A couple of issues I have with those blogs. Wasn't John McCain only supportive of a ban on internet college sports betting? That really doesn't say much about our situation.
McCain has voted for these bills without working at all to exclude poker. He's always been willing to take us down to get at sports betting. He's also never spoken in our favor when asked about the general issue. As such, he obviously can't be an A or a B. He's not a hardliner against us at all, so he's not an F. With this, I had him at C-, but moved him to D when he refused to endorse even a study on online gaming prior to the NV caucus, despite Clinton and Obama both endorsing it.
Secondly, Palin opposing gambling expansion does not mean she is supportive of an internet gambling BAN. Many politicians oppose gambling expansion because it is dangerous for society, and there may be some truth to this statement. However, as long as they don't go into people's homes and try to take away civil liberties like Sen. Jon Kyl has attempted to do, they shouldn't get an F.
To opponents, online gaming represents a huge expansion. Surely you can't say having poker in everyone's home is not an expansion. Here's a letter her staff wrote to Wayne McGregor, the Alaska State Director, regarding poker tournaments:
Wayne,
Thank you for writing in with your questions.
In response to your questions about what Sarah’s general opinion of poker and poker playing in Alaska, please know that Sarah recognizes that poker tournaments run on an entertainment basis are benign in nature and provide many with a form of enjoyment and entertainment.
While she makes note that poker games have the potential to be good for fundraising and charity events, there are many concerns regarding expansion of legalized gambling for purposes other than these. Sarah in general opposes the expansion of legalized gambling.
Please note that we understand that the legislature rejected the legalization of large scale traditional Las Vegas style gambling. The reasons apparently included a long list of questions and concerns that include the addition of social issues such as addiction problems.
While poker is the least egregious of all of gambling related activities, again it should be noted that the legislature recently rejected the expansion of gambling that afforded the introduction of poker rooms. Sarah does not support an approach that eliminates the ability for the legislature to maintain safeguards they employ when considering new bills.
Please join me in supporting Sarah Palin for governor,
Anita Halterman for Sarah Palin
Many politicians oppose gambling expansion because it is dangerous for society, and there may be some truth to this statement.
I don't believe there is truth to that statement, but that's just me. I think the restricting of liberty is dangerous, though. Also, just as an example, some politicians may think expansion of gun ownership is dangerous, but I doubt that would earn a decent rating from the NRA.
I am curious how these rankings are determined.
I listed the criteria in the first paragraph of the article.
My congressman David G. Reichert is given a D, but as far as I know he hasn't voted or expressed an opinion on an internet gambling ban.
He voted for HR 4411, which became UIGEA.
Lastly, I find the graph of the states misleading when Washington "supports internet poker," when they have a ban within the state.
The figure states that it solely illustrates support within the U.S. House of Representatives.