2/3’s of Utah’s Congressional Delegation: Inconsistent Moral Blowhards

From The Agitator:

So as it turns out, before the House voted to pass the Internet gambling ban (317-93), Rep. John Conyers offered an amendment that would have stripped out the exemptions for horse racing and state lotteries. It failed. Which means that a good number of Republican Congressmen voted for both the ban, and the exemptions. Which means they voted exactly as Jack Abramoff wanted them too. Fools.

Kudos to the 17 Republicans and 76 Democrats who still give a damn about individual freedom.

For the record it should be noted that I think the Internet gambling ban is completely pointless since it really can’t be enforced (I’d also argue that it shouldn’t be enforced…but thats a different issue).

Are you curious who in the Utah Congressional delegation thinks we should be morally consistent in banning Internet gambling including lotteries and horse racing? Only Jim Matheson.

All other Utah members of the House of Representatives think it should be ok to gamble on horse races or lotteries over the internet…just not poker or sports betting. That makes sense eh? Cannon and Bishop should be embarrassed…I know I’m a little embarrassed that they represent my state in such a foolish manner.

UPDATE 7/13/06:

Jon Stewart has the explanation about why our representatives felt it so important to keep horse race wagering and state lotteries from being banned by the Internet gambling ban that recently passed the house. It all has to do with the fact that, “the Internet is a series of tubes”. It is really complicated so I encourage you to click here for the full explanation…with diagrams.

2 Comments »

1. Jeremy - I am interested to hear your understanding of the what the language of the bill actually does and how it restricts gambling in Utah. Are you aware of the players here and how the language is being couched?

   I am assuming you are a Dem due to the fact that you have an Ashdown ad on your site. I don’t have a problem with that but to say that you are embarrassed by Cannon and Bishop? That might be a little too strong.

   Comment by Corey — July 13, 2006 @ 9:27 am

2. Corey,

   You asked if I’m “aware of the players here and how the language is being couched”. Do you really think it matters? If I like playing poker online (or even if I think it would benefit our whole country if this were regulated and taxed by congress instead of banned) and my congressman votes for a law that makes online gambling illegal I guess I’m a player in this and am affected by the way the language is being couched.

   I don’t really care if Republicans had to ensure horse racing and state lotteries were excluded from enforcement in this bill to keep from losing the support of Mitch McConnell and other Senators who would fight this legislation when it reaches the Senate. It is plainly hypocritical for the house to pass a law making online poker illegal but allowing gambling online for state lotteries and horse racing. I would think that even a house staffer could pick up on that. The fact that republicans need to be hypocritical in this case to get their legislation past the Senate doesn’t make them any less lame in my mind. No Corey…I don’t think being embarrassed at Bishop and Cannon in this case is “a little too strong.”

   Comment by Jeremy Manning — July 13, 2006 @ 3:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>