[mdmathis6]

It would affect my judgment too if I thought about 8 million dollars as one big pile lost in a compressed amount of time. But spread out over a decade in which scores of millions more were coming in from other sources, it becomes insignificant. I'll bet he lost a bundle in the stock market crash! (A lot of respectable people including frumpy grand-mothers speculate in the stock market...but we don't call that gambling)

What those "expose" articles didn't say are what he actually "won" over ten years. Did they specify lossess more than wins, or just the lossess. Bennett says he broke roughly even, and that the numbers sited by the "2 reporters" are wrong. I mean did he win say 6 million but lost 8 million. Then he really would have "lost 2 million". Let's say he broke even as he says....he certainly lost 50 per cent of the time over ten years 8 million. He won 50 per cent of the time and got the 8 million back. I would be more critical of him wasting his time then gambling. Technically, it would be true he lost 8 million over ten years. But what did he win? I don't see that written any where. He must have done well enough that he was considered a good customer and had a credit line with the casino's.

The reporters and the venue in which the story broke(Newsweek) are also more suspect in my book. Are the financial papers they got a hold of detailing his casino life really accurate...has Bennett seen the info the reporters supposedly got?

Bennett may be in denial right now about the amounts spent on gambling, but he has never made a hypocritical stand against gambling. He simply never saw it as personal problem and never saw it as a potential chink in his armor regarding the epousal of public virtue.

The real problem with many...and Liberal anti-Christian anti moral types love to take advantage of this quirk in people, is that they tend to choak on gnats while swallowing camels when it comes to faults. William Bennett...GAMBLED, that's it game over..the sky is falling, lets just all be Bill Clintonesque wanna be's(cigar any-one?)

[Rodney King]

I agree with you in the sense that if I was out in public I would not by downing the man. What he did is trivial compared to what the Dems do to our country every day. I still, however, question the judgement of anybody who gambles that much.

[Bluntpoint]

He simply never saw it as personal problem and never saw it as a potential chink in his armor regarding the epousal of public virtue

The only reason he may be filing suit against the casinos because it was an affront to his standards of privacy?

Even you don't believe that.

He wanted this kept private for a very good reason.

[palmer]

But what did he win? I don't see that written any where. He must have done well enough that he was considered a good customer and had a credit line with the casino's.

I think he was considered a good customer because he had plenty of money which he was willing and able to lose all or most of it. Winning is not a requirement and can be a detriment.