| You may have seen the story about George Clooney getting in a fight with Steve Wynn. It appeared to be just a dust-up between two friends with differing political views. One guy goes too far and the other one gets ticked off and walks away. Later everyone kisses and makes up. The heart of this conflict was that Steve Wynn was trash talking the President, whom George Clooney pointed out he is friends with. Steve Wynn called the President an asshole. Clooney called Wynn an asshole and left the table. This story caught our attention because we recognized Steve Wynn as one of the bidders for the Everett casino. | ||
 |
||
| This completely throw-away entertainment story would have gone unnoticed expect for the fact that it reappeared later in the week completely rewritten. The new story has Clooney drunk and talking about how great the President is before calling Wynn an asshole and storming off. This version of the story is being promoted by the right wing talking head network. (Just type “George Clooney and Steve Wynn” into Google to see all the spin.) | ||
| Next, Wynn called Clooney a drunk on network television. | ||
| Then Clooney issued a press release. | ||
| The press release | ||
| This is not our first rodeo. We know spin when we see it. So we were very curious why Wynn would want to spin such a throw-away story. We started doing a little research on Steve Wynn and found out that George Clooney was inaccurate. Steve Wynn is not just an asshole — he is a right wing asshole. | ||
| Once you get past the carefully crafted image of Steve Wynn as a super human business god that has been sold to the public, you find a very different Steve Wynn. The truth is that he’s a right wing 1%er afraid that if Massachusetts voters discover how extreme his views really are, we will deny him that lucrative casino building permit in Everett. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wynn claims to be a Blue Dog Democrat which is okay because the Democratic Party is a big tent organization. We’re pretty sure even the most conservative Blue Dog Democrat would not call the President an asshole. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Things got weird in the 2012 election cycle when Wynn started appearing on FoxNews. Anytime Rupert Murdoch needed a businessperson to testify on air how the Democratic Party is bad for the economy, he called Wynn. The thing about Wynn likes to run off at the mouth it is really easy to find video of trash talking. Here is a list of Wynn’s greatest hits. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Link to story about Steve Wynn |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Massachusetts is the most progressive state in the union. The progressive movement has been able to push forward and elect strong candidates that have improved the standard of living for every citizen in the Commonwealth. Allowing Steve Wynn to build a casino here is like letting a fox into the chicken coop. It is a losing bet for the progressive movement and all progressive causes. The first thing that will happen is that Libertarian and Republican candidates will have no trouble getting funding for their campaigns. Previously unknown special interest groups will appear to push for ballot initiatives and referendums to roll back progressive legislation. Any new ideas will face overwhelming resistance and Steve Wynn will appear on the nightly news to denigrate the cause as “bad for business.” Any elected official that does not do what Wynn wants will face a well-funded challenger in the next election cycle. Massachusetts will begin a race to the bottom to attract the types of business we do not want.All Progressives need to stand together and send a very clear message to our elected officials and the State Gaming Board: “No way is Steve Wynn building a casino in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!” If you agree with this, please do the following three things right away: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This appears to be your first post and even your handle suggests something personal going on. It’s fine to be opposed to casinos on principle – plenty here are. However, I would prefer to focus on WHAT is right or wrong rather than WHO is behind it.
in the case of casinos, I think the question of “who” is legitimate. There are relatively few major players in the casino industry (certainly, Steve Wynn is one of them), and some of them (Sheldon Adelson, for instance, who happens not to be participating in our casino derby) are people whose involvement would make me less than happy. I’m not taking any position on whether the stuff in this post (most of which I haven’t looked at) should have any bearing on whether Wynn gets the Boston-area license; I’m just saying that, in this unusual industry, the question does not strike me as out of bounds.
If past performance predicts future behavior.
Check out the links
“However, I would prefer to focus on WHAT is right or wrong rather than WHO is behind it.”
I have no idea what this means.
…consider the ideas on the merits rather than get tripped up over personalities. Don’t assume that something is good or bad based on who proposed it. If more people adhered to this principle in politics generally we would have a lot less partisanship and could get more done.
This has zero to do with partisanship. Zero, nothing. And hey, things are still terrible and corrupt. Maybe “partisanship” isn’t this root evil you think it is.
…when Republicans favor a health care proposal dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation, then suddenly not only oppose it but decide it’s unconstitutional and must be resisted to the bitter end when Obama proposes it. That’s just one example. This particular issue may not be per se partisan, and partisanship may be OK when each side is fighting passionately for principle. However, it serves nobody if partisanship trumps principle and people’s positions change based on who is involved.
If you believe that the *person* who is making the proposal is not trustworthy, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the proposal is not exactly as it appears.
be regulated “independent of politics.”
…to overstock the rainy-day fund under your pillow.