«

Ms. Duke Goes to Washington

by , Nov 15, 2007 | 11:15 pm

Comments (8)

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held the Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers. Errr, it was about online gaming.

John Conyers (D-MI) chaired the hearing; he has every potential to be a co-sponsor of one or more of the bills up for consideration in Congress, and he visited the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) convention a few weeks ago.

Robert Wexler and Shelley Berkley, both of whom introduced bills supported by the PPA, spoke at the hearing. And representing the PPA was Annie Duke. Her testimony was excellent, and when confronted by members of Congress like Goodlatte, she held her own.

The video of Annie’s testimony (with the introduction by Conyers) is worth listening to…


Tags: , , , , ,

8 Comments to “Ms. Duke Goes to Washington”


  1. DanM     says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 2:57pm

    Just watched the vid … and seriously, great job by Annie. (We’ll pretend we didn’t notice that she kept calling the PPA the Poker Players Association, as opposed to the Alliance.)

    Is there more video of her out there being questioned by the members? Would love to see it.


  2. California Jen     says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 3:10pm

    Here is a link to PPA YouTube videos:

    http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?p=r&user=pokerplayersalliance&page=1

    There are numerous videos of testimony and Q&A sessions from Wednesday. Interesting debate…


  3. DanM     says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 5:18pm

    Thanks for that link, Jen. Totally fascinating stuff. I hope a lot of people click it and watch the various testimonies. Am I just being biased in thinking that our side is clearly winning?


  4. California Jen     says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 5:22pm

    Honestly, I don’t even truly understand the other side of the argument. People like Goodlatte seem so small-minded, and I don’t understand what’s behind his vendetta. He seems so far removed from mainstream America that it boggles the mind.

    If poker can’t win this fight, this country is more backwards than I thought.


  5. DanM     says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 5:38pm

    Ah, the flaming Cali liberal in you comes out. 🙂

    But saying you don’t even want to try to understand the other side of the argument makes you sound like someone who is getting it all-in with pocket kings no matter what comes on the flop or how your opponent bets.


  6. DanM     says:
    November 16th, 2007 at 5:58pm

    By the way, it just occurred to me … too late to make a change … but shouldn’t the hedline be:

    Ms. Chips Goes to Washington?


  7. California Jen     says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 5:49am

    I can’t deny my flaming liberal side…

    What I meant when I said I don’t understand Goodlatte and those who support anti-gaming legislation is that their point seems to weak – wouldn’t stand up to the pro-gaming side in a college debate. I do understand their side but think it’s a shady argument.

    And in truth, I do have a hard time with the fact that those who claim they want smaller government are the first to dive in and try to regulate people’s personal freedoms. I have difficulties with their side of the story.


  8. Michele Lewis     says:
    November 17th, 2007 at 12:37pm

    Word Jen!
    Very nice job by Annie, thanks for putting that up.
    She’s a great speaker simply because she does her research and believes in what she’s saying. Honesty goes a long way.