It is like finding out that C. Everett Coop likes to chain smoke and binge drink cheap off-brand Vodka. Not illegal, but highly amusing given their strident public personas.
Bennett is reaping what he has sown. The fact that it’s funny is just a bonus. And the additional fact that he is bad at it is even sweeter. This is the stuff that a thousand jokes are written over.
BUT- did he do something wrong? No. As long as Capt. Morals was gambling legally, he didn’t do anything all that bad, unless he was being judged by his own brand of hyper-morals which he imposed on others (usually of one particular political party).
In the words on the great Nelson Muntz: Ha Ha!
Oh and in regards to this:
No, it was for the wild parties, frequent casual sex with models, and stress-free life on easy street. I can see why your so jealous.
I’m glad you give a shit whether he’s morally pure in his own heart. I sure don’t.
The guy makes a career, and a mint, out of telling me that I should live by his moral principles. He sure doesn’t care whether I consider myself morally pure: if I violate his vision of virtues, I ough to change.
If he can rationalize losing lots of money (‘even’ just the amount confirmed by this investigation) rather than doing something constructive and less self-indulgent with it, then he’s as much a moral relativist as those he castigates.
BTW, perhaps to refute the claim that he’s lost $8 million, he’ll open up his tax records… since he lost so much over an 18-month period, he’d have to have made quite a bit in some years to justify the claim he broke even. So he’d have to declare those winnings on his taxes. Unless of course, he didn’t report the winnings…
Of course, Dewey will say that Bennett doesn’t consider cheating on his taxes immoral, so we shouldn make a fuss about it.
As long as Bennett conforms to his stated moral principles, he is not a hypocrite; failing to conform to some other person’s moral principles doth not a hypocrite make.
Bennett may consider you “immoral” for not conforming to his world-view, but in no way could he call you a “hypocrite” for failing to do so (unless, of course, you had also espoused his world-view). **
If you want to criticize Bennett’s moral constructs, fine. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say that Bennett’s world-view ought to include a proscription on high-stakes gambling, for precisely the reason you note.
But hypocrisy is the wrong charge to make here. **
Wow. You just implied Bennett is a tax cheat without actually saying so. Way to smear someone while maintaining plausible deniability. You should run for office with those kinds of skills.
Thanks!! I’ve learned everything I know from watching the GOP!
Seriously, though, should Bennett want to complain about the $8 million dollar loss claim, he could dispute it by showing his gambling losses and gains on his taxes. Otherwise, he might generate the impression that he just doesn’t want to admit to immorally high gambling losses.
Bennett’s other comments seem to indicate he doesn’t have a moral problem with large gambling losses, so long as they don’t come out of the “milk money,” to use his terms.
Right, but he’s clearly concerned with how others might view losses so large on an absolute scale. Otherwise he wouldn’t bother claiming that he broke even.
As a side note, I’m kind of surprised that a guy with such real power and influence should feel the need to be treated like a high roller. I think there are other flaws in his character, in addition to the gambling thing and the obsessive interest in other people’s ethical behavior.
I’m with elf6c on this one. Bennett deserves to be the object of a few hearty laughs for a couple of weeks, then we move on and let him dust himself off, pull himself together, and try to get his footing back. In any case, an ocassional cutting down to size is actually good for moralizing self-appointed guardians of virtue. Keeps them on their toes (Why Bennett’s the designated Virtue Guy, I have no idea. Was nobody else writing about the subject?).
However, this does bring one thing to my mind… y’see, Bill may have been preaching “virtue” in the old-fashioned Western-Civ sense thereof. BUT – a lot of his audience in the USA, specially among the GOP rank+file, has more of an inclination to the “Christian”-right POV, with its much less tolerant attitude towards “social” sin. What would be really interesting is if that audience will now turn their back on Bennett, or be willing to reconsider their attitude generally, or only in the case of a Republican. (And anyway, US media and political culture tends to view these sorts of issues too much in absolute – and false – anything-goes vs. nothing-goes terms)
Please. Do you think others would view his gambling activities any differently if Bennett had won rather than lost? People who are likely to frown on high-stakes gambling do so because the gambler puts large sums at risk, not because he loses or wins. **
Wow, you really are keen on playing pop psychologist, aren’t you?
FWIW, the article doesn’t indicate that Bennett reveled in being treated as a high roller. If anything, it’s quite the opposite – according to the article, Bennett preferred the machines because people would recognize him at the tables, and immediately wanted to talk politics.
Michael Kinsley addresses the points raised moralizing conservatives’ reflexively protecting one of their own moral “icons”:
[quote]
1.) He never specifically criticized gambling. …Working his way down the list of other people’s pleasures, weaknesses, and uses of American freedom, he just happened to skip over his own. How convenient. …
2.) His gambling never hurt anyone else…[T]he Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, one of Bennett’s cleverer PR conceits, includes “problem” gambling as a negative indicator of cultural health. So, Bennett doesn’t believe that gambling is harmless. He just believes that his own gambling is harmless. But by the standards he applies to everything else, it is not harmless.
He’s doing no harm to himself. …If it’s true that he’s lost $8 million in gambling casinos over 10 years, that surely is addictive or compulsive behavior no matter how good virtue has been to him financially…Surely even a high-roller can’t “cycle through” $8 million so quickly that family, church, and community don’t suffer.
Bennett’s moral code does not forbid social drinking. Bennett drinks socially. Does your “how convenient” snarkiness apply to that, too?
2a. The LCI lists a bunch of other things, too, including TV watching, film attendance, music purchases, etc. So what?
2b. “Problem” gambling : Bennett :: Alcoholic : social drinker. You can condemn alcoholism without condemning all drinking.
As I noted earlier, I’ve had dealings with people who would go to AC or Vegas and drop six figures in a day without breaking a sweat. They weren’t compulsive or addicted. They just had a lot of scratch.
I’m not talking about my view. I’m talking about a self-serving, moralizing, $50,000-per-appearance celebrity considering his own public image. Do people want to pay $50,000 to see a loser speak?
Oh, sorry. Is that on Bill Bennett’s list of vices?
FWIW, those are Bill’s own explanations for his fat-cat behavior. I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that this was a fact-checked assertion on the part of the article’s authors…
I wonder if he’s got some equally self-serving excuse for the “thousands of dollars in free limousines and hotel rooms” he’s accepted from this virtuous industry?
Again, I have to ask. Does the fact that someone was able to cover the losses make the difference between compulsive reckless gambling and harmless ‘for fun’ gambling?
Only if social drinking is generally considered a sin. It is not. Gambling is. Next?
So what? It’s a compendium of the things Bennett is preaching against, that’s what. Live by the sword etc., as Post #2 said.
2b.Nobody but you has mentioned social drinking, and that was twice in one post. What’s your point?
As Kinsley pointed out, and as you’re ignoring, the evidence is that Bennett is a habitual gambler, not a recreational one.
Sin is sin and virtue is virtue, according to him. What other standards are more appropriate to judge him by than his own?
You’re not helping him or yourself with your increasingly-desperate apologism, ya know.
I’m pretty sure Bennett’s speaking fee won’t be affected by his luck with a slot handle. If his fee is affected, it’ll be because he was gambling, period, not because he lost money. I can’t imagine the impact would be any different if Bennett had won considerable sums of money.
(Heck, if Bennett’s got anything to be ashamed of, it’s playing a sucker game like slots – now that choice might make people question his wisdom) **
How about “I dropped six figures at the casino over the weekend, so the least they could do was comp my room and give me a ride”?
That stuff is free only by the most narrow definition of the word – it certainly comes with a pretty high cost.
I could point you to any number of fundamentalist churches that do consider drinking of any sort to be a sin. And the Roman Catholic Church – whose doctrine forms the backbone of much of what Bennett preaches – does not consider responsible gambling to be a sin. **
No, it isn’t. Here is a link to the [url-http://www.empower.org/culture.pdf]cultural indicators you mention (PDF). It is what it is – a compendium of social indicators. Noting that Americans watch increasingly more TV does not mean that one is suggesting that TV itself is a per se wrong. Neither does noting that problem gambling is becoming more of an issue in American tantamount to suggesting that all gambling is per se evil. **
Because it is an appropriate analogy to the current situation. One can condemn alcoholism without condemning all drinking. One can condemn problem gambling and gambling addiction without condemning all gambling. **
Kinsely’s sole basis for saying Bennett is a habitual gambler is the sum of money that Bennett has lost at the casino over time. As I’ve noted, there are very wealthy people who drop considerable sums at the casino who are not addicted or compulsive gamblers. Kinsley lacks an adequate factual basis upon which to ground his diagnosis.
Bennett may be benefitting from “The Death of Outrage,” as he put it in his book on Bill Clinton. I took a pass on that one when it was published, maybe I should go and give it a read. All quotes from the book are available online at Amazon.com. The Death of Outrage
[Reverend Jim mode on]Okey dokey, boss![/rev jim mode off]I judge your pissing away $8 million on slots to be morally reprehensible, you hypocritical sniveling punk bastard.
DCU, do you suffer from an allergy to judgments and standards?
Mr. Bennett, if your own petard fits, get hoisted on it.
The point is that Bennett’s hypocrisy is in his guilt of omission–everything else he says suggests gambling would (and should) fall under the same line of reasoning. But because it’s something he does, he doesn’t subject it to the same scrutiny. That is convenient (and dishonest)
The hypocrisy in the “never hurt anyone else” defense is that that’s never stopped him from condemning other behavior that proponents similarly defend. Kinsley continues:
Whether he’s harmed himself or not is irrelevant in his moral hierarchy (see point #2). Yet, he remains evasive about the details & plausibility of his “break even”/“milk money” excuses.
One suspects the prohibition his wife just imposed suggests that they know how it plays to all of us who recognize actions for what they are, without DCU’s tedious hair-splitting.
There’s a bright side to all this (besides the fact that he’ll shut up and lay low, at least for awhile). Much of the money he’s been paid for his sermons (paid by people who deserve their own criticism related to this subject, but have gotten off so far), has in fact supported the livelihoods of decent, hard-working casino/hotel employees instead of disappearing into the stock market and so forth. While gambling isn’t victimless, it isn’t beneficiaryless, either. Lotteries are called “a tax on the stupid”, so perhaps casino gambling is “a tax on the stupid and/or hypocritical” as well.
Dewey, you’re edging into the December Zone here. Word to the wise, okay?