Two Plus Two Newer Archives - The Connecticut Senate Race Revisted

Much of the discussion among the punditry in the past few weeks concerning the Senate race in Connecticut has been about the interplay between Sen. Lieberman and challenger (now Dem. nominee) Ned Lamont. Much of the discourse now centers around the role of Democratic Party leaders and heavy-hitters (whether or not they endorse Lamont, or think Lieberman should bow out of the race, etc.) -- or around the role of the Republican Party in endorsing and/or sponsoring an indepedent candidacy from Lieberman.

I don't want to talk about any of that in this thread.

The most interesting character in this race, IMO, is the actual Republican nominee, Alan Schlesinger. Now, for what it's worth, Schlesinger has little to no chance of actually winning the Senate seat in CT, regardless of whether or not Lieberman stays in the race. But he's become the subject of blogosphere gossip due to his supposed affinity for gambling -- namely his penchant for blackjack at Foxwoods (which, for those of you who don't know, is in Connecticut).

Here are some excerpts from TMPmuckraker, which is a blog affiliated with Talking Points Memo, a center-leftist blog run by Josh Marshall; TPMmuckraker is tabloidish-blog that covers the exploits of political scandals (mostly focused on Republicans and moderate Democrats like Lieberman):

"the GOP candidate, Alan Schlesinger, has publicly admitted to gambling -- repeatedly -- under an assumed name ('Alan Gold'), and getting thrown out of casinos for card-counting."

Here's Schlesinger's side of the story, according to the Hartford Courant:

" "I was in politics. I used a pseudonym just for this reason, this stupidity we're going through now," Schlesinger said.

Schlesinger said he did nothing wrong, other than try to keep his name off Foxwoods' marketing list. . . .

Schlesinger said he has gambled only once a year at Connecticut casinos over the past five years, though he visited Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun more frequently in the 1990s, typically to play blackjack. He said his card-counting skills have limited his losses, but he never made money gambling.

"I never had a year when I won," Schlesinger said, but he said he has been spotted as a card counter and confronted by casino officials. "At various times, I've been asked not to play blackjack."

Schlesinger said casinos are oversensitive to card counting, even when the gambler is losing. Banning him from a blackjack table made no sense, he said.

"I've given them a lot of money. They should love me," Schlesinger said."

Now, despite pleas to drop out of the race from the state's Republican governor, Jodi Rell, along with the state's GOP chairman and other national party leaders (RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and President Bush have both refused to endorse Schlesinger's candidacy), Schlesinger has decided to stay in the race (in all fairness, much of the pressure for Schlesinger to step aside likely involves strategic considerations aimed at defeating Lamont, and not his love of gambooling.)

More from Schlesinger:

 " “I’ve searched my soul," Schlesinger told me. "I did absolutely nothing wrong. Period.”

Pointing out that he'd done nothing illegal, he called the controversy over his gambling "silly," and added that he was “very disappointed that my colleagues aren’t defending me. I'm disappointed that they’d join in the silliness for no reason.”

"Enough with the silliness," he said.

He's not the only legislator who's ever gambled, he said, and wondered at what other "salacious legal things" reporters will dredge up. "I’ve sat at tables with my colleagues [in the Connecticut State legislature]."

As proof that he's being unfairly singled out, Schlesinger urged me to ask Democratic candidates Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman if they've ever gambled." 

So, in conclusion: I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] this guy. I mean, I likely don't agree with him on any of the issues, and I'm sure I'm much more ideologically aligned with Lamont; nor am I a resident of Connecticut. But anyone who openly proclaims his love for blackjack and card-counting, brags about being thrown out of Foxwoods on numerous occasions for said card-counting, admits that (despite his card-counting efforts) is a lifetime loser at the tables, THEN rebuffs his Puritanical party leadership for not coming to his defense against inane charges of impropriety -- that man has a lifelong supporter in me.

Could we please start a fund for this guy's campaign?