How Your Game Voting Turned Out

Democrats, the war, and taxes are all just sidelines to the real issue: gaming. We talked about game-related political issues on Tuesday, and now Chris Kohler at Game|Life has the run-down on how the game voting turned out. From the article: "In short, anything that could have gone wrong, did, no matter what your political stripe. Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, co-authors of the Family Entertainment Protection Act, return to what will likely be a Democrat-controlled Senate. Meanwhile, two of the only House seats that Republicans managed to hold on to will be filled by Cliff Stearns and Fred Upton, each author of his own pet anti-games bill. (Stearns is the guy who wants to make the ESRB play through every video game in its entirety before rating it.) What this means for all of us is more wasted taxpayer money, as the ESA eats legislation like this for breakfast and we'll be footing their legal bills."

Don't freak out, people...

[mjhacker]

Maybe these politicians have no love for gaming or protecting gamers' rights, but there's no evidence that's there's going to be anything significant done to alienate gamers. When it's all said and done, nothing will be significantly different from when the Republicans were in control. Politicians are politicians, and despite party differences, both sides are exceptionally good at not getting anything done.

scapegoat

[Fozzyuw]

Least of all the Democrats, because now there's one question on their plates "We promised X, how are we going to do it?". They have 2 years to prove they know how to lead, and that's definatly not going to be enough time. I heard so many boasts about everything, from getting us out of Iraq, to restoring the country, homeland security, FEMA, yet I never heard a single plan that would work in anything other than the short term or feel good ways.

yes, but they still have a scape goat if something goes wrong. They'll still blame Bush. Heck, Bush will be blamed for American short-comings for probably 2 presidential terms after him.

Lieberman not powerless

[fistfullast33l]

Above someone said some Dems are treating Lieberman as a leper (kudos to CT for breaking replies today). That's actually a bit incorrect. Without Lieberman, the Dems don't have their majority. He's said he'll caucus with the Dems, but his "bipartisanship" (read: conservative leanings) usually causes him to cross the lines on important issues. So they're going to have to let him have his way or he can become a real pain and decide to side with Republicans on key issues. Even better, he's probably going to be the most powerful man in the Senate as with Cheney he'll be the tiebreaker on straight down party line votes.