Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Pettee who wrote (7580)	2/24/1998 10:01:00 AM
From: T.K. Allen	Respond to of 10368

Ed: Thanks for the link. Ahhh, the "sausage mill" in all its glory! That article is a pretty good description of some of the "wheeling & dealing" that goes on in the law-making process. You may want to keep watch on the daily Senate journals (http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/sjournal.htm) which describe what the Senate did each day. You may also want to watch the Senate calendar (http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/sencal.htm) to see what other business they have going. TKA

To: Ed Pettee who wrote (7580)	2/24/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: DJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

Ed is there some weakness in the 23 senators that sponsored the bill? The article states "Video poker supporters -- and some who would have you believe they are opponents" This seems to cloud the issue further. Are there senators that say they are in favor of the ban but in reality will not support it? Is Beasley's support not as strong as it first appears? Guess only time will tell. Dennis

To: Ed Pettee who wrote (7580)	2/24/1998 1:03:00 PM
From: jimmy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10368

That article touches on what I have been saying all along. A filibuster can be defeated if the anti-gaming forces are sufficiently committed. They can essentially wait out the filibusters - refusing to allow the senate to do any business until a vote on video poker is allowed to proceed. It takes a lot of guts (or fear), on both sides, to stay the course in the face of growing public pressures. However, here is another school of thought: Beasley and his anti-gaming friends may not want to win this one. Why? A quick and successful resolution robs them of a powerful campaign issue. Sure, they want to put up a solid fight, but they may see far more political value in maintaining the status quo - having this issue remain in the public consciousness throughout the upcoming campaign season. That keeps the anti-gaming political machine motivated and entrenched behind Beasley and his legislative friends, and it keeps the heat on the pro-gaming supporters. Something to think about...