Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

blatham wrote:

You gambling is one thing. Bill Bennett doing it is another.

Why? Did Bill Bennett ever speak out against gambling within one's means? (Hell, did he ever even speak out against gambling at all?) I suppose you would argue that Bennett would be a hypocrite to speak out against alcoholism if he were known to have a single glass of wine or beer on occasion.

I don't know Bennett's position on gambling, as I don't recall him ever taking one, but to me if you gamble for pleasure and can pay what you lose without causing pain and suffering for your family then have a blast. Gambling that is out of control and beyond one's means is a vice, just as is drinking or sex that is out of control or potentially harmful to your family. But having a beer now and then or playing the casinos on a regular basis if you only lose what you can afford... those aren't vices in my book. Are they in Bennett's? I haven't read it. Maybe you have. I've seen lots of liberals jump all over this little piece of fresh meat, but not one has cited for me any instance where Bennett called what he was doing a vice and admonished others not to do it. Had he done so (if he did so) then sure, he's a hypocrite. (whoopee!) But where's the beef?

0 Replies

Scrat,

Here's some info:

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:euvqppCpyKcJ:www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0306.green.html+Bill+Bennett+gambling&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Quote:

If Bennett hasn't spoken out more forcefully on an issue that would seem tailor-made for him, perhaps it's because he is himself a heavy gambler. . . The Washington Monthly put his total losses at more than $8 million.

Quote:

Bennett has been a high-roller since at least the early 1990s. A review of one 18-month stretch of gambling showed him visiting casinos, often for two or three days at a time (and enjoying a line of credit of at least $200,000 at several of them). Bennett likes to be discreet. "He'll usually call a host and let us know when he's coming," says one source. "We can limo him in. He prefers the high-limit room, where he's less likely to be seen and where he can play the $500-a-pull slots. He usually plays very late at night or early in the morning--usually between midnight and 6 a.m." The documents show that in one two-month period, Bennett wired more than $1.4 million to cover losses. His desire for privacy is evident in his customer profile at one casino, which lists as his residence the address for Empower.org (the Web site of Empower America, the non-profit group Bennett co-chairs). Typed across the form are the words: "NO CONTACT AT RES OR BIZ!!!"

Quote:

"There's a term in the trade for this kind of gambler," says a casino source who has witnessed Bennett at the high-limit slots in the wee hours. "We call them losers."

Quote:

"I've made a lot of money [in book sales, speaking fees and other business ventures] and I've won a lot of money," adds Bennett. "When I win, I usually give at least a chunk of it away [to charity]. I report everything to the IRS."

But the documents show only a few occasions when he turns in chips worth $30,000 or $40,000 at the end of an evening. Most of the time, he draws down his line of credit, often substantially. A casino source, hearing of Bennett's claim to breaking even on slots over 10 years, just laughed.

Quote:

Despite his personal appetites, Bennett and his organization, Empower America, oppose the extension of casino gambling in the states. In a recent editorial, his Empower America co-chair Jack Kemp inveighed against lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." The group recently published an Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, with an introduction written by Bennett, that reports 5.5 million American adults as "problem" or "pathological" gamblers. Bennett says he is neither because his habit does not disrupt his family life.

Sure, I'll bet ...........the man is surely a delight to live with........

http://www.msnbc.com/news/908430.asp

Quote:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/118/21.0.html

Quote:

But here's what the religious pundits are saying.

"While opinions differ as to whether gambling is a vice, few would regard it as a virtue. This is why the news of Bill Bennett's fondness for high-stakes gambling is so disappointing," says Family Research Council President Ken Connor in his Washington Update memo to supporters.

As the nation's leading critic of America's virtue deficit, Mr. Bennett, like it or not, bears a greater burden regarding his personal conduct than the average citizen. The same is no less true for all of us who promote virtue in the public square. While, as Mr. Bennett says, he has done nothing illegal, the sheer scale of his gambling activities [is] troubling. Gambling is not as benign as he suggests. The gambling industry attracts and fosters such other vices as prostitution, substance abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, and family abandonment . . .

Quote:

Likewise, Focus on the Family's James Dobson uses the controversy to condemn gambling. "We were disappointed to learn that our longtime friend, Dr. Bill Bennett, is dealing with what appears to be a gambling addiction," Dobson says in a press release. "One of the reasons Focus on the Family continues to be strongly opposed to any form of gambling is because it has the power to ensnare and wound not only its victims, but also those closest to them. 'Gaming,' as the industry euphemistically refers to itself, is a cancer on the soul of the nation."

It all sounds pretty hypocritical to me. And we've heard very little from him since this story hit. Thank goodness. I was so very tired of his sanctimonious kisser.

0 Replies

Thank you Lola
You put in some work and time to make a point. Having heard Bennet quite few times I already knew what a hypocrite he is.
Same goes for GW Bush and Cheney. I wouldn't really care what they do in their private life except for the fact that they try to impose morality on society, while allowing the Corporations to steal, lie and cheat and then make excuses for that.

The country has been corupt for years and now the stink is so bad it requires a gas mask to keep from gasping from the fumes.

BTW I don't give a flying fig about people's private sex lives. The reason I lost respect for B. Clinton was that he waved his finger at the public and boldy lied about his sexual escapades. Also, I didn't like his political actions,especially NAFTA. This obsession with people's sex lives is gutter voyerism. Comparing who is worse doesn't impress me in the least. It's also dangerous because society seems to ignore actual cirmes of the very people that claim to represent it's best interest.

0 Replies

scrat

Please link the source on that Prof Rummel piece (RED China?!), then I'll comment.

george

Quote:

I'm not sure I get your point.

The marketing of this President did, and does, rely upon appeals to the claim of moral superiority in relation to the previous office holder - the Clintons vs the Bushes. Explicitly and implicity, the campaign against the Clintons extended out to family (as you've done above, as a response to my post, yes, but I'll wager you've used this in discourse previously, and certainly many others have).

But neither Clinton nor his campaign nor his supporters claimed the moral high road - this is a Bush/Republican strategy (and belief).

Such self-serving claims to moral superiority have the advantage of gaining votes from the credulous or the trusting. But they also have a disadvantage...claims to moral superiority, shown to be false, make the person doubly immoral; eg., Jimmy Baker, a molesting priest, the cop who lectures students on drugs and is found to use cocaine himself.

So, we have on the one hand, the Clintons, exhaustively and torturously investigated (while richly maligned) and found innocent in previous business dealings, an uninhaled puff of marijuana (big story), a blow job with an attempt to cover it up and the fact of lying about it, a studious daughter, and two (?) relatives who did what you claim.

On the other hand, we have a President with a history business dealings showing not merely incompetence but possible illegality, a history of cocaine and alcohol abuse (and locking unwealthy black kids away for many years for doing just what he did), with two daughters who are drug users and underage drinkers, a niece who is a drug addict and thief, a brother who helped bring about a huge financial meltdown plus who is in business with family members of the top level of the Chinese Communist Party (while not busy humping prostitutes while away from wife) and a daddy with business ties to Osama and family.

The point you aren't getting is that suggestions or claims that the Bush crowd - most definitely including the president - are morally superior to the Clinton crowd are an example of inconsistency so vile and upsidedown, that you ought to give your head a good shake.

0 Replies

lola

Deliciously pertinent, thorough, and well-written response on the Bennett issue. Will you have sex with me please.

0 Replies

scrat

On the issue of 'defense'...this exchange from Slate (wonderfully titled, by the way) addresses precisely the relevant points...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091666/

0 Replies

Lola - Of course it sounds hypocritical to you, you want it to sound that way. But for all your citations you have shown me nothing that indicates Bennett ever claimed that gambling within one's means was a vice. Of course, you set a much lower standard for calling someone a hypocrite when he's a conservative, don't you? Clinton spewed nonsense about loving his wife, being Christian, etc. while poking Monica with cigars, but you seem quite at ease with his hypocrisy. Christ, you lauded the Clintons for knowing how to have fun. Well, I guess Bennett knows how to have fun too.

0 Replies

Jeez, Scrat -- think of all the guys you know who are Christians and love their wives and also sleep around. That's a non-event.

The difference of course is that Clinton didn't pretend to be anyone he wasn't; he didn't preach crap to others, as Bennett did. There is a long tradition in novels (see Trollope, Dickens, and,oh boy, Thackeray) in which huge, domineering hypocrites like Bennett get what they deserve. Why are they so disliked? Because they preach. Because they assure you they are more moral than you. That's very different from being a powerful, sincere leader who is naughty (and that's also an accepted tradition).

Of course, the problem is (the main reason he's so completely unsympathetic) is that Bennett DOESN'T know how to have fun!!

0 Replies

Blatham,

There are many forms of hypocrisy, and all are more or less equally offensive. Lola has gone on at some length about Bill Bennett's
hypocrisy with respect to gambling. There is also an element of hypocrisy in the willingness of the legislators and women's advocacy groups who were so willing to hound and persecute some good friends of mine who attended the infamous Las Vegas 'Tailhook' party, to readily excuse Bill Clinton for equivalent or worse actions done in the government workplace, and with a subordinate worker - in gross violation of laws these same legislators and advocacy groups had promoted.

You make many references to "claims of moral superiority". Whose claims? I'm not aware that Bush has made any such claim. Certainly those who were so critical of Clinton have largely found Bush to be a good deal better in those areas, but they are neither representative of my views or the majority of Republicans.

I don't recall ever, on this thread or any other, raising any issues with respect to the behavior of either the Clinton or the Rodham brothers. I have indeed been very critical of Clinton's rather blatant misuse of Presidential pardons in his last months in office, and of his feckless disregard of serious issues. However all of that involves his behavior in meeting the responsibilities of his office, and not his individual worth or lack of it.

Meanwhile you engage in the same ad hominem attacks on Bush that you decry in others' action against Clinton. This too is hypocrisy.

0 Replies

george

Fair enough on the Tailhook issue, at least on the face of it (only a passing familiarity with that event).

Re moral superiority claim to Bush's campaign...a central part of that campaign, but I've got to zip to work and will let tart or pd or walter ad the relevant quotes.

No, I've never seen you raise that issue of the Clinton/Rodham brothers here...but I suspected you may have in discourse. If wrong, I bow.

On the pardons (one particularly), yes, I agree. A similar thing happens here when a Prime Minister retires...you can smell the pork all the way to the borders of Israel.

Truly, I wouldn't bring up the personal issues with Bush and family had not the get-Clinton campaign changed the rules, or if that claim of moral highroad wasn't implicit in both Bush's campaign and in the text of soooo many of those who support him, or if I didn't truly cringe at the weave of financial connections which form a whole layer of international dynamics, secretive and determinative facts at odds with our myths about democracy.

Have a lovely day, all.

0 Replies

Naw, that's bullshit George. Tailhook was about drunkeness and rape. That's very different from mutually enjoyed lewdness.

0 Replies

Blatham,

Just come on down, honey............

0 Replies

Speaking of lewdness.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Naw, that's bullshit George. Tailhook was about drunkeness and rape. That's very different from mutually enjoyed lewdness.

Wrong. There were no allegations of rape in the Tailhook incident. A female helicopter pilot was groped in a puerile party along with some other female volunteers who were there looking for the company of some typically good looking studley Naval Aviators. She was pissed because she wasn't recognized as 'one of the boys'. Evidently she wanted to be a groper instead of a gropee.

Drunkenness is not a criminal act/

0 Replies

Groped.... ! And like so many women in that situation, they want more, more, in spite of what they say...

0 Replies

Quote:

G.O.P. Worries Face From Past Will Haunt Florida Senate Race[and there's more...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/26/politics/26HARR.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

0 Replies

Tartarin..........LOL, very funny

Lewdness does not equal rudeness........everyone to their own gratifications

0 Replies

A friend of mine once told me that she believes children should be obscene but not absurd.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Groped.... ! And like so many women in that situation, they want more, more, in spite of what they say...

Well, I won't generalize. I had attended the tailhook convention two years earlier, and knew the scene fairly well. My strong impression was that I was witnessing a meeting of similarly inclined guys and gals. I saw lots of foolishness, but no surprised faces. (interestingly it was the wannabees who attended these things most heavily - reserves and the like. Most of the rest of us were at sea. I made only one and that was fairly typical.)

Did Monica want more and more?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Quote:

Of course, you set a much lower standard for calling someone a hypocrite when he's a conservative, don't you?

Generally speaking, Scrat, I tend to be directionally challenged. I've always had my ups and downs, highs and lows mixed up. Low (down in the dirt, low class, hell.....that sort of thing) is a good place to be if you want to live a little. I didn't actually say that I think hypocracy is such a grave mistake, we're all guilty of it from time to time......I just think ole Bennett got caught with his pants down, and he doesn't know what to do about it. Now if he could get down with the rest of us, he'd know.......but I don't hold out much hope of him ever figuring that out. It's not the hypocracy I fault him for, it's the self righteous lecturing that turns me off. Bennett's way of life causes me to feel sad and that's always irratated me.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know