Irish bookie pays off Brown Senate bets early

I'd be willing to bet that my fellow Paddys are dead wrong.

BOSTON --With 24 hours to go before Massachusetts' special election for a U.S. Senate seat, an Irish bookie already has paid off bettors who wagered that state Sen. Scott Brown, a conservative Republican, would win the seat held for nearly 50 years by liberal Democratic icon Edward M. Kennedy.

Enough is enough. It seems that Senator Brown just has to get out of bed tomorrow to win convincingly. As far as were concerned, this race is well and truly over," said Paddy Power, Irelands largest bookmaker.

Before shutting down the betting, Mr. Brown had gone from 5-4 odds to 1-5 (meaning if a bettors put down $5, they only stood to make $1 if Mr. Brown wins). The odds against his opponent -- Democrat Martha Coakley, the state's attorney general -- soared, from 4-7 to win to 3-1 to lose.

IWRC* Palin Probe Expanded Beyond Troopergate

By GottaLaff

UPDATE:

Ruh-roh! IWRC* Palin will have to lie some more to get out of this one. Or... she can simply look at the facts and then deny them outright, as she did with the TrooperGate findings:

The Anchorage Daily News reports:

The state Personnel Board investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of Walt Monegan has broadened to include other ethics complaints against the governor and examination of actions by other state employees, according to the independent counsel handling the case.

The investigator, Tim Petumenos, did not say who else is under scrutiny. But in two recent letters describing his inquiry, he cited the consolidation of complaints and the involvement of other officials as a reason for not going along with Palin's request to make the examination of her activities more public.

Newsweek reported on Saturday that the Personnel Board probe, which both the McCain campaign and critics expected would be more favorable to Palin, hasn't turned out that way:

[...] Some weeks ago, the McCain team devised a plan to have Palin file an ethics complaint against herself with the State Personnel Board, arguing that it alone was capable of conducting a fair, nonpartisan inquiry [...] Some Democrats ridiculed the move, noting that the personnel board answered to Palin. But the board ended up hiring an aggressive Anchorage trial lawyer, Timothy Petumenos, as an independent counsel. McCain aides were chagrined to discover that Petumenos was a Democrat who had contributed to Palin's 2006 opponent for governor, Tony Knowles. Palin is now scheduled to be questioned next week, and the counsel's report could be released soon after. "We took a gamble when we went to the personnel board," said a McCain aide who asked not to be identified discussing strategy. While the McCain camp still insists Palin "has nothing to hide," it acknowledges a critical finding by Petumenos would be even harder to dismiss.

Goodness gracious me! Gramm-pa McCain took yet another gamble that didn't pay off. He really should think about breaking that habit.

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"

H/t: Ellen for article
H/t: Kerry for video

Watchdog Files Ethics Complaint on Gramm-pa McCain’s Gambling

By GottaLaff

Can't... keep... up...... Oh, who am I kidding, of course I can!

An anecdote about a 2000 visit to a casino, recounted in a recent article in The New York Times that examined Sen. John McCain’s ties to the gambling industry, may have inadvertently created an ethics problem for the GOP presidential nominee. From The Times:

Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings.

The problem?

According to a non-partisan government watchdog, McCain never reported the winnings from this and other gambling excursions in his annual financial disclosure statements, as required by federal law and Senate rules.

But... but... that wouldn't be straight-arrow, straight-talkin' transparent! Say it ain't so, Gramm-pa, to quote some obscure terrorist-hatin', TrooperGatin' Amurkin.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint today with the Senate Ethics Committee, calling for an investigation into whether McCain, reportedly an avid gambler, broke the law. You can view the complaint here (PDF). From a CREW press release:

The Senate Ethics Manual states that winnings, such as those derived from a lottery or a game show, are gifts that must be reported as income. Knowingly filing a false report is a crime punishable by up to five years in jail.

Nevertheless, Sen. McCain reported no income derived from gambling on the personal financial disclosure reports he filed with the Senate between 2000 and 2007.

In contrast, other members of Congress, including Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) all reported winnings on their financial disclosure reports.

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan stated, “Given Sen. McCain’s long history of gambling, the fact that he never included gambling income on his financial disclosure forms suggests he is either the unluckiest gambler ever or, more likely, he failed to report the income.”

Presumably, a failure to report his winnings to the IRS would also be problematic, as all gambling income is fully taxable.

Ruh-roh. I feel trouble a-brewin'. Doggone it, today is chock full-o'-stories of s**t hittin' the ol' IWRC*/Gramm-pa fan, wouldn'tcha say? Can I call ya "IWRC", Gov'?

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"

Gramm-pa McCain: "Don't touch me...Do you know who I am? Do you know who you're talking to?"

By GottaLaff

Remember my post, "Gramm-pa McCain's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Temper 101"? Apparently, I missed a doozy that Michael Kinsley describes in some detail, but his concern isn't limited to Gramm-pa's temper. It extends to his arrogance and recklessness:

It comes in an email from my friend Jeff Dearth, a media investment banker and former publisher of The New Republic. We also went to junior high and high school together in Michigan. He would not make this up. In 2005, Jeff attended a magazine industry conference at a casino hotel in Puerto Rico. (I was there, too, though not a witness to what follows.) The guest speaker was McCain. [...]

McCain’s game is craps. So is Jeff Dearth’s. Jeff was at the table when McCain showed up and happily made room for him. Apparently there is some kind of rule or tradition in craps that everyone’s hands are supposed to be above the table when the dice are about to be thrown. McCain—“very likely distracted by one of the many people who approached him that evening,” Jeff says charitably—apparently was violating this rule. A small middle-aged woman at the table, apparently a “regular,” reached out and pulled McCain’s arm away. I’ll let Jeff take over the story:

“McCain immediately turned to the woman and said between clenched teeth: ‘DON’T TOUCH ME.’ The woman started to explain...McCain interrupted her: ‘DON’T TOUCH ME,’ he repeated viciously. The woman again tried to explain. ‘DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU’RE TALKING TO?’ McCain continued, his voice rising and his hands now raised in the ‘bring it on’ position. He was red-faced. By this time all the action at the table had stopped. I was completely shocked. McCain had totally lost it, and in the space of about ten seconds. ‘Sir, you must be courteous to the other players at the table,’ the pit boss said to McCain. “DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? ASK ANYBODY AROUND HERE WHO I AM.”

This being Puerto Rico, the pit boss might not have known McCain. But the senator continued in full fury—“DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU’RE TALKING TO? DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?”—and crisis was avoided only when Jeff offered to change places and stand between McCain and the woman who had touched his arm.

What is bothersome about this story, if it’s true, is only partly the explosive anger. More, it’s the arrogance. At the craps table, who cares who he is? And there’s the recklessness of such a performance in a casino full of journalists (unless McCain absolutely couldn’t control himself, which is even scarier). But this gamble paid off. Although there were published reports that McCain had gambled late into the night, which properly treated that matter as charming, this particular episode has gone unreported until now. [...]

Jeff Dearth is not an extreme partisan or an activist for either candidate. He supports Obama, in part because he is truly alarmed at the thought of the arrogant hothead he saw becoming president. (“I’d happily gamble with Senator McCain again,” he says, “but I definitely wouldn’t gamble on him.”)

As if that weren't enough, add this to the Volatile Gramm-pa stories:

Meanwhile, a former senior Bush administration official told Political Wire of at least three occasions where he saw McCain fly into a fit of rage, including one time when he got physical and actually push the person annoying him.

Joe Klein: "There is...a pent-up anger to McCain. He seems to be concentrating so hard on trying to stay calm that he doesn't have much energy left over to answer questions in a free and creative way. He is not the sort of person, in the end, that you want to invite into your living room for a four-to-eight-year stay."

And he calls Obama scary.

John Sidney McGambling problem

By GottaLaff

I posted this back in July... but now that everyone is saying that J Sid likes to gamble, and that his choice of Sarah Palin is a gamble, and the theme of the day is gamblegamblegamble, I'm reposting:

UPDATE:

"I think this is the biggest political gamble, just about, in all of American history."

-- Pat Buchanan, quoted by The Guardian, on Sen. John McCain's pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I'll wage that having a high-stakes gambler in the White House is a bad idea. Any takers? Via DKos:

I think this story is both relevant and revealing. Relevant because it should give Christian Fundies serious pause about John "McCraps" and revealing because it illustrates what sort of personal attributes John "McCraps" has.

Here's the original NY Times Piece:

In the past decade, [McCain] 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. [...]

He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.

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."

From "John McCain's Gambling Problem":

A few thousand dollars at a time?* Wow. That's more than borderline unseemly, I'd say--easily several hundred thousand dollars over a period of 5-10 years if McCain plays regularly. It's certainly a far cry from the $1-ante games Obama played in Springfield.

At the end of the piece, a former Obama colleague, refering to Obama's contemplative gambling style, tells Time, "If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I'll sleep good at night." I think the converse is true of McCain--I'd sleep pretty poorly if he were to run his presidency the way he plays craps. (And I think the odds are high that he would. He certainly seems to run his campaign that way...)

*Of course, if by "a few thousand dollars at a time" Scherer and Weisskopf mean "a few thousand dollars a hand roll," then we're potentially talking millions of dollars over a period of several years, not hundreds of thousands. We'd be in real pathological territory--nothing particularly borderline about it.

Now he's gambling with our country's future.

John Sidney McGambler, IRS edition

By GottaLaff

Over at DKos, there's a great piece that you should read in its entirety. See? I even italicized that so you'd go over there. But I won't leave you in suspense. Here are a few excerpts, which you can put in context if you read my original post:

Let's look at some relevant instructions for filing IRS Form W-2G....

Box 1. The payer must furnish a Form W-2G to you if you receive...Any gambling winnings subject to federal income tax withholding.

Box 2. Any federal income tax withheld on these winnings is shown in this box. Federal income tax must be withheld at the rate of 25% on certain winnings less the wager.

Instructions to Winner
If you did not provide your federal identification number to the payer, the amount in this box may be subject to backup withholding at a 28% rate. Include the amount shown in box 2 on your Form 1040 as federal income tax withheld.

The W-2G is not just for people who win lots of money gambling. The form also has instructions that are pretty clear even if you are gambling and losing significant amounts of money as well:

Generally, report all gambling winnings on the "Other income" line of Form 1040. You can deduct gambling losses as an itemized deduction, but you cannot deduct more than your winnings. Keep an accurate record of your winnings and losses, and be able to prove those amounts with receipts, tickets, statements, or similar items that you have saved.

The bottom line: Whether you win or lose, Uncle Sam wants to know about it if you are spending significant sums of money gambling. [...]

Given the company he was keeping in some of these early marathon sessions, it is entirely possible he was playing with other people's money. In that case, he still has to file some paperwork. And so do they. According to IRS form W-2G

Signature. You must sign Form W-2G if you are the only person entitled to the winnings and the winnings are subject to regular gambling withholding.

Other winners. Prepare Form 5754, Statement by Person(s)
Receiving Gambling Winnings, if another person is entitled to any part of these winnings. Give Form 5754 to the payer.

If he is winning and not declaring -- that's a crime. If he is losing and not taking the deductions, that is peculiar for a lot of obvious reasons. It means he never wins. If he is losing his own money and not taking the deduction, it looks like he is trying to hide a problem. If he is losing other people's money that certainly raises questions about influence peddling if they have business in front of his committee. Whether he is winning or losing, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see how a lobbyist bankrolling the senator's marathon craps session might be using this as a way of funneling money into the senator's coffers without drawing attention to the transactions.

Finally, all this talk about unreported transactions raises raises more questions no one in the media will likely bother to ask: Has anyone seen Cindy McCain's W-2G? Does anyone know if she ever filed a 5754? Has she been supporting his gambling habit? With all the interest paid to Obama's mortgage payments, you would think something this glaring would get more media attention. Of course, then the press would have to get off the Lapdog Express and that wouldn't be any fun, would it?

Nah. It's much more fun to concentrate on the superior candidate and try to rip him to shreds.

John Sidney McGambler

By GottaLaff

I'll wage that having a high-stakes gambler in the White House is a bad idea. Any takers? Via DKos:

I think this story is both relevant and revealing. Relevant because it should give Christian Fundies serious pause about John "McCraps" and revealing because it illustrates what sort of personal attributes John "McCraps" has.

Here's the original NY Times Piece:

In the past decade, [McCain] 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. [...]

He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.

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."

From "John McCain's Gambling Problem":

A few thousand dollars at a time?* Wow. That's more than borderline unseemly, I'd say--easily several hundred thousand dollars over a period of 5-10 years if McCain plays regularly. It's certainly a far cry from the $1-ante games Obama played in Springfield.

At the end of the piece, a former Obama colleague, refering to Obama's contemplative gambling style, tells Time, "If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I'll sleep good at night." I think the converse is true of McCain--I'd sleep pretty poorly if he were to run his presidency the way he plays craps. (And I think the odds are high that he would. He certainly seems to run his campaign that way...)

*Of course, if by "a few thousand dollars at a time" Scherer and Weisskopf mean "a few thousand dollars a hand roll," then we're potentially talking millions of dollars over a period of several years, not hundreds of thousands. We'd be in real pathological territory--nothing particularly borderline about it.

McGambler is not who people think he is, but you won't hear about these things on TV "news" broadcasts. I'm willing to bet on it.