It's "Quinn" not "Kwinn." If you're talking about Bob Dylan's "the eskimo," that is.

.....

I don't think allstar really disagrees with me, very much. He just refuses to try to read carefully when I write things.

.....

I hereby give you Kent's theory of political power, simplified. It's hardly original, although perhaps the terminology is.

Let's break politicians into 3 groups. These 3 groups apply to any issue, although obviously different politicians will fall into different groups depending on the issue.

We'll call "angels" people who agree with us passionately about an issue. Angels will get out front on our side. They will fight hard and spend political capital to make sure that our side prevails.

We'll call "devils" people who disagree with us passionately about an issue. Devils will get out front and fight hard and spend their political capital to make sure that the other side kicks our side's butt.

We'll call "schmucks" everybody else: people in the middle who don't care much one way or the other. Schmucks come in two flavors: "Good schmucks" will not fight for us or against it, but when somebody else makes the vote happen, they will vote for us if they feel they can (that is, if the political price isn't too high). "Bad schmucks" won't fight either way, but when push comes to shove and the vote is scheduled, they will vote the wrong way.

.....

So let's say you really, really want abortion to be outlawed. You're a Christian right dude. "Angels" are the people who will keep talking about the evils of abortion and keep fighting to outlaw it. "Devils" are the people who will keep fighting hard for a woman's right to choose. Most people are schmucks and won't talk about it one way or the other. But when a vote comes down, they'll have to decide which way to vote, and that's when we find out whether they're good schmucks (pro-life) or bad schmucks (pro-choice).

So "angel" versus "devil" and "good schmuck" versus "bad schmuck" only have meaning w/r/t the position that you (or I) happen to be advocating. I'm not positing some idea where some people are literally better than others, just that they are pro- or anti- a particular viewpoint.

Last point. Money talks in politics. I think that's obvious to everybody. If enough money is floated at most (not all) Senators or Congresscritters, they can be persuaded to change their position. Probably most of them can be moved by money about one notch on the scale. Not from angel to devil, but from angel to good schmuck, or from good schmuck to bad schmuck, or from bad schmuck to devil. Or from devil to bad schmuck. Whatever.

Is all that clear enough? I hope so.

....

So let's apply this to the gaming situation.

As of six months ago, online poker and online gambling in general was in a gray area. It was sort of maybe illegal, or maybe sort of not, depending on your interpretation of the wire act. But nobody in the US government was doing anything about it one way or the other. And that was just fine with us, as players. As long as nobody did much of anything, we were golden. We could keep on playing and not worry about it.

We didn't need any angels. We didn't need anybody to be passionately in favor of online gambling. All that we needed was a government run by a bunch of schmucks. Bad schmucks or good schmucks, doesn't matter. We don't care how they would vote if a vote came up, so long as a vote never came up! Our only fear was that a devil or a group of devils would start yelling and screaming, and/or fight hard in back rooms, to rattle the status quo.

Well, guess what. A bunch of devils, led by Bill Frist, did show up and insert UIGEA into a completely unrelated piece of legislation. It should be noted that the devils clearly had to spend some significant political capital to get this to happen. They really had to want this. A number of other, more important bills were tried to be inserted into the same piece of legislation, but all of them failed. Somebody, somewhere, really wanted this to go down this way. And that someone was a passionately committed Republican devil.

More recently, the Justice Department arrested the two Neteller folks. Again, clearly whoever was behind that had to be a devil. You have to really care about this issue in order to make that kind of arrest. The political fallout was guaranteed to be negative worldwide. A bunch of schmucks would not have bothered.

.....

In terms of Democrats versus Republicans, my point is this. With respect to online gaming, the Democratic party has a few angels, and about 95% schmucks. Hillary Clinton is definitely a schmuck. She doesn't much care one way or the other. The Republican party is also about 95% schmucks, but also 5% devils.

Really, the differences between the parties are very, very small. 95% of Democrats and 95% of Republicans probably hold about the same views about this issue. But that 5% makes all the difference.

If the Democratic party controlled the Congress, UIGEA never would have been inserted, because nobody with the power to insert it would have had any desire to do so.

Similarly, if the Democratic party controlled the White House (and the Justice Department) right now, the Neteller folks never would have been arrested, because nobody with the power to make that happen would have had any desire to do so.

You have to have ideologically driven people to make this sort of bad stuff happen. And right now, on this particular issue, the Republican party is the only one with people in it who are like that.

When it came down to a vote, a bunch of Democrats voted against online gaming. I'm not the least bit surprised by that. A lot of Democrats are schmucks, and many of them are bad schmucks. I don't have any bizarre beliefs that Democrats are passionately in favor of online gaming. Or even that they give a crap. I think they don't.

But not giving a crap would have been good enough to make all the bad sh*t not happen. If Democrats had controlled the Congress last year, UIGEA never would have happened, and I would be clearing a Party bonus right now. If Democrats had controlled the White House this year, the Neteller folks never would have been arrested, and I would be depositing through Neteller to clear a bonus at Doyles right now.

If George Bush and Dick Cheney were impeached tomorrow, and we got a Democratic president the day after tomorrow, there would not all of a sudden be a bunch of angels running online gaming policy. There would just be a bunch of schmucks. But that would be good enough. The gaming situation would improve. All we want is to be left alone. Schmucks will do that for us. Democrats will do that for us. Most Republicans would do that for us, too! It's just the few "devil" Republicans in positions of power who have ruined it.

Excuse me?

Allstar, this is getting pathological. Are you doing this on purpose? You still have not responded to one thing I have said in this thread. Not once. You are responding to things that you assume I must be saying. But I'm not saying those things.

I did not say anything about motivations. I did not say anything about taxation. I'm not even within 100 miles of these topics. You're getting angry with me for having a conversation that I'm not having.

For the last time. READ WHAT I SAID AND RESPOND TO WHAT I SAID. DO NOT RESPOND TO WHAT I DID NOT SAY.

If you want to change the subject, that's fine, we can do that. I'll talk about taxation, or morality, or whatever you want to talk about. Just don't get mad at me for saying things that I didn't say.

http://www.planetkc.com/rbuzan/kwinn.htm

Manfred Mann's was a cover of the aforementioned Bob song (who incidentally and without any relevance to this entertaining dust up, lives down the road from me, how ridiculous LOL).