Obama Opposed Expanded Gaming in Illinois
This doesn't surprise me. It's another example of not knowing where Barack Obama really stands on various issues.
The 60,000 member Nevada Culinary Workers' Union has endorsed Barack Obama. Obama says he supports gaming in Nevada. But,
As an Illinois state senator, Obama reportedly questioned the use of gaming as a tool for economic development in his state. In 1999, he voted against a bill that expanded gaming there, while in 2003 he voted for a bill supported by the gaming industry that loosened regulations.
As of now, the feds have outlawed internet gaming. They also control Indian casinos. While some will say Obama's thoughts on gaming are irrelevant since besides these two facets, gambling laws are left to the states, I'm not so sure. There will be continued efforts federally to allow internet gaming.
Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, in a CNN interview in November(video here), said the candidates' positions on internet gaming could be an issue:[More...]
BLITZER: Do you -- have you queried them, whether it's Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards, on their specific positions on gambling?
GOODMAN: Basically the only one that I did that with was with Ms. Clinton, Senator Clinton. She was out here. It was a social event. And she seems to be very pro-business, understanding that our primary industry here is tourism, and a great part of that is gaming. So she has no problem with that.
Now, the question as to whether or not they're going to support Internet on an international basis of gaming, I don't think anybody has declared themselves one way or the other on that.
Obama says he supports gaming in Nevada because it's well regulated, but opposes it in Illinois. It seems to me he has a tendency to carve out exceptions to justify his inconsistent positions. Like his statements about how he will not hire lobbyists when one is on his campaign. His justification is he's a state lobbyist, not a federal lobbyist.
On the death penalty, he's opposed to it for the innocent (who isn't) but supports it for heinous crimes, a class that includes murder of the elderly and disabled. Then, to his credit, he votes against a bill that would make more gang crimes subject to the death penalty. (See, Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2007, available on Lexis.com).
On mandatory minimums, he went from advocating abolishing them to promising a review of them. He has been inconsistent on what he would do to equalize the crack-powder cocaine penalties. On medical marijuana, he would end federal raids in states that allow it, but only promises a "study" of whether medical marijuana should be allowed federally.
I really don't think we should have to do hours of research to know where our candidates stand. And that's what happens with Obama, far more frequently than with Hillary or John Edwards.
|< Nevada Teachers Union Sues to Prevent Casino Precincts | Clintons Address Race Questions >|