I’ll let you all know what I hear.

“Thank you for contacting me at the Baldwin Campaign. Please expect to receive a reply within 48 hours.”

I’ll let you all know when I hear back.

Also, in addition to the Third Party Watch articles….. (caught before sending)

Dear Mr. Baldwin,

Sorry to trouble you again. I’m writing again to inquire about your position on Internet poker rights. I have added you to my guide, at http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/presidential-candidates-and-internet-poker-rights, basing your position on your pubic statements on the matter and on the Constitution Party platform. However, I’ll certainly update it if you’ve had a change of heart on this issue. If you have, will you let me know so I can update my guide?

I did wait for either a reply to my other emails or a public statement from your campaign on this issue prior to adding you to the guide.

Also, in addition to the Third Party Watches articles, this guide was covered at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/06/poker-players-alliance-posts-more-anti-gambling-quotes-from-baldwin.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Rich Muny
[contact info]

GAMBLING:
We believe that the basic principle of gambling (as defined by the courts) is a game of chance in which money is either lost or won, and as such is an immoral activity. It is a denial of the Biblical teaching of the rule of God’s providence over our lives, a denial of the work-ethic, and a denial of the principles of stewardship of the wealth that God has entrusted to us. Therefore we oppose all forms of gambling, whether illegal or government-sponsored.

If you’re on his staff, you must support him, right?

I still don’t get why you think poker players should be thrilled to hear that we’re merely strongly disliked on a personal level. After all, Baldwin doesn’t simply abhor the idea of himself gambling….he abhors others participating in gaming. And, you write all this like it should be a good thing for us. Again, if Baldwin wrote that he hates gun ownership and stated a belief that guns and gun owners are bad for society, gun owners wouldn’t be pleased.

Anyway, I appreciate your urging him to speak to me. I have several emails out to his campaign, including one to Anita Andrews. I phoned the CP headquarters and the Baldwin campaign itself. I’ve received no reply.

My interpretation of Baldwin’s position does not concur with yours, at all. Barr/Root advocate permitting interstate poker. How does Baldwin propose to make Internet poker a state issue? By banning interstate poker and permitting only intrastate poker? Would be advocate federal legislation making poker clearly legal but allowing states to “opt-out”? If so, would that not violate his principle of opposition to all “legalized gambling”?

Barr/Root have spoken publicly on this. How can you compare “I’m not authorized to speak on it” to Root’s articles praising our right to play?

If you don’t like the F, just have Baldwin put a two-sentence blurb on his site backing our right to play online. What’s so hard about that? Ron Paul always speaks strongly for our right to play. He left a House hearing with Ben Bernanke to testify at the last hearing on Internet gaming. Why are there so similar public statements by Baldwin if he supports us at all? The fact that he won’t, despite you personally asking him to, is certainly of concern.

Im not some “big fan” of Baldwins who is spouting off useless crap. I’v spoken with him personally on this issue, as im a member of his campaign staff. Im not authorized to speak on it, but I’ll certainly urge him to speak with you. A failing grade is simply rediculous–as Baldwin has never said anything more dangerous towards gambling than Bob Barr. Both want a “states-rights” position on gambling. It seems that Baldwin’s F comes from his PERSONAL abhorrance of gambling, rather than any sort of public-policy position. Seems cheap to me.

I don’t see how a passing grade is appropriate at this stage. If Baldwin spoke this way toward gun owners, people would be up in arms. Some think poker players should expect to be spoken of in a negative manner, I guess. We don’t.

I’ll keep an eye on my email, hopeful that the Baldwin campaign will share with us their new message of liberty.

Which is 100% fair.

I do think a D, D+ or D- would have been more appropriate than an F, though.

I realize you’re a big Baldwin fan, so you think anyone who says anything negative about him must be wrong by definition. So, it makes sense that you’d argue with them, debate them, and nitpick them.

Sorry, but that’s not going to work here. This case is so easy to rate. There’s so much on the record that only a staunch Baldwin supporter could expect poker players to disregard it all.

Baldwin has my request for information on this. I await his response.

Im not seeing the quote where he said, “Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling”. I see only “Can you imagine a country that did not glorify, much less sponsor, gambling?”
You linked to a place where the article had been reposted at the CP website and erroneously changes that ONE sentence to mean that he supports illegalized gambling.

With all the issues the world has, the fact that gaming is consistently so high on Baldwin’s list of what he’d change to turn the world into a utopia is pretty troubling.

I don’t gamble either (gambling being participating in a game of chance, hoping for luck), but I am troubled by those who’d force their opinions on others. I, like you, support other’s right to play.

I don’t gamble myself, but I certainly support other’s rights to. And I don’t think the world would be better with less gambling, either! But of a libertarian saying, “Imagine a world without poverty.” It doesn’t mean he would advocate anti-poverty laws or subsidies, etc.

Baldwin asked, “Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling.” Not, “Can you imagine a country where individuals each chose of their free will to not gamble.”

The only way for America to have no “legalized” gaming is for the federal government to unauthorize Indian gaming (which is in the CP platform), for all 50 states to ban all gaming, and for the federal government to expand the Wire Act to cover all gaming (it covers only sports betting now). That’s what Baldwin was hoping/wishing/daydreaming for. And, again, this was not some offhand remark. This is from an article posted on the CP site.

I didn’t “read” anything into that. He said this. There are also all the other quotes where he said how horrible gaming and participants in gaming are. And, he’s not ONCE followed up his insults with something like “but they should have a right to do it” as Ron Paul would. Hardly a champion for our rights to date.

Funny you mentioned pornography. Baldwin had very little to say about that, yet has all of these statements in opposition to gaming. Seems he really doesn’t like poker, as he hates it even more than pornography.

The bottom line is that this is a guide for poker players. Poker players are not ashamed to play. Rather, we’re very proud to be involved in a great sport. It’s a game of skill, and we’re worked hard to achieve at the game.

Quite frankly, I’ve received NO comments from PPA members asking for Baldwin to be rated higher. You see, we don’t have to read anything further into his derogatory comments. They are bad enough on their own. Baldwin’s “PERSONAL abhorrence of gambling” is enough to get dropped a grade or so.

I do hope to hear something from the Baldwin campaign indicating he believes as you hope he does.