« And then depression set in | Main | Get in line »
November 08, 2006
Gambling killed the GOP's hold on the Senate
A colleague e-mailed me this morning, asking if I was alive in the aftermath of the mid-term thumping.
I reassured him that I was fine, and we had a brief exchange about the election.
He focused on the GOP-sponsored ban on internet gaming, an act of legislative busybody-ism that drove him -- a dedicated high-roller -- into paroxysms of anger.
Although not much of a gambler myself (my idea of high stakes is trying the "Chef's Special" at the burrito stand down on the Avenue), I also thought the web-based ban on gambling was ill advised on many levels.
I've never understood why we think it's okay for the State to encourage gambling, via the lottery; to allow gambling on Indian reservations; but to criminalize the local betting pool on football games or shut down the virtual casinos.
Given that the GOP-controlled Congress accomplished little, that they decided to propose and pass this legislation despite no groundswell of support left me -- and many other conservatives -- aghast.
In a conversation with another colleague, I proposed that this bill alone might have meant the difference between the GOP holding the Senate and the Dems taking control. He expressed disbelief, finding it risible that such a trivial -- and in his opinion, necessary -- law could so enrage enough conservatives or libertarian voters that they'd abandon the GOP.
I suggested that for classical conservatives like me, the idea of blue-nosed busybodies prohibiting yet another victimless "crime" was more proof that the party of Reagan had lost its way.
As it turns out, I was more right than I knew. In the hours following the news that the Senate had shifted to the Dems following the loss of Montana and Virginia, came this from the folks at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Did anyone else notice that the Libertarian Party in Montana (Stan Jones, who received 3%) provided far more than the margin of victory between [Democrat] Tester and [Republican] Burns? Assuming that the LP candidate drew more from Burns than Tester, this means that the LP essentially played a kingmaker role in creating a Democratic Senate.
Do you think those libertarians might have voted for Burns if the Congress hadn't voted to ban behavior by consenting adults in the privacy of their homes? And if they had voted for the Republican candidate, the Senate would be 50-50, with Vice President Cheney the tie-breaking vote.
That was one expensive anti-gambling bill.
Posted by Mike Lief at November 8, 2006 11:44 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
Let me tell you what killed the Republicans! The Republicans shot their own damn toes off. I'm a Republican and I voted Democrat this time around. I'm sick of their corruption.
How many of them have to go to jail? They also spent more money than Bill Clinton did on his worst day.
The chumps in DC who are calling themselves Republicans right now, including Bush, are not what I consider myself. I wanted them out of office just to clean house so we can get some new guys back into office who remember what the Contract With America was supposed to be about.
Posted by: Parrot Fish at November 10, 2006 11:24 PM