If someone is personally opposed to gaming, then why did would they accept thousands of dollars from Indian gaming tribes and also vote for pro-gaming legislation?Sounds a tab bit inconsistent, doesn't it?
Well, that is the case with Republican candidate Van Hilleary.
Back in November, Van's campaign spokeswoman said, "Ms. Coxe said Mr. Hilleary is opposed to gambling.
"His record proves that," she said."
Well, lets have a look at his record, shall we.
6/16/2000 HR 4578 Fiscal 2001 Interior Appropriations - Indian Casinos
Amendment that would prohibit 'casino-style' gambling on Native American lands under Interior Department regulations issued in April of 1999 until two federal court cases have been adjudicated.
Van Hilleary: No
Ed Bryant: Yes
7/14/1999 HR 2466 Fiscal 2000 Interior Appropriations - Casino Gambling
* Amendment to prohibit the use of funds provided by the bill to be used to approve Class III (or 'casino-style') gambling on Indian lands by any means other than through a tribal-state agreement.
Van Hilleary: No
Ed Bryant: Yes
* The Christian Coalition lobbied for this peice of legislation.
As the votes above show, Van indeed joined liberal and moderate Republicans and voted for pro-gaming legislation while in Congress. He has also has accepted thousands of dollars of corrupt money from Indian gaming tribes.
Yet he still says he is personally opposed to gaming? Come on!
Why aren't Tennessee conservatives calling Van out for his blatant inconsistency, lies, and non-conservative tendency on this matter?
Clearly Van has said one thing and did another when it comes to gaming.
His statements and votes/actions simply do not add up.
It is time for Tennessee conservatives to make light of this wobbly-kneed conservative.
