Bill Bennett: Gambling Hit Pieces Won't Silence Me

NewsMax.com | 7/31/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

Conservative ethicist Bill Bennett emerged from a self imposed two month silence on Tuesday to announce that he wasn't going to let inaccurate stories about his gambling habits planted by "people who were trying to take me out" drive him from public life.

"I'm back and I will be more outspoken than ever," Bennett told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity, after accepting full responsibility for the betting brouhaha.

"What I did that was wrong was that in the last few years I started to play big money, really big money. Maybe not too much in terms of what I was making, but too much in terms of who I am. And I was not being a good example."

The leading conservative spokesman revealed that his habit had become an issue at home, telling Hannity, "It got excessive. Mrs. Bennett got on me. She was right. And this story hit and it was all out there for everyone to see."

Bennett said he was faced with the choice of either changing his behavior or changing his standards. "So, in this case, the excessive gambling is over," he pledged.

He noted, however, that there was an agenda driving the gambling story that went beyond legitimate journalism, observing, "Some of these people were trying to take me out, saying, 'You're gone, man, you're out of public life.' And I don't not accept that."

He complained also that whoever leaked his gambling records to the Newsweek and the Washington Monthly had violated his privacy.

"[My gambling] wasn't a secret. But you do not expect your financial records, whether it's at a bank, a casino or anyplace, to be displayed all over the place."

The former Bush administration drug czar added, "Las Vegas has an ad out on TV and the radio, saying, 'What happens here, stays here.' Well, not in my case. That was really a rotten thing to do."

A spokesman for Caesar's Boardwalk in Atlantic City - one of the casinos named by Newsweek and the Washington Monthly - told NewsMax in May that they take every precaution to preserve the privacy of high rollers, and that the release of Bennett's records was the subject of an internal investigation.

The two publications that hyped the gambling scandal said they were relying on "40 pages of internal casino documents." But the target of the twin hit pieces said they got more than a few factual details wrong.

"A lot of what they put out was inaccurate - about losing $8 million and all that. There's no way that happened."

Bennett said the sources of the illicitly obtained records "released information to reporters that was wrong about totals, about wins and losses. It was really an attempt to do me in."

He stressed that he wasn't swearing off all wagering, telling Hannity, "Since there will be people doing the micrometer on me, I just want to be clear. I do want to be able to bet the [Buffalo] Bills in the Super Bowl."

When Hannity closed the interview by praising Bennett for taking responsibility for the imbroglio, the ethicist quipped, "You can bet on it."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Media Bias

[budwiesest]

"Some of these people were trying to take me out, saying, 'You're gone, man, you're out of public life.' And I don't not accept that."

Addicted to gambling.
Addicted to the warm glow of the public spotlight.

Can't get enough of those Sugar Crips too, probably.

[mdmathis6]

He takes responsibility for it...lets just watch now if he'll take discipline for it and learn from his mistakes!

[palmer]

Doing what his concerned wife asks regarding this problem...a true sign of repentant humility!

Perhaps. But she might have the same addiction to high rolling as him. Limiting one's Vanity to $5K dinners in NYC might be good enough for most people. After all, fine cuisine and service has a clear aesthetic purpose. But Vanity addicts like Bennett (and possibly his wife) need to go cold turkey IMO.

[Bluntpoint]

Agreed.

[palmer]

Addicted to the purposeful but involuntary movement of Adam's Smith's invisible hand in the private area. Case in point: the belief that the man in the restroom is really there to relieve you of the labor of reaching over and placing your used towel in the hamper yourself.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

for later

[Bluntpoint]

Why is that guy there who squeezes the jelly into my jelly filled donut?

Why don't they just give me the damn donuts and a syringe full of jelly?

[palmer]

Bennett would look at the syringe and presume you are a drugee.

[murdoog]

I would file a suit, too! I would file a suit if my bank released my finacial records or the hospital released my medical records. Some-body released those records illegally with intent to do harm...if it is allowed to go unpunished it could happen to any-one!

I think Bennett needs to stress this more. He needs to tell people "You may think gambling won't hurt you, but remember, that whole 'what happens here stays here' line is a lie. Your gambling could be made public just as easily as mine could. " This would accomplish two things: it would condemn the folks who released his records, and it would help others learn from his mistakes. Both good things.

[murdoog]

I understood then that I could never get used to handing the towel back to the man in the restroom, and I understand now that the ultimate purpose of men is not taking my towel in the restroom.

Huh??

[Affenmensch]

from the Dubliners' "seven deadly sins":

some say that Gambling's a sin,
but I'll bet you fifty to one
that gambling has been in this world
since horses and greyhounds could run

some say that smoking's a sin
that a pipe now and then is enough;
but smoking has been in this world
since Adam taught Eve how to puff!

some say that drinking's a sin,
but a gargle is fine now and then,
for drinking has been in this world
for ever and ever, amen.

[Reagan Renaissance]

Kind of reminds you of Newt's days as Speaker, and Livingston. They were thinking with the wrong head. Bennet was speaking with both forks of his tongue, or maybe one tongue was in cheek. He has made it a lot harder for his books to become standards of moral authority. And he poured feces on the efforts to set examples for kids and young adults. The left doesn't shoot itself in the foot when they have accidents like this. It is part of the culture and their heroes may even grow in stature over events like this. But it is very detrimental to conservative efforts to establish what is right and what is wrong. And it is detrimental to convincing people to choose the right over the left.

Now it appears he is adding hypocrisy to his vices and intends to compound the problem that he has already caused. If he were contrite and issued a humble apology seeking forgiveness, he might eventually recover some credibility. But it appears that he is more likely to be self-destructive and embarrass conservatives even more than he has already done.

Grow up Bill, or shut up!

[On the Road to Serfdom]

>"claims he didn't lose money..."

No, he claims he came out close to even.

>"...when all the evidence and a near mathmatical certainty would suggest otherwise"

On the contrary, the mathematics just about guarantees he is telling the truth.

>"Some casino estimates put his total losses over the past decade at more than $8 million."

Even if true, if is total winnings were $7.5 million then he would be close to even, no?
($500,000 net loss) /($8m + $7.5m)= 3.2% net loss.
Very close to even. I wish my growth mutual fund I bought a few years ago was that close to even.

How can you say he is lying without even figuring in his total winnings?

[Diverdogz]

He did not "come close to breaking even". Yeah, right.

Look, if a guy walks into a casino with $1000 in his pocket and plays the slots until its gone, it is likely that, replaying his winnings, he threw $31,250 into the machines- gradually losing it over the course of the evening. If you ask that fellow how he did, and he says he came out "close to even", he is lying. He walked in with $1000 and walked out with nothing. Claiming to come out close to even would make him guilty of Clintonian wordgames....in which case I'd still lose respect for him.

[thepizzalady]

I do not believe I'm missing the point at all.

Over the years, I have watched what was thought evil be thought "good" and good be thought "evil". So much so that today's news informs us that the definition of marriage should be a union between two ? of anyone. Two men, two women. So now the definition of husband or wife is no longer valid? Johnny has two daddys, the rich are evil, smokers commit the unforgivable sin, and if you have any values at all, we'll take you down. And if you have an opinion, you are the evil one or the bigot or missing the point.

I am saying that this was only news, because someone wanted to take down Bennett. It was a warning shot to inform any conservative to watch who they oppose on the liberal side, because they will be taken down. Those who defended Clinton and everything he did, are screaming the loudest condemning Bennett. And will condemn any conservative who does not also condemn Bennett as a hypocrite.

This is a game for the liberals. Do you think his gambling was revealed because it might harm him or his family? Of course not! It was revealed precisely because Bennett opposed the actions of Clinton. This is a "gotcha" for them. "see, your people are just as corrupt as we are. That ought to shut you up about what the liberals do.

You can't be offended by anything we do because one of yours is corrupt.”

Well, I for one, am certain that I am not perfect. I am also sure that you are not perfect. I'll even go so far as to say that is a fact. I don't even know you but I can say that because I know it to be true.

I speak from experience. I was a democrat for 40 years, and know the tricks of the trade. Clinton cured me of that.

Please notice that a democrat can argue any position and any side because they have no morals, or virtuous leanings. There is no right or wrong. For or against is not the issue. The issue is they are right no matter what they say or do, and you are wrong because you don't wish to have their beliefs foisted on you, and the issue is really winning at any cost.

A liberal will call you every name in the book and do so self-righteously, and then condemn you if you speak up to say they are mistaken, even if what they are saying is a lie.
Of course, this is my opinion, and you don't have to agree with me, but I find the liberal media’s method of outing conservatives to be very transparent.

[palmer]

I violently agree that the liberals are using gambling to take down Bennett, and you make a decent case (impossibility of perfection) to defend him. I agree that Bennett should not be perfect and he is an excellent speaker with good ideas.

That said, it is clear that you, he and liberals don't understand the root of his sin. His gambling is not a sin, he can burn his money if he wants to. But his Vanity as a high roller is a sin and the worst kind of sin. He could easily come clean, he could just say hey, I liked the attention and ego trip of throwing around big bucks. He could say he's sorry about that display of Vanity and he will henceforth burn his money or give it away or save it or whatever. Just as long as he doesn't use it to maintain his high roller habit.

[Ken H]

he claims he came out close to even.

How can you say he is lying without even figuring in his total winnings?

Here is Mr. Bennett's most recent characterization of his losses:

It was a high level, was a lot of money," he said, and "counting up, has made a difference in our lives."

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953035/posts

[eccl1212]

gambling is not a sin
gambling is not a sin
gambling is not a sin
gambling is not a sin
gambling is not a sin
gambling is not a sin

just keep repeating it... that makes it okay.

when it comes out that bennett did NOT do with his money, according to what moral thinking Christians, what he SHOULD have... it will nail the coffin closed.

you like the guy.
he is a moralistic fraud.

You can gamble all you want.
You can say "it's not a sin".

Perhaps for you, it is not.
but then again, you are not preaching to others about america's "slouching towards gomorrah" all the time either.

To a great many of us, Bennett, is now a proven moral fraud.
The book of moral virtues he (allegedly) wrote, all by himself, is INCONSISTANT with his actions... and very likely, as will no doubt come to light, not just regards to gambling.

Gambling on this scale, nearly 8 million, has certain other items attached to it morally speaking...

wake up, the guy is a fraud.

whether you want to support or accept that or not, is entirely your descretion... I know that.
But for me, and mine... he has ZERO moral authority.

a stopped clock is right twice a day... but I would never buy one in that condition. even a rolex.

defend this clown (IMO of course), at your own risk, and expense. but he has made of mockery of MY trust in him. I am not as sanguine about it as you or others.

[eccl1212]

you may not see the sin...

but you will.
"be sure your sin will find you out..."

[eccl1212]

... I am not sure it's a sin either...
but WHO did he do the gambling with.. an illegal bookie, or did he go to nevada and do it legally...

If he did it with a bookie, or certain NEVADA type gambling establishments... that money most likely went into throwing games and organized crime.

and although gambling is not a sin, we all take "chances" everyday... his "investment" in gambling institutions, may have gone to support other criminal enterprises.

perhaps he did it all with state lottery tickets...
I don't care, I just don't perk up to listen everytime he says "thou shalt not" anymore... and never will again.

Gambling addiction and debts are the type of things used to discredit witnesses in legal proceedings. It may not be a sin, but it certainly impacts MY perception of HIS character.