Poker Players Alliance scores Ron Paul and Barr/Root with A+ ratings
Ron Paul
A+. Texas congressman. Big proponent of our rights. Initial cosponsor of Barney Frank’s IGREA. Dr. Paul is the voice of small government advocacy and for our freedoms. A vote for Dr. Paul is a vote for freedom, and it’s a vote for pro-freedom voices at the GOP convention.Pros: Big supporter of ours. Found time to meet with us during last year’s PPA D.C. Fly-in.
Cons: None.
Presidential Nominee: Bob Barr
A+. Former Republican congressman from Georgia.Pros: The Libertarian Party strongly supports our right to play. This Libertarian ticket also has the potential to push the GOP back toward libertarian (small ‘l’) positions to keep small government conservatives in the fold. Additionally, Rep. Barr’s campaign replied affirmatively to my inquiry on his online poker stand.
Cons: None.
Vice-Presidential Nominee: Wayne Allyn Root
A+. Strong supporter of our right to play. He posted a good article on his blog arguing for our right to play.
Barack Obama scored a C, Hillary Clinton scored a B, and John McCain scored a D.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Sorry Stephen Gordon but Bob Barr’s RLC ratings are way below Ron Paul’s. I know Ron Paul and Bob Barr ain’t no Ron Paul!
June 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The RLC rating only takes into account what happened before Barr left Congress in Jan. 2003, if I’m not mistaken.
I’m fairly skeptical about Root’s “I could get the XX million online poker players to vote for me!”. I mean, as big an annoyance the ban has no doubt been to some people, how many people are really going to vote based on it? Certainly not the double-digit millions Root has claimed. Still, I do think Root could maybe help in Nevada with the broader gambling scene. And don’t forget Ron Paul’s “success” with the brothels…
Other than that- perhaps we can send Root to campaign in Alaska until November?
June 1st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Andy,
While very few online poker players may vote Barr/Root based ONLY on the poker ban issue, maybe one could make the argument that this issue could be the Libertarians’ “gateway drug,” (so to speak) that gets online poker players to look more closely at the Libertarian Party. Maybe all the more so in a year where people are going to be very dissatisfied with their choices from the two-party duopoly.
Of course, I am looking at this from the perspective of garnering the most votes ever for a Libertarian candidate, not because I think we can win the election.
Anthony
June 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I think with some help, Root can become a better POLITICAL communicator. He does great for his everyday job, but politics is a whole other ballgame.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I agree it might be useful as a “gateway drug” (love the analogy), and maybe good for a few tens of thousands of votes, but nowhere near what Root was talking about. Remember, that was one of his big talking points at the convention. He repeatedly cited some number in the double-digit millions as the number of people who play/played online poker- with the strong implication being that he could get a significant chunk of them.
The only way to really reach them in that way would be to focus on the issue to the point of becoming a single-issue candidacy, which would obviously be counter-productive and is even more obviously not something Barr’s interested in.
Which raises the bigger question- will Barr and his people be able to keep Root under control? God, I hope so.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“I think with some help, Root can become a better POLITICAL communicator.”
I agree, but will Root be willing to see that? There was no evidence that he’d considered it on the convention floor.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:28 pm
RLC ratings go up to 2005 when I last looked.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:28 pm
What should be important to everyone is whoever gets picked should fulfill their job according the country’s rule book, the Constitution.
When you are watching professional sports everyone expects the judges to not take sides or have their own agenda. They are expected to make sure that both sides stick to the rules. I don’t see why a President or any other person “SWORN” to uphold and defend it should have a “platform” The platform has been laid out since 1776 and if the rules are to change, there are appropriate ways to do it and that doesn’t mean voting for the next Dictator because you like the platform of that Dictator.
For those of you that think America is a Democracy or that the Federal Reserve is Federal, please do your country and the rest of us a favor by staying home on election day. You are far too uninformed to be choosing our next leader. America is a Republic and the Federal Reserve is privately owned with 12 member banks.
For those of you who just can’t figure out what it is going through the minds of the Paul supporters I would suggest for starters watching the online videos Overview of America and America Freedom to Fascism.
I think I can speak for most Paul supporters when I say that living in this country is like being on an ice burgh where the majority of the people want to ride it out while the Paul people are screaming from the roof tops to get off the burgh and into the boat but Americans think the boat is too nutty of an idea. We have been playing this game of arguing over Democrat versus Republican with each having their left or right platform and we then tend to vote based on that and forget all about the Constitution as do our leaders.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The RLC ratings for Barr only go up to 2002. Their ratings as a whole seem to have stopped in 2005.
“I think I can speak for most Paul supporters”
I doubt it.
There’s no need to come in hear preaching to the choir, either. We’ve all heard it before and could offer up a similar spiel ourselves.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Andy,
You are probably right that the poker issue will not be worth more than a few tens of thousands of votes. No doubt, Root’s greatest strength…and weakness…is his unbounded energy. Many libertarians bristle at his used-car salesman delivery, but what about Ross Perot? That guy was over the top too, wasnt he? Saturday Night Live’s writers probably drooled within the first minute of hearing him talk. (Then again, Root is only our V.P. choice).
There is no doubt that any political chess move Barr/Root can execute pales in comparison getting into the televised debates. You can make a laundry list of reasons why Ron Paul achieved what he did, but appearing in the republican debates trumps them all.
So, the question is, how do you get Barr into the debates? With Roots’ aforementioned limitless energy, maybe turn him loose in the media on that issue alone: that the Libertarians deserve to be in the debates, that America deserves a choice. Have him hammer that point home, 24/7. Will he be willing to focus his every speaking engagement on that issue?
June 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“There is no doubt that any political chess move Barr/Root can execute pales in comparison getting into the televised debates”
Very true. I’m not going to say that can’t happen, but I think the odds are against it. While they should of course still try for it, I think a more realistic scenario is getting 5-10% in the general election to build on in 2012.
Penn/Teller 2012!
As for the idea of letting Root loose on that issue alone, I kinda doubt it will help. The key to getting in the debate is meeting the CPD’s polling requirements, and having Root complain nonstop about that will do little to help there. In fact, it’d quickly come off as just being whiny.
No, better to focus on the issues and getting the poll numbers up. If you can get the key number (10% or 15%? I forget) by debate time, then that problem will more or less take care of itself.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
That is the under-statement of the year.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
You go into the campaign with the Paul you have, not the Paul you want.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
I wrote the guide being discussed. I’m glad you’re all enjoying it.
I don’t think Barr/Root will get every poker player in America to vote for them, of course. However, many players are upset at the loss of freedom in all areas over the past few years. As many may not have much love for either of the Republocrats (unless Paul pulls out the GOP nomination), they may be more likely than usual to vote Libertarian to make a strong statement for liberty. I know many of us voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
I think a decent number of poker players will vote Libertarian this year. I think a decent number of Americans in general will cast their ballots for liberty as well. The major parties will learn that they need our votes if they wish to win.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Also, I have a picture of Ron Paul with some pro poker players and me in the guide, at http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/presidential-candidates-and-internet-poker-rights/ , so please check that out as well.
TE
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:43 am
disinter: Can you believe it, McCain got the worst ranking, D, yet Dondero still talking about “Libertarians for McCain”...then again we all know he was and is a JOKE.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 am
ONLY Ron Paul will ever be Ron Paul. There will never be another. But if you want someone who REALLY shares his policies AND has a shot at this thing, look to the constitution party nominee, CHUCK BALDWIN.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:15 am
I don’t know where Chuck Baldwin stands on this issue. His background and associations actually match those most opposed to Internet poker freedom, but he may have a different opinion.
I sent him a request for his position. If he answers, I’ll post it right here.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin:
The Constitution Party’s platform opposes gaming. It says: “Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.”
Baldwin has made a number of similar statements:
http://www.constitutionparty.net/news_print.php?aid=36 : “Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants and criminals? Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and an unobtrusive federal government?” Keep in mind that he didn’t write, “Can you imagine a country where individuals each chose of their free will to not gamble”. Rather, he wrote, “Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling”. That’s the key. He’s imaging (and advocating) a country where the majority collectively assert rights over individuals in the area of all gaming. So long as this is at the state level and not the federal, Baldwin is happy.
From www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin239.htm , by Baldwin: “George Barna summarized his findings by saying, “Faith makes very little difference in their [Christians] lives: believers do not train their children to think or act differently [from the world]. It’s no wonder that they [Christian children] grow up to be just as involved in gambling, excessive drinking, and any other unbiblical behavior as everyone else.”