http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/blogs/dmatthews/
Posted At : January 14, 2008 10:55 PM | Posted By : D Matthews
Related Categories: First
Now that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Montana have voted for their potential Presidential candidate from each party, the race is becoming more defined. At this point it looks like on the Democratic side, Hillary Clintion and Barack Obama are in a close race for the nomination with John Edwards still in, but pretty far behind. On the Republican side, John McCain looks like the frontrunner with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee somewhat close. There are a few long shots remaining on the Republican side, with Fred Thompson the most likely of that group.
There are important issues facing America such as the economy, the war, terrorism, Social Security, health care, and more. These are all important to me, as is one other issue: gambling. I see gambling as being more than simply being able to risk your money on games of chance, where the vast majority of people are betting on a losing proposition and a small minority of people (a group which I belong to) is playing a profitable one. I see how our government legislates and regulates gambling to be a strong indicator of a large government or a small government (I prefer a small government). It's about our own personal freedoms and liberties.
When the government says "No. You can't do that," it limits our freedoms. This is proper if we're trying to harm someone, but in my opinion, it's not true about gambling with our own money. If I have stacks of $100 bills and want to use them as kindling in my fireplace, that's my prerogative. It would be idiotic, but I don't think there should be a law against doing idiotic things.
So how do the candidates stand on gambling? The fact is, it's hard to tell on some of them because gambling is a don't-ask-don't-tell type of issue. If you're opposed to gambling, then you can clearly voice that opinion. It generates support from many religious groups and family-oriented groups. These are groups that have immense war chests full of political funds and influence over vast groups of voters who subscribe to their dogma. On the flipside, if you are a gambling supporter (or at least not opposed to it), it's not politically correct to make a strong stand in support.
Some politicians, who many see as on the fringe or extremists such as Barney Frank or Ron Paul (a current, but unlikely, Presidential hopeful in the Republican primaries) voice their opinions in favor of gambling as being a personal choice that we should be allowed to make. The Libertarian party clearly supports our rights to gamble. The Libertarian party also supports legalized marijuana so while it does have a strong and loyal following, it's still seen as too bizarre for the majority of Americans.
In short, we hear from the anti-gambling politicians. We don't hear from the pro-gambling ones because it doesn't have significant passionate support from the American people.
I've tried to research the main candidates remaining and their leanings on gambling. It can be tough to gather facts for the aforementioned reasons. I will, however, state here their stances as I understand them to be.
On the Republican side, among the leading candidates, I see no support for gambling. The three candidates are John McCain, Mitt Romeny, and Mike Huckabee.
John McCain:
McCain has made it clear that he wants to ban all wagering on college athletics. One only has to be in a Vegas sports book during the month of March to see the immense interest in betting on college basketball. College football also generates a huge amount of betting interest.
John McCain has declared war on the college athletics bettor.
McCain also showed support for his partner Arizona Senator John Kyl in his crusade against Internet gambling.
While I've been told that McCain will even play blackjack or craps in casinos from time to time, I have to believe that he is opposed to many forms of gambling and could very possibly be instrumental in further limiting our gambling rights.
Mike Huckabee:
He's a former Baptist minister who is staunchly religious to the point where he doesn't believe in evolution. While that's a completely different argument, it goes without saying that it's an extreme viewpoint shared by primarily by a minority with a strong religious ideology. People with this type of philosophy are also often anti-gambling.
But there's no need to look at his faith. He's made it clear that he opposes Internet gambling. When asked if he was President and Congress were to pass a law to repeal the UIGEA, Huckabee affirmed that he would veto any repeal. He's as anti-gambling as it gets.
Incidentally, the Bible never really addresses gambling whatsoever. Some people mention the Roman soldiers who cast lots for Jesus clothes. There is also another reference or two that people point to gambling. The bible says to not steal, to not murder, to not use the Lord's name in vain, to not commit adultery, to not commit a homosexual act, and more. In fact, the Bible says to not do many, many things, but it never says don't gamble.
Mitt Romney:
Hard to get a line on his leanings, but given his Mormon background it's likely he's opposed to gambling. Mormons are interesting because their doctrine advises them to abstain from many things such as coffee, alcohol, tobacco, and gambling but on the other hand they often let people live and let live. In fact, Las Vegas has a strong Mormon presence and without being much of a historian, I've been told Mormon people have profited from Vegas casinos over the years.
My guess is that he would oppose expanding gambling in any form including on the Internet. I would love to be demonstrated otherwise, however.
On the Democratic side, the front running candidates are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
Hillary Clinton:
Hillary, as far as I can tell, has not expressed a strong interest in opposing or supporting gambling. Clinton has supported the creation of a casino in Niagra. Also, the Huffington Post, a left-leaning Web Blog reported that Clinton's campaign helped form the Nevada Business Leadership Council whose head is Jan Jones, former mayor of Las Vegas. Also, former Harrah's and Caesars execs are on the council, along with the CEO of Vegas.com.
Does that mean Hillary would support gambling? I really don't know. I think it means that Hillary is trying to court Nevada support. My gut feel is that she will rock the boat on many issues such as the war and health care, but I doubt she'd take a strong stand in favor of gambling, including Internet gambling. (My blog. My opinion. Tell me otherwise and I may post your comments here.)
John Edwards:
Anti-gambler. Co-sponsored McCain's crusade against college sports betting. It's one thing to vote for a bill (especially one tied to a Safe Port Act which everyone had to vote in favor of at the last minute such as the UIGEA) and it's another thing to co-sponsor its creation. I think John Edwards is likely the enemy of the gambler.
Barack Obama:
Has made it known that he enjoys poker for a pastime and is not ashamed of that fact. Some comments I've read on the Net say that he's a solid tight player who doesn't chase longshot draws. Obama played in a weekly poker game while in the Illinois legislature, and it appears continue to play poker from time to time even now.
There's little information I can get as to specific bills introduced or statements made regarding gambng support but anyone who plays poker regularly moves up a couple notches in my book. Poker is the highest echelon and most artful form of gambling. Someone who regularly plays indubitably has an open-minded and cogent sensibility.
I give Obama the nod for most-gambling-friendly.
Here are my grades for gambling friendly Presidential candidates:
Obama B+
Clinton C
Edwards F
Huckabee F
McCain F
Romney D+
Posted At : January 14, 2008 10:55 PM | Posted By : D Matthews
Related Categories: First
Now that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Montana have voted for their potential Presidential candidate from each party, the race is becoming more defined. At this point it looks like on the Democratic side, Hillary Clintion and Barack Obama are in a close race for the nomination with John Edwards still in, but pretty far behind. On the Republican side, John McCain looks like the frontrunner with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee somewhat close. There are a few long shots remaining on the Republican side, with Fred Thompson the most likely of that group.
There are important issues facing America such as the economy, the war, terrorism, Social Security, health care, and more. These are all important to me, as is one other issue: gambling. I see gambling as being more than simply being able to risk your money on games of chance, where the vast majority of people are betting on a losing proposition and a small minority of people (a group which I belong to) is playing a profitable one. I see how our government legislates and regulates gambling to be a strong indicator of a large government or a small government (I prefer a small government). It's about our own personal freedoms and liberties.
When the government says "No. You can't do that," it limits our freedoms. This is proper if we're trying to harm someone, but in my opinion, it's not true about gambling with our own money. If I have stacks of $100 bills and want to use them as kindling in my fireplace, that's my prerogative. It would be idiotic, but I don't think there should be a law against doing idiotic things.
So how do the candidates stand on gambling? The fact is, it's hard to tell on some of them because gambling is a don't-ask-don't-tell type of issue. If you're opposed to gambling, then you can clearly voice that opinion. It generates support from many religious groups and family-oriented groups. These are groups that have immense war chests full of political funds and influence over vast groups of voters who subscribe to their dogma. On the flipside, if you are a gambling supporter (or at least not opposed to it), it's not politically correct to make a strong stand in support.
Some politicians, who many see as on the fringe or extremists such as Barney Frank or Ron Paul (a current, but unlikely, Presidential hopeful in the Republican primaries) voice their opinions in favor of gambling as being a personal choice that we should be allowed to make. The Libertarian party clearly supports our rights to gamble. The Libertarian party also supports legalized marijuana so while it does have a strong and loyal following, it's still seen as too bizarre for the majority of Americans.
In short, we hear from the anti-gambling politicians. We don't hear from the pro-gambling ones because it doesn't have significant passionate support from the American people.
I've tried to research the main candidates remaining and their leanings on gambling. It can be tough to gather facts for the aforementioned reasons. I will, however, state here their stances as I understand them to be.
On the Republican side, among the leading candidates, I see no support for gambling. The three candidates are John McCain, Mitt Romeny, and Mike Huckabee.
John McCain:
McCain has made it clear that he wants to ban all wagering on college athletics. One only has to be in a Vegas sports book during the month of March to see the immense interest in betting on college basketball. College football also generates a huge amount of betting interest.
John McCain has declared war on the college athletics bettor.
McCain also showed support for his partner Arizona Senator John Kyl in his crusade against Internet gambling.
While I've been told that McCain will even play blackjack or craps in casinos from time to time, I have to believe that he is opposed to many forms of gambling and could very possibly be instrumental in further limiting our gambling rights.
Mike Huckabee:
He's a former Baptist minister who is staunchly religious to the point where he doesn't believe in evolution. While that's a completely different argument, it goes without saying that it's an extreme viewpoint shared by primarily by a minority with a strong religious ideology. People with this type of philosophy are also often anti-gambling.
But there's no need to look at his faith. He's made it clear that he opposes Internet gambling. When asked if he was President and Congress were to pass a law to repeal the UIGEA, Huckabee affirmed that he would veto any repeal. He's as anti-gambling as it gets.
Incidentally, the Bible never really addresses gambling whatsoever. Some people mention the Roman soldiers who cast lots for Jesus clothes. There is also another reference or two that people point to gambling. The bible says to not steal, to not murder, to not use the Lord's name in vain, to not commit adultery, to not commit a homosexual act, and more. In fact, the Bible says to not do many, many things, but it never says don't gamble.
Mitt Romney:
Hard to get a line on his leanings, but given his Mormon background it's likely he's opposed to gambling. Mormons are interesting because their doctrine advises them to abstain from many things such as coffee, alcohol, tobacco, and gambling but on the other hand they often let people live and let live. In fact, Las Vegas has a strong Mormon presence and without being much of a historian, I've been told Mormon people have profited from Vegas casinos over the years.
My guess is that he would oppose expanding gambling in any form including on the Internet. I would love to be demonstrated otherwise, however.
On the Democratic side, the front running candidates are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.
Hillary Clinton:
Hillary, as far as I can tell, has not expressed a strong interest in opposing or supporting gambling. Clinton has supported the creation of a casino in Niagra. Also, the Huffington Post, a left-leaning Web Blog reported that Clinton's campaign helped form the Nevada Business Leadership Council whose head is Jan Jones, former mayor of Las Vegas. Also, former Harrah's and Caesars execs are on the council, along with the CEO of Vegas.com.
Does that mean Hillary would support gambling? I really don't know. I think it means that Hillary is trying to court Nevada support. My gut feel is that she will rock the boat on many issues such as the war and health care, but I doubt she'd take a strong stand in favor of gambling, including Internet gambling. (My blog. My opinion. Tell me otherwise and I may post your comments here.)
John Edwards:
Anti-gambler. Co-sponsored McCain's crusade against college sports betting. It's one thing to vote for a bill (especially one tied to a Safe Port Act which everyone had to vote in favor of at the last minute such as the UIGEA) and it's another thing to co-sponsor its creation. I think John Edwards is likely the enemy of the gambler.
Barack Obama:
Has made it known that he enjoys poker for a pastime and is not ashamed of that fact. Some comments I've read on the Net say that he's a solid tight player who doesn't chase longshot draws. Obama played in a weekly poker game while in the Illinois legislature, and it appears continue to play poker from time to time even now.
There's little information I can get as to specific bills introduced or statements made regarding gambng support but anyone who plays poker regularly moves up a couple notches in my book. Poker is the highest echelon and most artful form of gambling. Someone who regularly plays indubitably has an open-minded and cogent sensibility.
I give Obama the nod for most-gambling-friendly.
Here are my grades for gambling friendly Presidential candidates:
Obama B+
Clinton C
Edwards F
Huckabee F
McCain F
Romney D+
