The Poker Beat - March 19th at 1pm PT

[dantodd]

Greg Raymer is great. I didn't hear him on FBN but I was pleased that he went on and also that he spoke at CPAC. As a libertarian (and almost the party's VP candidate) he is in a unique position to speak to and for the non/less religious portion of the Republican party.

His views are part of the current "big tent" on the right while the left has been moving further and further away. This is pretty evident in the comments on the show regarding his comparison of the right to play poker with the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the constitution.

It does very little good and a lot of potential harm to link an issue like online poker with a specific political party. To have someone like Raymer working the side of the aisle that is not onboard currently is a huge plus. The likes of Lederer who merely shouts from the left does little to actually change the position of those on the right. Granted there are some religious nuts who fear that poker will take money away from suckers who they could scam themselves but there are also a lot of people in the Republican party who were leaders in keeping the Internet untaxed for a couple decades who have no desire to see it being heavily regulated now. It is always better to build allies rather than simply toss insults and try to create adversarial relationships. Didn't we learn this lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan?

As for his comment about the legality of online poker. I agree he could have answered that a little better. But as an attorney had he responded to the question with either an "it is illegal" or "it's completely legal" it could be construed as legal advice. All good attorneys will give a caveat when commenting on law. I wish he had said "My interpretation of the law coincides with that of many specialists in this field and we believe that the law doesn't prohibit players from participating in online poker. However; there are some who do believe this to be the case and that is why we are fighting so hard to make the law clear on this issue." But I got to think about that answer for half an hour before I responded and he didn't. I hope he will expect the question next time and have a better prepared answer.

Wow! That turned into quite a rant, didn't it......

[JLBlades]

Originally Posted by dantodd

But I got to think about that answer for half an hour before I responded and he didn't. I hope he will expect the question next time and have a better prepared answer.

That should be the one question he should know he's going to have to answer.

Liked everything else you said .

The problem I have with constantly correcting people when they bring up online poker being illegal is they are not really wrong when they say it. Both sides have very strong arguments, the illegal side has a bit more hardcore proof, non-us player sites, anurag dik*hit, banks not making deposits, home office locations, while if you look at the not illegal side, they say nothing's happened yet to anybody, those guys got in trouble for sports betting.

And, if in every single interview, you have to correct somebody with a not so great of an argument, shouldn't that say something about how the general public view things. We want them embrace this fight. Wouldn't it be better to agree that we are getting the shaft when it comes to online poker, and try to build support for a fight against "injustice." Save the technicalities for the court room.