If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
With one debate in the bag and just over a month left ’till election day, the campaign trail is heating up. Each candidate is siezing upon opportunities to make the other look bad. The most recent example is the publicizing of John McCain being a lifelong gambler.
In a new Democratic National Committee attack ad, viewers are warned that McCain’s gambling habits could spell trouble for the nation. Viewers are greeted with the text “Betting on McCain? Casino Lobbyists Are!”, complete with spooky music, quotes about McCain being “a betting man”, and a very negative overall tone.
A New York Times piece called “For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling” continues in the same vein, noting how McCain was “throwing dice not long after his failed 2000 Presidential bid” and “tossed around $100 chips” in a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at Foxwoods. The premise being hinted at by the attack and and NY Times article seems to be “a man who gambles or associates with gamblers is unfit to be President.”
Now, the facts in the article are largely true. McCain did bet at a casino that he oversaw as a mamber of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. And Scott Reed of the Mashantucket Pequot tribe (who built Foxwoods into the 2nd largest casino on Earth) has contributed greatly to McCain’s Presidential campaign. It might even be true that, as the article states, “McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26 billion a year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country.”
However, it does not follow that McCain having ties to the gambling industry would make him a bad President. The DNC and NY Times are taking it on faith (and expecting readers to do the same) that gamblers take the same attitude towards life in general as they do at the casino: that is, staking money on games of chance. But is there any actual evidence for this? None has been offered thus far, other than the rhetorical argument that someone who gambles is, in theory, more reckless than someone who doesn’t. Without empirical evidence, however, this must be regarded as speculation, and politically charged speculation at that.
In fact, it seems that the only gamblers who would make poor Presidents are problem gamblers; that is, those who are unhealthily obsessed by with gambling to the point of financial or emotional ruin. These people arguably have addictive personalities which predispose them to rash, impulsive choices in many areas of life. It is not at all clear that John McCain fits this profile, nor is there any great reason to believe that he does.
The fact that McCain is in bed with special interests is also not a real point of difference. Barack Obama and every Democratic and Republican politican in recent memory had loyalties with many special interests, including many of the same special interests as the men they were opposing. So clearly, this alone does not make him unfit to lead.
(Of course, whether McCain would be a good President involves much more than just his status as a gambler. It just seems dishonest and politically opportunistic to rule him out because he plays craps at Foxwoods.)