In poker, you are said to be pot-committed when you put the vast majority of your chips in the pot already, so that it is inevitable that you will need to eventually go all-in. If you’ve got $3,000, you bet $2,900, and your opponent raises, you are pot-committed: folding instead of putting in your last $100 is an idiotic move even if your cards absolutely suck. This is precisely the hand that Obama and Democrats have. They ran on a message of doing things differently in Washington, and passing health care reform. True, they have certainly made a giant mess of everything, and it is mainly the fault of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. However, giving up at this point is suicide. It’s folding your cards, and when you fold, you have a zero percent chance of winning. At least if you get all your money in, you have a shot. Maybe not a great shot, but a shot.

Democrats have two options now. The first is to pass a health-care reform bill (even the crappy Senate one), and a few other bills that tangibly benefit voters and tap into their anger. They can then say to the American people, “This is what we’ve done in two years. If you like it, vote for us, if you don’t, vote for them.” There’s a chance that voters won’t like it, but at the same time, it shows voters that Democrats can govern at least somewhat. The other option is to give up and pass nothing meaningful, and then say to the American people, “Vote for us despite having accomplished nothing in two years with the Democrats firmly in control of Congress and the White House.”

One of those options has a chance of working, the other one does not. Only a fool would choose to fold when all of his chips are on the line.

Later, I’ll talk about how terrible Congressional Democrats have been on messaging.

• Current Mood: Befuddled
• Currently Listening To: "Sheep", Pink Floyd
• Currently Reading: "What Americans Really Want...Really", Frank Luntz

First, a bit of disclosure: I like playing poker. I’ve played poker both in real live ring games and online. I take issue with online poker being lumped in with other forms of “gambling”. Gambling at a casino means making a bet against the house, which has an edge that varies from the very small to the outrageously huge. There is little, if any, skill involved, and over the long run you are going to lose your money. Poker, on the other hand, does not pit a person against the house and its daunting advantage. Instead, it pits player against player, and the money you win comes directly from other people when you outmaneuver them. It is certainly possible to make a living by playing poker; skill is all that counts, the cards you get evening out for everybody in the long run. Online or in real life, the provider of the poker arena (the online software or the chips, dealer, table, cards, etc. in real life) just get a slice of the action for providing the service.

So if there’s any such thing as a truly “victimless crime”, online poker, where participants willingly win and lose their own money amongst themselves, has to be it. Wasting resources going after this activity seems like a case of misplaced priorities. However, that’s hardly the sole reason this is a bad move. More frightening is the state attempting to get ISPs to block whatever they believe to be “objectionable content” without demonstrating a clear public need for such a block. This proposal came out of the blue with no public input; surely a measure as drastic as blocking access to a large category of websites deserves some debate among the people.

Barney Frank, the Democrat from Massachusetts is proposing that the ban on online gambling be modified to undo the draconian change that was passed into law in 2006 almost completely under the radar (under a Republican Congress, to boot); I think such a change is long overdue. Should online gambling be regulated? Absolutely. But outright bans and witch hunts don’t accomplish much.