The odds are heavily against you.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Obama is not your savior
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
To continue with poker analogies: I'm not going to fold (Bob Barr), and I'd rather go all-in with least some chance than go all-in drawing dead.
QUOTE: "I think the moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities could be devastating." --Barack Obama, May 2003, in explaining his opposition to permitting riverboat casinos when he was in the Illinois state legislature.
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=7614241
The mere fact Obama hasn't posted a formal position paper on the UIGEA in particular or internet poker in general is hardly a basis for criticism of Obama. After all, given the smorgasbord of foreign policy and domestic economic issues, the fate of internet poker is a pretty minor niche issue that doesn't really merit attention in the current campaign. It's certainly a more nuanced issue than simply "poker good, UIGEA bad"; there are serious issues regarding money laundering, taxation, and gaming regulation implicated in any repeal, so Obama's lack of a formal position on such a niche issue is hardly surprising. In any event, the lack of a formal policy position hardly supports your conclusion that Obama is a "mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, spineless wimp".
However you are correct that Obama's lack of a formal position on the issue should be tempering the poker community's Obama enthusiasm. If a voter's primary motivating issue for the upcoming election is UIGEA repeal (or modification to clearly permit online poker transactions), then neither McCain nor Obama qualify as the ideal candidate (and I would question the priorities of such a voter). But, given McCain is beholden to the morality police of the religious right, and considering he is also morphing into a gung-ho neocon allergic to a nuanced consideration of any issue even remotely connected to terrorism (and there are those who argue that because terrorists are laundering money online, we need to keep UIGEA), I think it is safe to say McCain is a near dead lock loser on the issue.
By contrast, we know Obama at least enjoys poker on a recreational basis and can appreciate the distinction between poker and gambling. Further, some Congressional members of his party are supportive of amending the UIGEA to permit poker transactions. Most likely then, if Obama were President, he would certainly never lead on the issue or even put it on his agenda, but if members of his party got a UIGEA amendment through Congress, he probably wouldn't veto it. Obama is definitely not an obvious "savior" for internet poker, but if that's your major criterion for your Presidential vote, he's your best bet.
A president Obama and his socialist agenda would probably want to put a tax on pots over 20 big blinds and give the money to the low hand.
Bob Barr is a Deuce-Seven off suit on a board of AKQQ9 facing 3 all ins.
While John McCain isnt the next Ronald Reagan or George Washington, he is far more likely to support us than these nutty Democrats and liberals who want to tell us how to live in every way imaginable.
I could see myself going Democrat if they could find a normal candidate like the ones they used to have, but with 90% of their financial support coming from these lunatics who want to turn us into Socialist Russia, chances are that any online poker they do "let" us play will have a 35% rake attached to it.
Sorry for the political tangent, but it has to be said.
Look at Barr's VP, he has made his living by owning a gaming business. A self made man from Nevada, who is a huge supporter of online and offline gambling.
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080519-082208
err, so yeah vote for McCain, because he is sooo for internet poker
The media controls who is nominated and elected with the help of Diebold at times. Just look at the media blackout from 2004 when Clinton Curtis testified about creating vote-rigging software for the electronic voting machines.
Here's his testimony for those that never saw it...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8112825559202389150
Republicans and Democrats will never allow a third candidate to get any legitimate coverage. They love the little back and forth smoke and mirrors show they got going. They can blame each other for everything.
Post a Comment