And I will concede that you may not fall into either of the two camps I described. I have neither time nor inclination to parse through your past posts (although I'm sure they are all interesting).
Fair enough?
Fair enough.
For the record, I think going after Bennett because of a gambling thing is silly, and I don't really have a problem with "casual" gambling. I would probably be more inclined to gamble myself if I did not have the worst luck of any individual in the world (it's documented). As it is, it doesn't interest me in the least, and the best time I had in Vegas was when I went to see the Hoover Dam.
My problem with Bennett is, as I said, his arrogance, and how his arrogance manifests itself in attempting to be a moral touchstone, when he, being a human being, is so spectacularly unqualified. And his ultra-liberal past bothers me; he changed stripes in a hurry when Reagan became President, which struck me as suspicius. I suspect he is closer to his brother Bob (Defender of Bill) than any would like to admit.