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

[Perfesser]

Let's not fall into that trap with Bill Bennett too!



VERY WELL SAID.

[Ken H]

If you cannot afford it and still do it, it is still noone' business but your own.

That is true and Bennett should have said so at the start.

He didn't do that though. He said that he came out close to even and that his gambling was under control.

Later he contradicted himself when said he gambled too much, that it was big money, and that the losses made a difference in his family's life.

This is a mess of his own making and I don't think he's helped his own cause so far.

[L.N. Smithee]

Oh, my! I'm not sure I deserve praise that high, but thanks nonetheless.

[Rodney King]

I dont recall saying that he did anz fraduluent acts.

[Rodney King]

anz= any, sorry

[Perfesser]

I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

See ya later.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

"A friend of mines father went to college with Bennett. Has been telling me for years that Bennett is a fraud. He was right."

Isn't that your quote?

[eccl1212]

yeah... I was beginning to wonder about that.
I was raised to believe that gambling was on a par with whoredom... or heroin addiction.

Some of my catholic family members gamble on sports and such.

still, MILLIONS of dollars sounds out of character for them. they don't have it... but then again, they don't write books on moral virtues either.

thanks for raising the point.

[eccl1212]

I doubt Jesus would gamble away several million dollars.

[Dianna]

Attendent: A towel Mr. Bennett? By the way, I loved your last book: 'The Restroom Attendant's Book of Virtues' Bennett: Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. [hands attendent his towel and a twenty] Attendent: Thank you Mr. Bennett.

I'm sure it's much better for the attendant to work at a job which pays less. It would have been much more virtuous for Bennett to ignore the attendant and not tip him.

I used to work in a casino, occasionally I worked with high rollers. Once I was tipped a large amount by one man who was winning. I didn't kiss his butt, he wasn't arrogant. I assumed then, as now, that he was a nice man who was rather well off and thought it kindly to "share" with a woman who stood on her feet all evening making $7 an hour.

[palmer]

But gambling isn't amongst the seven

High rolling is not just about gambling. I'm not concerned about gambling.

But I suspect it is your aversion to his status, that causes you concern.

When I was in my 20's I might have envied his high rolling, but not anymore. I am very happy with my status in life. But if you want to defend his Vanity, why don't you defend it instead of attacking me?

[palmer]

I'm sure it's much better for the attendant to work at a job which pays less. It would have been much more virtuous for Bennett to ignore the attendant and not tip him.

You seem to have libertarian view on this. Is there a division of labor argument that I am missing here? Is there an economic need for someone to take Mr Bennett's towel and put it in the hamper versus him doing it himself?

I used to work in a casino, occasionally I worked with high rollers. Once I was tipped a large amount by one man who was winning. I didn't kiss his butt, he wasn't arrogant. I assumed then, as now, that he was a nice man who was rather well off and thought it kindly to "share" with a woman who stood on her feet all evening making $7 an hour.

An interesting perspective indeed. This man sounds nice, but is he virtuous? Part of maintaining our virtue is to avoid putting ourselves in situations where that virtue is tested. "I gave away $250,000 in one night without any vanity" seems like a tough statement to back up. Perhaps you can share some other stories?

[palmer]

I suggest people read your comments and others as a case study in missing the point. Most people reading this thread have not experienced the power trip of high rolling, so they are inclined to believe your "it's only gambling" argument. Some of those then question the judgement of a man who gambles such large quanities.

But it's all beside the point. The point of high rolling is to say "I can squander money so quickly that you will stick around just for a tiny fraction of it." It also says "When I go to the casino, I get treated with the utmost respect because they really know who I am" and "My $10,000 per hand bets is my qualification for this private room, etc."

These are statements of pure Vanity. This is not the same as consumption (a mercedes is comfortable and holds value), charity (personal satisfaction), or extravagance (Keynesian economic stimulation). It is about being high from when the limo picks you up to when it drops you off. Power corrupts and a virtuous man does not voluntarily put himself in the position where he can be corrupted.

[Marysecretary]

I believe we are living in a time when God is shaking the churches and Christians and those who are not walking the talk will be exposed, as were Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. He hates hypocrisy and we practice it well some times and hide it well, too. But God sees it and He is not pleased. He will expose darkness in our lives if we don't expose it ourselves, repent of it and turn away from it. He's more than gracious to forgive us when we do that.

[lawdude]

"Has been telling me for years that Bennett is a fraud."

This is your quote from #4. If he is a fraud, he must have defrauded. Your examples, please.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

First, we are not talking about walking in with $1000 and came out with zero, and then making a claim about how he did that evening. We are talking about a man with perhaps $100,000,000 and about how he did on average over 10 years. He denies he lost $8 million and I suspect the reports of his losses are total losses not net losses, reported by people with an agenda trying to make it look worse.

I don't know how much he lost but I am sure he came out ahead some days and behind others. I think he played video blackjack which is the closest thing to 50-50 odds that is offered. I don't see it as word games at all to say you came close to even when you lost less than, I would say, about 10% of what you bet. Sure if you depleted all you assets and in your example I would agree with your way of looking at it, but he did not go to zero, he is still rich.

I am no fan of his either, and I disagree with him on many issues such as the drug war but people attacking him here are on weak ground especially since they seem to be unable to come up with quotes of him preaching against gambling.

Let me see if I understand. If someone is anti-drug and anti-adultery, then they have to be anti-gambling and abstain from gambling or else they are a hypocrit? Is this what passes for logic?

[On the Road to Serfdom]

"When the casinos talk about losses, they are talking about net losses, not a subtotal of losses and wins. Otherwise, any kind of won/loss figure is completely menaingless. You don't really believe that even though he lost $8 million, it's possible that he only lost a net of half a million, do you?"

Yes, I think some of the reports migh be of total losses not net losses in order to trick the reader into believing a bigger amount without "technically lying". That is my point, that the figures quoted might be meaningless. I am not sure of this, I just suspect it.

[MEGoody]

"I doubt Jesus would gamble away several million dollars."

I doubt Jesus had the equivalent of several million dollars. He wasn't in to money.

Having said that, I don't see anywhere in the bible that says gambling in and of itself is a sin. If someone knows of one, or can point out the principle they think applies, I'm willing to listen. (It is a waste of good money, but I don't think it's an sin in and of itself.)

[eccl1212]

incredible insight. and true.

"what is done in secret, will be shouted from the rooftops"

[Dianna]

You seem to have libertarian view on this. Is there a division of labor argument that I am missing here? Is there an economic need for someone to take Mr Bennett's towel and put it in the hamper versus him doing it himself?

The casino obviously thinks there is a benefit or they wouldn't pay the guy to do it. Economic or not, who cares? If the guy could get a "better" job, wouldn't he? Do you think there is something immoral about a service job?

We all could fetch our own meals from the kitchen at restaurants. Are we exploiting waitresses by allowing them to serve us? Is it demeaning to demand someone else cook us a meal for money?

The difference between vain and nice is in the bearers heart. Is it vain of me to leave a large tip at a restaurant? If I am doing it to show off how much cash I have, sure it is. If I leave a large tip because the server has worked hard and I appreciate it, it's kindness. If the service is lousy and I leave a large tip, perhaps I do it out of compassion for someone who might be having a hard day?

The vast majority of my experience in the high roller area was with making large payouts to other casino employees to be delivered to the winner (the same is done in low paying slots). The difference between the two areas was vast. In low paying slots the slot crews were rude, and demanding toward me because they were trying to hustle big tips by being fast. They also avoided slot fills like the plague because tips were nonexistent and that job takes time.

In the high roller area I was NEVER pressured to hurry and was treated kindly. The amounts of money were large and everyone was more concerned about accuracy. But also the slot crew could assume they would get a nice tip even if the patron had to wait a bit. I can't recall doing slot fills at the high rollers window, I think the jobs were separated.