John McCain, Gambling Addict

Michael Scherer and Michael Weisskopf are very delicate in their phrasing, but they appear to be reporting that John McCain has a serious gambling problem:

In the past decade, he has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. "Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John's life," says John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. "Taking a chance, playing against the odds." Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress.

The McCains own eleven houses and spent over $200,000 on "household staff" in 2007 so I suppose he can afford tens of thousands of dollars in gambling losses every year. At the same time, you wouldn't want someone to enjoy "playing against the odds" with the country's public policy. The fact that McCain seems to think there's some kind of "betting strategy" that can turn craps into a winning game also raises some questions about his math.

Photo by Flickr user techslut used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Meh. Just because someone enjoys gambling doesn't mean he has a "gambling problem" on the scale that Bill Bennett did (apparently he would request a slot machine to be brought up to his hotel room so he could play mindlessly for hours).

It's like saying that I have a "traveling problem" because I spend a few hundred dollars on plane flights to visit friends every now and then.

The dude enjoys playing craps when the opportunity arises. Let him.

Posted by Tyro | July 8, 2008 12:23 PM

but they appear to be reporting that John McCain has a serious gambling problem

Well, that's a massive overreading. They don't appear to be saying anything of the sort. It's a fluff piece.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 8, 2008 12:25 PM

It's fine with me if McCain gambles, and it's even a wee bit endearing. He can afford it. Using it against him strikes me as unnecessary, since he advocates so many foolish policies and those make a compelling enough case.

Posted by Rich | July 8, 2008 12:26 PM

The fact that McCain seems to think there's some kind of "betting strategy" that can turn craps into a winning game also raises some questions about his math.

There's precisely one 'strategy' in craps: the pass bet with odds. Of course, that makes for dull gambling -- your bankroll will at least last longer than it would with other table games -- and the house still has an edge, only varying on how much you're allowed to stake in the odds bet.

It does suggest that Mr Don't Know Much About Economics also doesn't have a grasp of the law of large numbers.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 8, 2008 12:27 PM

Did Johnny Mac show any gambling winnings in his released tax information? If not, he shouldn't be providing any tips to his posse.

Posted by CJ_n_PA | July 8, 2008 12:27 PM

There are some betting strategies in craps that can get the odds of winning above 49%. It'd be amazing if we could get those odds in Iraq.

Posted by phil | July 8, 2008 12:28 PM

There are, however, betting strategies that improve your odds. It's like any game, there are good ways to play it and bad ways to play it. Blackjack is a good example.

BTW, outside of poker (and blackjack if you're a card counting savant), craps usually offers the best odds in the house.

Posted by Mo | July 8, 2008 12:29 PM

As a fan of the Wire you should recall that Prezbo taught some sort of craps strategy.

Posted by Chris | July 8, 2008 12:30 PM

Obligatory joke: Hey, at least now we know he has a plan for raising revenue to reduce the deficit!

And seriously, who cares. I'm not such a fan of these "I am openly a campaign hack" posts from Matt.

Posted by Jake H. | July 8, 2008 12:30 PM

Just because someone enjoys gambling doesn't mean he has a "gambling problem" on the scale that Bill Bennett did (apparently he would request a slot machine to be brought up to his hotel room so he could play mindlessly for hours

from the article:

Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

Posted by cleek | July 8, 2008 12:31 PM

Did Johnny Mac show any gambling winnings in his released tax information? If not, he shouldn't be providing any tips to his posse.

Posted by CJ_n_PA | July 8, 2008 12:31 PM

Where does this say he has any sort of "gambling problem"? He gambles, and you think it's a problem, is that it? If he's not taking markers and he's not losing amounts that cause him any harm, what's the problem?

I don't play craps, so I can't speak to strategy there. But a "betting strategy" for craps doesn't have to mean a strategy to beat the house; just a strategy to make your money last longer.

Posted by too many steves | July 8, 2008 12:32 PM

Read paragraphs 2 and 3 of the article, and it's clear that McCain's urge to gamble is sufficiently strong to put his political ambitions at risk. That sounds like a problem to me - and apparently, to his campaign staff as well.

"Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion."

"He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing," says a Republican who has watched McCain play. "And he just sort of revels in it."

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 12:32 PM

Craps is my favorite casino game, too, and I always play the Pass Line with odds (though usually not maximum odds, cause I don't have that kind of bankroll). I also have given more to the casinos altogether than they have given me, because in the long run, even this "strategy" loses in the end. It is a fun game though. What else is as exciting in the casino as a hot craps table?

The thing is, I know I'm going to lose, and the game is only entertainment. Therefore, it should be exactly as much fun to play the minimum bet (with max odds, if you've got the $$ for it since it decreases the house edge), as to play with thousands of dollars at a time.

Posted by Apsalar | July 8, 2008 12:34 PM

This is one of the most pathetic posts I've seen Matt make in quite some time. There is nothing in this article to suggest he has a gambling problem. Also, after the point is established, your odds bet is one of the best in the house. I'm sure John McCain is fully aware of his odds in craps. Matt sounds like a big nerd. I'm not voting for McCain, but this makes you sound like a liberal Sean Hannity. Do better.

Posted by Sam | July 8, 2008 12:36 PM

In honesty, I'm with Tyro in the 'meh' column here: there are worse ways to gamble than craps -- Bill Bennett and his hundred-dollar slots comes to mind -- even if the kind of showy, against-the-odds betting that the McCain team talks about is the kind of thing you hate having on your shoulder at the table.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 8, 2008 12:36 PM

Read paragraphs 2 and 3 of the article, and it's clear that McCain's urge to gamble is sufficiently strong to put his political ambitions at risk. That sounds like a problem to me - and apparently, to his campaign staff as well.

That's a bit like saying that because much of his base doesn't like gay people, a McCain decision to meet with Log Cabin Republicans indicates that he has a homophilia problem. (Yes, yes, not the right word.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 8, 2008 12:39 PM

Isn't McCain the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee? And didn't he use that position to basically sink further investigation in the Abramoff Indian casino swindle?

Was he comped while at any casinos owned by tribes Abramoff had dealings with or was trying to steal from? Did he win anything? Was it reported?

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/the-cover-ups-2.html

Posted by Gozer | July 8, 2008 12:39 PM

I don't see a story here honestly. I recall some discussion a while back - not sure if it was a formal study or anything, indicating that professional athletes tended to engage in high risk activities at higher rates than the general population, but this was a function of their competitiveness, which also goes a long way towards explaining how they came to be professional athletes in the first place.

I would guess that high profile politicians would fit into the same bucket. Lots of gambling, philandering, etc because that's just part of who they are.

Posted by BFR | July 8, 2008 12:43 PM

Additional question:
Did Abramoff used the Senator's gambling problem to gain political access?

Has McCain ever used money from tainted sources to feed his gambling?

Posted by Gozer | July 8, 2008 12:44 PM

The story isn't very substantive, but McCain's staff is right: this is a potential problem. McCain's gambling should be publicized in quite a few swing states. Family values types (especially women!) don't much care for gambling. It might be sleazy, but a line of attacks (pushed through a third party) publicizing Obama as a straight-laced family man and McCain as a philandering gambler could be highly productive. It doesn't hurt that it would basically be true... McCain *is* gambling with the money he got from his beer-heiress wife, after upgrading from his ill first wife. Throw in a couple quotes from, e.g., Ross Perot and you've got a quality hatchet job. A *true* one.

That's the sort of thing, combined with the Barr candidacy, that could tip Georgia.

Posted by Harvey Lobster | July 8, 2008 12:53 PM

I enjoy a drink every once in a while, but that doesn't make me Dean Martin. Gambling addiction is different than what McCain seems to be doing here.

Posted by Reality Man | July 8, 2008 12:56 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the conveniently rapid and seemingly coordinated concern-trollish "McCain DOES NOT have a gambling problem!" pushback suggests that, indeed, this is something the McCain campaign is quite worried about.

If I were Obama, my next campaign add would start, "Do you want McCain gambling with our Social Security?"

Posted by hmmmm | July 8, 2008 12:59 PM

"He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing," says a Republican who has watched McCain play. "And he just sort of revels in it."

Hmmmm. Student often in trouble. Pilot. Maverick. Gambler. I think McCain might be a thrill junkie. That's fine when his is the only ass on the line, but certainly is not the personality type I want in the White House.

Posted by LFC | July 8, 2008 1:00 PM

That's the sort of thing, combined with the Barr candidacy, that could tip Georgia.

Anyone inclined to be upset about gambling isn't likely to vote for a Libertarian candidate for one.

The larger issue (which is what you were probably getting at anyhow) is that the combined effect of libertarian defection + x% of theocons sitting out the election over gambling might prove problematic for McCain. It would be a much bigger issue if there was a theocon counterpart to Barr of course.

Posted by BFR | July 8, 2008 1:02 PM

The more interesting thing is that Obama plays low stakes poker and is good at it. In other words Obama is willing to take chances but only in games where he can actually come out ahead. Besides playing good poker requires both an understanding of probability and the ability to read people which aren't a bad things for a president to have.

Posted by Craig | July 8, 2008 1:02 PM

If rich people want to gamble, that's up to them. But if you're running for President mostly on the basis of your character and biography, then the fact that you're a habitual high-stakes gambler is not a good thing. And that's especially the case when your policies involve big tax cuts for the rich and big cuts in Medicare and Social Security spending:
do you want a guy who merrily gambles thousands of dollars at a time to be setting your Social Security benefits ? McCain is a really rich guy, having married money, and he's completely out of touch with the financial problems of working stiffs. Throwing his money around at the gaming tables just crystallizes that problem.

Obama's style of gambling, on the other hand, low-stakes poker with friends and colleagues, is
in a long, if not altogether honorable, tradition for working-class and middle-class guys. And it probably helps to counter the attack that he's "arrogant" or "elitist".

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 1:06 PM

Even if McCain's gambling is a problem--which seems to be a leap--the point is missed here. Tons of Americans like to gamble, and they love that Johnny is a "maverick."

Politically speaking, I bet most American's could either care a less or might find endearing, along the lines of 'hey, he's like me.' Sort of the guy I'd like to have a beer with category.

This has no political resonance and seems like a reach.

Posted by jeff | July 8, 2008 1:08 PM

I think McCain might be a thrill junkie. That's fine when his is the only ass on the line, but certainly is not the personality type I want in the White House.

I made this point earlier but to be more explicit, Bill Clinton liked a little something on the side - this is also some pretty risky behavior considering who he was and where he was getting it.

It's clearly a problem if the risky behavior lands you in a comprimising position, but again that's not a likely outcome of what McCain is doing here. If he was taking out lines of credit with streetcorner bookies, then I'd have a different opinion.

Posted by BFR | July 8, 2008 1:10 PM

Even if McCain's gambling is a problem--which seems to be a leap--the point is missed here. Tons of Americans like to gamble, and they love that Johnny is a "maverick."

Politically speaking, I bet most American's could either care a less or might find endearing, along the lines of 'hey, he's like me.' Sort of the guy I'd like to have a beer with category.

This has no political resonance and seems like a reach.

Posted by jeff | July 8, 2008 1:11 PM

Yeah, hmmmm, Tyro and SCMT are definitely concern trolls. You must be new here. You also must be an idiot for agreeing with Matt on this.

Posted by Sam | July 8, 2008 1:11 PM

Anyone inclined to be upset about gambling isn't likely to vote for a Libertarian candidate for one.

I mostly agree, although people generally see what they want to see in the Libertarian party; the very fact that they nominated Barr says something about their desire to be the *other* Right-wing party, rather than a truly libertarian party. Whatever respect *I* had for the party as a collection of principled eccentrics is sure gone...

But anyway, I was, as you assumed, talking about the net effect of likely theocon revulsion at McCain (especially if he's attacked in the right ways, early enough and often enough) *plus* a presumably strongish Barr candidacy.

Posted by Harvey Lobster | July 8, 2008 1:11 PM

"Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time"

Meaning the guy is probably throwing down hundreds or thousands of dollars a roll, probably well into the five figures for the night.

Look, McCain had the good fortune to marry an obscenely wealthy heiress. Fine. He can gamble thousands of dollars a night if he wants to. But this is totally fair game. A lot of Americans disapprove of gambling. A lot more presumably would disapprove to someone throwing away more money in a night than they make in three months. Being this careless with money -- no matter how much of it you have (or have access to through your wife) -- is a character flaw. We deserve to know if our president possesses it.

Posted by Joe | July 8, 2008 1:15 PM

McCain might have a gambling problem, I really don't know, it is hard to tell if someone has a gambling problem when they have money (through their wife) that they can afford to lose. Personally I prefer poker I like the idea of a game that you can get good at and one where the best strategy can't be explained on an index card.

I am willing to go only so far as to say that the nature of McCain's gambling, thrill seeking risk for risk sake gambling with money that he didn't earn makes me like him less than I otherwise would. McCain is a deeply superstitious man from all accounts so given that sort of mindset and his anemic academic record it wouldn't surprise me if he thought that their were complex strategies to maximize gambling returns. I would like to see him asked "The roulette wheel came up black three consecutive times is it more likely to be black or red?" I would guess that he would say either red, because red is due to come up, or black because it is hot, or some other childish non-sense. He has the mind of a child and sees magic where there is darkness.

Posted by Michael Foody | July 8, 2008 1:15 PM

Agree with Tyro. This is the kind of petty stuff I hate on right-wing sites. Plenty of areas to fire on McCain w/o going here

Posted by josh | July 8, 2008 1:23 PM

"Even if McCain's gambling is a problem--which seems to be a leap--the point is missed here. Tons of Americans like to gamble, and they love that Johnny is a "maverick.""

I think it hurts him with women. I think it hurts him with the religious right. And I think it hurts him with anyone looking for good judgment.

In a country of 300M people, yes, there are "tons of Americans" who will be fine with this. But I reckon overall it's a negative - AND SO DO HIS OWN STAFF!

If it also leads to a detailed examination of his military record - several airplanes crashes, at least one due to excessive risk-taking, flying so low as to hit power cables - and his Senate career (the Keating S&L affair) - and his personal life, then the theme that tends to emerge is "John McCain, risk-taker", not "John McCain, a guy you can trust".

As for whether it's a problem, the answer is simple: if your urge to gamble interferes with your family relationships or your career, then hell yes it's a problem. And the article makes it clear that his own staff, and members of his own party, view it that way: as a problem needing to be kept under control, not as harmless fun.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 1:27 PM

Foody, I think you are right about McCain, but I don't think this gambling problem really shows it. I have friends who definitely enjoy gambling, but I would still trust them with important decision-making. Fundamentally, they know that it's just luck, but they simply enjoy the thrill. And the amount matters. For that thrill to be there, the amount has to mean something to you. The problem with McCain isn't that he gambles. It's that he's a carousing, out-of-touch, elitist idiot. But I also think high stakes gambling is not a political asset and agree with MY on that point at least.

Posted by mpowell | July 8, 2008 1:32 PM

When I first came to this blog I was delighted by the level of analysis - you always seemed to think just a little bit further than your average pundit. All that seems to have become a bit lost in an all-out attack on McCain. Oh well, let's hope it gets better again when Obama is elected.

Posted by Jonas | July 8, 2008 1:36 PM

the answer is simple: if your urge to gamble interferes with your family relationships or your career, then hell yes it's a problem.

The answer is not that simple. It matters whether the negative effect on your career is a function of malign inferences being drawn from something that is, given his wealth, etc., pretty benign. Obama smokes, and has had some trouble quitting. That doesn't mean he's committed to self-destructive acts or a course of slow suicide. You could argue that McCain's gambling is a political problem; that's different than saying it's a gambling problem.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 8, 2008 1:38 PM

This post was a joke, right? You can't be serious.

Posted by ostap | July 8, 2008 1:45 PM

It also seems worth pointing out here that as a US Senator for the last 100 years, as well as speaking, writing, etc., McCain has earned a little scratch on his own, wealthy wife notwithstanding.

Posted by mike | July 8, 2008 1:51 PM

I sure hope so, ostap, but it doesn't appear that way. This is truly a pathetic post. I can tell from a year of reading Matt that most of the people that comment here will be put off by this type of analysis.

"At the same time, you wouldn't want someone to enjoy "playing against the odds" with the country's public policy."

Really, Matt? C'mon you can do better than this.

Posted by Chad | July 8, 2008 1:54 PM

"It also seems worth pointing out here that as a US Senator for the last 100 years, as well as speaking, writing, etc., McCain has earned a little scratch on his own, wealthy wife notwithstanding."

Current salary for a Senator is $165K. Comfortable,
but not great wealth - especially not if you have to put kids through college and have two homes, in DC and your home state. McCain probably has some military pension. And then he's written a few books, but frankly, very few people get rich by writing books. Without his wife's money he certainly wouldn't be able to gamble on this scale.

It's true that most Senators are wealthy. But you've got the causality wrong: you have to be wealthy to have much chance of winning a Senate seat. Being rich can help make you a Senator: being a Senator doesn't make you rich (unless you're corrupt).

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 2:13 PM

I'd do a little low-stakes gambling myself and bet dollars to doughnuts that many of these commenters have the same IP address.

After all, there's plenty of mob-related activity to indict Jimmy Hoffa on. There's no need to try to get him for tax evasion.

Posted by phil | July 8, 2008 2:14 PM

This post was a joke, right? You can't be serious.

Hahaha. Too funny.

I think that it's been pretty clear for a while now that Matthew's function in the Obama campaign is to smear McCain while giving the candidate plausible deniability for the smear. After all, nobody can prove that the Obama campaign tells Matthew to smear McCain, right? Even though it's pretty clear that's the case.

Posted by Al | July 8, 2008 2:16 PM

SomeCallMeTim has it correct. If you want to argue that this a political problem, fine. But don't try to suggest that what was described in this article is a gambling problem. It makes Matt seem clueless.

Posted by Chad | July 8, 2008 2:28 PM

You are being unfair to McCain.

If you are as rich as he is then you can spend (read waste) a lot of money on things that most Americans would find absurd. If Bill Gates or Rush Limbaugh or Mike Bloomberg want to go to the opening of a new theater in Paris tomorrow then they might decide it is worth spending thousands taking their private jet then they will. It would be absurd for me to spend $40,000 to go to Paris for the day.

So, if McCain gets enjoyment from dropping $20,000 at a time at the craps table then who are we to say that he isn't getting value for his money.

Just because he thinks craps is fun and doesn't mind losing $20,000 of his own money doesn't mean that he would be a bad President.

I think the fact that he wants to cut the gas tax at the same time he is concerned about global warming would be one of many reasons why he would be a bad President. His love of craps doesn't bother me.

Posted by neil wilson | July 8, 2008 2:53 PM

I think it's been pretty clear for several years that Al's function here is to be a fucktard water-carrier for whatever's in the morning memo, with the occasional time off to post on sports threads.

(The one thing you can say about MY is that he ain't 'on message' like the Al, He can't even spell the message.)

FWIW, the late Robin Cook liked a flutter on the gee-gees (he was a tipster for a Scottish paper) and he made the right call on Iraq.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 8, 2008 3:18 PM

Stay classy, Matthew!

Posted by DDP | July 8, 2008 3:18 PM

"Just because he thinks craps is fun and doesn't mind losing $20,000 of his own money doesn't mean that he would be a bad President."

There are two problems with this: firstly, the fact that he's keen to carry on gambling even when his staff are telling him that it's foolish and is risking his career; secondly, his long history of reckless disregard for the rules, from his notorious escapades at the Naval Academy, through flying a plane into power lines, wild partying
and infidelities during his time as Senate liaison, and then the Keating 5 scandal early in his Senate career. The guy has a pattern of reckless behavior.

To me, it's awfully reminiscent of Clinton's womanizing: I'm no Puritan, and I've got no problem with people - even people who aren't married - having sex. But certain behaviors which are ok for a private individual become a big problem and a betrayal of trust when they're indulged by a public figure that many other people have invested in and trusted. It's ok for Joe Sixpack to have a few beers and gamble a little and flirt; but there's too much at stake for a President, or even a Presidential candidate, to display those same behaviors.

I'm not really out on a limb here: let's face it, the McCain campaign sure isn't going to make an ad which says "John McCain: flew into power lines, dumped his sick wife for a beer heiress, loves high-stakes gambling". The best you can do is claim these personal failings don't matter much.
But obviously, they're not good news.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 3:19 PM

There are plenty of avenues by which you can attack McCain's politics, policies, and person. This just ain't one of them, and it really just makes you look kind of silly, even if it was meant tongue-in-cheek.

Posted by Royko | July 8, 2008 3:25 PM

Although I think it is a leap too far to claim that McCain is a gambling addict (and pretty unfair) the article is sort of disgusting in trying to infer positive leadership traits from the craps table. If he was a great chess player I could see that, hell if he made ships in bottles I could infer something positive about him. What about losing money at craps makes someone a good president? I think it is a little bad or neutral at best.

I think it is possible and fair to take away something negative from this information. The majority of people do not get great enjoyment from by taking a large some of money and subjecting it to a function where its expected value declines for the sake of deviance. They are better for it.

Posted by Michael Foody | July 8, 2008 3:33 PM

Gambling problems, like alcohol problems, also tend to get underestimated by many Americans. If McCain liked to put away a sixpack of beer after dinner while watching TV, he'd be behaving like lots of Americans do everyday, but he'd still have a problem.

Posted by phil | July 8, 2008 3:37 PM

I agree with many here that McCain's affinity for gambling is not a fatal character flaw (if it can even be called a character flaw), but there are other issues he's taken on that make this problematic. Notably his actions during the Abramoff investigation (basically refusing to investigate further and limiting investigation to Abramoff only).

So we have McCain as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee investigating Abramoff swindling millions out of Native American tribes (relating specifically to the issue of Native American casinos) and it comes out that McCain likes to gamble to the extent that his staff views it as a liability, even going so far as to deny McCain private tables.

Posted by Gozer | July 8, 2008 3:38 PM

Five unsourced quotes or "stories" in three paragraphs on McC. What a joke

Posted by Campesino | July 8, 2008 3:45 PM

Its official, Phil is a nerd. You are comparing things that aren't even similar. Stop.

Also, I find it hysterical that Richard Cownie was EVEN alright with people having sex outside of marriage.

Posted by Phil is a nerd | July 8, 2008 3:45 PM

Being rich can help make you a Senator: being a Senator doesn't make you rich (unless you're corrupt)

I think that's not so clear. Wasn't there an analysis done a few years ago that indicated that Senators' portfolios outperformed...the market, or some set of Wall St. stars, or something? I forget the baseline.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 8, 2008 3:58 PM

"Also, I find it hysterical that Richard Cownie was EVEN alright with people having sex outside of marriage."

I phrased it badly - what I meant, in context, was that marital infidelity doesn't bother me greatly, as long as the parties involved keep it quiet and don't frighten the horses. And God knows, if we threw out every politician who ever had an affair then there'd be a heck of a lot of open seats.

But in spite of my generally liberal attitudes to social issues, I'm still pretty steamed about the way Bill Clinton allowed his urges to get the better of him, derailing his agenda, screwing the Democratic party, and contributing to the awful Bush presidency. I don't care who puts what where in whom, but I do care about Presidents who indulge in - and even enjoy - risk-taking. I want decisions in the Oval Office to be based on rational analysis and sober judgment, not hunches, adrenaline, camaraderie, and superstition.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 4:02 PM

"You could argue that McCain's gambling is a political problem; that's different than saying it's a gambling problem."

If your gambling behavior is a political problem, and your career is politics, then hell yes you've got a gambling problem. He should just quit: he should have just quit long ago - certainly when his committee business touches on casinos.

Anyway, I think you're setting the bar too low: it's pretty widely accepted, and a commonplace for comedians, that Michael Jordan has a gambling problem, even though it isn't at a level that threatens his vast wealth. And the reaction to Charles Barkley's recent revelations, or the Bill Bennett story, was similar: dude's got a problem.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 4:13 PM

Charles Barkley's was only a problem because it was revealed that he hadn't paid back a credit to the Wynn, I believe. It wasn't necessarily the amount. And really the guy is now the Republican candidate for POTUS, if he had a gambling problem, I don't think he would have made it this far.

As far as it being a gambling problem because it COULD be a political problem is a little silly. That's not what Matt was saying in the post. He was acting like you can't trust a guy that plays craps with large amount. That is stupid. If Barack Obama only liked to drink Smirnoff Ice with Jolly Ranchers in them, yeah, I guess you could say he has a "drinking problem," but that doesn't mean he has a drinking problem.

All I'm saying is Matt can do better than this.

Posted by Chad | July 8, 2008 4:21 PM

McCain's gambling is only a problem because some people have sticks up their asses about other people's vices. The more we talk about, "is his gambling going to be a problem?", the more we encourage those people to tell us all what sinners we are. I wish those people would shut up.

To me, McCain's gambling is like Obama's smoking -- it makes him seem more human. It's probably irrelevant, but it makes me like him a little more.

Posted by too many steves | July 8, 2008 4:25 PM

"Charles Barkley's was only a problem because it was revealed that he hadn't paid back a credit to"

Charles Barkley's problem only became public knowledge because of that dispute. Doesn't mean he didn't have a problem before. We just hadn't heard about it.

"And really the guy is now the Republican candidate for POTUS, if he had a gambling problem, I don't think he would have made it this far."

Oh, come on! G.W. Bush got this far while hiding a past DUI and being, as we now know, lazy and a failure in every job he ever had. McCain scraped through the primaries because the right-wing vote got split, and each state is winner-takes-all. He also gets notoriously friendly press coverage (as did Bush). But getting this far doesn't mean a
thing.

"He was acting like you can't trust a guy that plays craps with large amount"

Well, he's right. Playing that game for high stakes is a losing proposition. Do you want a
President who spends time, money, and effort on something that's almost certain to fail, all for the nebulous benefits of adrenaline and camaraderie ? I sure don't want a guy like that making decisions about Iraq, nor about how to spend my tax dollars.

Anyhow, taking this in isolation, it's not a big deal. But as yet another instance of McCain's recklessness and rule-breaking, from the Naval Academy to the Keating 5 and beyond, it's very damaging. When he was young and foolish, he was young and foolish. But now apparently he's old and still foolish.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 4:37 PM

"Charles Barkley's problem only became public knowledge because of that dispute. Doesn't mean he didn't have a problem before. We just hadn't heard about it."

This is so wrong. Anyone that follows sports and the NBA in general certainly knows that Barkley gambled large amounts of money. It only seems like a problem when it looks like he can't repay his debts. Get it?

Also, "getting this far doesn't mean a thing." ??? Really? Like someone said earlier, you sound like a liberal Sean Hannity. And trust me, I'm a Democrat too, but all of your comments have sounded really desperate and kind of pathetic.

Posted by Chad | July 8, 2008 4:48 PM

I took that too far. I actually love you.

Posted by Chad | July 8, 2008 4:55 PM

At least craps has the highest odds of winning.

Posted by Gus | July 8, 2008 5:01 PM

My first (semi-)shameful thought: "What a refreshingly Old School and charming vice for a Republican to have in this day and age! Quelle quaint!"

Posted by AG | July 8, 2008 5:51 PM

"This is so wrong. Anyone that follows sports and the NBA in general certainly knows that Barkley gambled large amounts of money. It only seems like a problem when it looks like he can't repay his debts. Get it?"

No, it always looked like a problem to anyone who knew about it - which indeed, until recently was only sports fans. Though Barkley at least has the benefit of being not at all hypocritical or ashamed of his vices.

But anyhow, what you can get away with in the heavily-tattooed rap-singing Kobe-rape-charge Rodman-transvestite-wedding NBA is not exactly the same as what you want in a candidate for national elective office. Great athletes, but quite a few aren't great role models.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 8, 2008 6:18 PM

Weak sauce, Matt.

"John McCain likes to gamble" is a long way from "John McCain has a gambling problem."

Like someone else said, this is Sean Hannity-level stuff.

Posted by Jeff | July 8, 2008 6:19 PM

This is just more evidence that McCain is an asshole and an idiot.

If he had any brains, he'd only play blackjack and poker.

If he wasn't a profligate spender of his wife's money, he wouldn't be gambling at all.

It may be true that this is the least of our worries about McCain, but it does add weight to the fact that he's an asshole and an idiot and the last person we want as a President.

BUT - he IS the President we're going to get. He's the anointed next President of the US - anointed by the MSM and the Powers That Be.

It has to happen - because it's the least desirable outcome - and that's always the most likely outcome.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 8, 2008 9:01 PM