Booking Bennett

NRO ^ | 5/5/2003 | Jonah Goldberg

[cgk]

This is a double whammy for Newsweek, because not only did he gamble, he did so with such large sums of money. What an inconsiderate, rich white guy. He could have donated that money to the local food kitchen, rather than use it to entertain himself

I'm growing tired of people telling the rich how to spend their money - whether it is liberals screaming they shouldn't be rich in the first place and should be taxed more, or people on this very board espousing that Bennett should have given some of his money to "the community." Does anyone know he doesn't give to charity? And if he doesn't, what does it matter?

[JohnGalt]

In order to lose $8 million you would have to put about $32 million through the machines.

Should someone with such a 'unique' lifestyle be commenting on education policy for us working folk?

[gdani]

What Bill does LEGALLY is his own business

Maybe if Bill himself followed that philosophy there wouldn't be so many people enjoying this story.

As Nixon said towards the end of the Watergate scandals (paraphrasing) - "I gave them the rope & they hung me".

[radioman]

I wonder why a smart guy like Bennett doesn't play real poker. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he did

Good point.
Real poker requires skill and discipline.

We're talking about a guy who makes policy. A guy who effects all of our lives. A guy who cannot compete at the poker table, but mindlessly pumps money into the losers black hole of video poker.

Scary!

[mr.pink]

...its just opportunism to bust him for his gambling at this time but that's how it goes sometime.

I agree. Whenever a story like this breaks, one that just as easily could've broken years ago, my gut tells me he has recently crossed the wrong person.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I agree. It's his own money. He should be able to spend it on harmless habits like pot smoking, shouldn't he? Err...I guess not.

[cgk]

This isn't about Bennett. It's about torching Republicans, one after another, by a highly partisan press corps that thinks it can sneak this stuff into the public dialog as "news" without being identified themselves as hatchet-men for a craven Democratic Party

Bump, AMEN to that.

[AbsoluteJustice]

I agree to a point but noone has posted here what this man has done illegally.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Of course, Bennett built his reputation as a man who wants to criminalize behavior so even fewer activities are no longer a man's "own business." Even on gambling, Bennett's Empower America opposes extension of casino gambling. We wouldn't want the great unwashed to have the same gambling options as "Mr. Virtue" would we?

[Mamzelle]

Bennett's embarrassed, and should be, for behaving like a profligate Hollywood thrill-seeker. Throwing away millions (if the stories are accurate as to amounts) for the rush of a moment's risk speaks directly to his judgement. Keep in mind, this guy makes more than most people earn in a year by giving one speech, and that speech is about "values, moderation, tradition."

Gambling is legal, the way he gambles. You can argue that gambling is not immoral, with some success. But there are many out there disappointed that Bill Bennett is so *silly* and frivolous with the great resources at his disposal. And no matter how rich he is, eight million in losses (once again, if true) just might point to someone out of control.

Those who claim that we're "eating our own" are overreacting. I think most conservatives expressing disapproval are appalled at the wasteful behavior, and that's as far as it goes. Bennett may find himself taken less seriously than he has been previously--it's not like he's being hauled to the pillory and caned. Bennett's no crybaby. He'll probably turn the whole "scandal" into an object lesson.

And, once again, we grassroots must endure a spectacle of leaders we trust being seduced by the trappings of celebrity and wealth. Dance with the one what brung ya, and you might stay out of trouble, Bill.

[cgk]

Pot-smoking (illegal) and gambling (not illegal) are not comparable.

[Right Wing Professor]

So hypocrisy is a good thing?

If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, then yes, it is. Bettter it not be vice. But if it be vice, better it pay tribute.

[Cacophonous]

I WAS MISQUOTED.

OK, I actually stated poorly what I was trying to say. Lemme try again: Horowitz and Savage have admitted to their liberal pasts, and used them as examples. I've never heard Bennett do this; one would think he has always been a aRepublican, and has always passed himself off as a conservative.

There, that's closer to what I was trying to say.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I agree....casual pot smoking (which Bennett equates with terrorism) and pathlogical gambling (which Bennett thinks should be legal at least for folks who can afford to travel to Las Vegas) are indeed quite different.

BTW, since you apparently determine your morality on the basis of what is "illegal" or "legal" I suspect that poker-playing Bill has violated a few local and state laws against that activity in his life. Wanna bet?

[Cacophonous]

...hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue...

Huh? If I understood this, I could probably articulate better why I disagree with it.

[Mr. Bird]

Bennett's Empower America opposes extension of casino gambling.

I am pro-casino, but that doesn't mean an opposing view is without merit. In some locales, it may not make a whole lot of sense. And Empower America, I believe, wishes to build comprehensive economies with a diverse industry base; most casino initiatives are one-trick ponies. Does Empower America oppose casino gambling based on some sort of "virtue" based stance, or a practical one?

[Right Wing Professor]

If virtue did not exist or had no power, then it would be unnecessary for people to pretend to be virtuous. In that pretence (hypocrisy), therefore, vice makes an acknowledgement of the power of virtue.

[AbsoluteJustice]

That is reaching for straws. I guess the Friday night Penny Poker I used to play at grandma's when I was 12 years old constitutes the same. Someone come lock me away.

[cgk]

If we assume for the sake of argument that BB kept his bet the same over the years, we can conclude that Bill put approximately $32 million dollars through these machines.

So now are going to assume a monetary figure on how much he actually spent versus how much he says he lost over a decade? How do you base your arguments and conclusions on assumptions? Even these stories "exposing" his gambling make assumptions. He "lost 8 million dollars over 10 years."

The story at the top of this thread notes that "Indeed, the stunner of the story — that Bennett wagered $8 million over the last decade — isn't even as stunning as Green and Alter desperately want it to be. There isn't any evidence that he lost $8 million dollars, only that he's bought $8 million in chips over a decade. If, as is more likely, his losses are half that, he'd have spent less than what numerous movie stars and CEOs spend on their country estates, private jets, and divorces."

Another assumption, but it is showing what was omitted from the original stories about Bennett: what he won over that decade. Saying someone "lost" 8 million over a decade, when they could have possibly won any number of million back, therefore making his statement about "breaking even" one-sided, and wholly beneficial to his decriers.

[Right Wing Professor]

By the way, it's not my saying, it's attributed to Matthew Arnold, and is fairly widely known.