Bush-Tobbacco Industry Lobbyist

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Campaign Calls on President and His Party to Turn Down Tobacco Contributions During Settlement Talks

Statement of Matthew L. Myers, President Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids Washington, DC - It is an outrageous conflict of interest that President Bush and the Republican Party are continuing to solicit campaign contributions from the tobacco industry at the same time that the Bush Administration prepares to enter settlement negotiations with several tobacco companies over the federal tobacco lawsuit. On the very day that newspaper headlines delivered news of the Administration’s settlement plans, The New York Times reported that tobacco industry lobbyists are on the organizing committee for a Republican fundraiser next week that is expected to raise more than $15 million for the party’s House and Senate campaign committees. The President will be the guest of honor at this “black tie and boots” gala. Can the American people have any confidence that the Administration will fight for them while negotiating with Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds when the President is raising millions of dollars from the tobacco companies and their representatives? While we continue to believe that the Administration should abandon its settlement plans and aggressively pursue the lawsuit, we believe it is inappropriate for the President and his party to solicit tobacco money while settlement talks are ongoing. We call on the President to immediately order his party’s fundraising committees to stop soliciting or accepting tobacco campaign contributions and to return any received for next week’s fundraiser.

The Administration bears the burden of proof in showing that it is acting in the people’s interest given the $7 million in tobacco campaign contributions the Republican Party received in the last election.

The Administration’s record to date is one of protecting the tobacco industry, not the public health. The Administration has failed to ensure adequate funding to continue the federal tobacco lawsuit, sought to weaken the proposed international tobacco treaty (the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control), appointed key regulators at the Federal Trade Commission who have worked for the tobacco industry, and proposed reducing the tobacco prevention budget of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In addition, the chairs of the Republican House and Senate campaign committees, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), are the primary sponsors of legislation that takes the industry’s approach to tobacco regulation, particularly that advocated by Philip Morris. These are the same two committees that will benefit from next week’s tobacco-backed fundraiser.

It’s time for President Bush to say no to Big Tobacco’s cash and to start protecting the public health.



-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), June 25, 2001

Answers

Kinda like the dems negotiating the Patients Bill of Rights legislation while soliciting massive donations from the Trial Lawyers Association, eh Cherri?

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), June 25, 2001.

No, libs, it's not. And perhaps you can start contributing more to the forum instead of always writing simplistic one-line sentences that merely express how cowardly you are.

If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty you'd admit that this is outrageously immoral behavior on the part of the Bush team.

But who cares about the health of children who smoke, right libs?

That's their problem.

Even when faced with reports of torture by Bush's buddies you say, "Wonder what they gave to the Democrats."

Cowardice and avarice in action. Your modus operandi is exposed and so tired and boring. Merely mentioning the opposite party doesn't work in the face of TORTURE BY BUSH'S BUDDIES, pal.

Maybe some day you'll cultivate an honest assessment of reality, enough to gain some modicum of morality.

In the meantime we won't hold our breaths.

-- Conservative Cowards (denial@work.com), June 25, 2001.


-- Conservative Cowards (denial@work.com),

You're a big puking dork you coward. First you keep mistaking me for some other poster, then you make other bullshit claims about how Bush is pulling the toenails out of poor children. You prove how idiotic socialist trash are.

I'll write whatever I want, whenever I want you left-wing entitlement sucking wacko.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), June 25, 2001.


I'll write whatever I want, whenever I want you left-wing entitlement sucking wacko.

Ah, how elegant, how persuasive you are, Libs! You show your true colors here in bright, cohesive language, language destined to serve as a fitting example of conservative rhetorical intelligence and wit!

As I said, we aren't holding our breaths.

Thanks so much for so aptly proving my point, Coward.

-- Conservative Cowards (denial@work.com), June 25, 2001.


-- Conservative Cowards (denial@work.com), June 25, 2001.

You point sucks as much as you do small boys. If the left-wing scum in Congress had any cajones, they would oultaw tobacco altogether. But they're more interested in the revenues afforded by taxes on cigarettes, and lawsuits to their ambulance-chasing pals then actually stopping children from smoking in a REAL way.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), June 25, 2001.



Anyone who thinks cigarettes should be banned needs mental help.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 25, 2001.

"If the left-wing scum in Congress had any cajones, they would oultaw tobacco altogether."

Bad thinking, libs. Same sort of thinking that gave us the drug war and Prohibition. It is a good thing that the "left-wing scum in Congress" are smarter than you are. They know that tobacco is a public health issue, best treated by education and by taxing tobacco into a luxury item.

You, on the other hand represent the typical "conservative" thinking that can't solve any social problem without resorting to the police force and prison sytem - and you confuse this kind of lazy idiocy with manhood or courage.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.


Little Nipper,

You represent the typical liberal thinking that can't attempt to solve any social problem without resorting to the tax code and entitlement programs - and you confuse this kind of lazy idiocy with progress or compassion.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 25, 2001.

Little Nipper,

LIke any left-wing entitlement sucker you are dead wrong on all counts. Personally, I would neither outlaw tobacco, nor do as you prefer - to tax it into a luxury item. That's typical leftist mentality. You can't "educate" the masses into not drinking alcohol, taking drugs, or smoking tobacco. BTW, I would de-criminalize drug possession too. You dipshit liberals see no end to digging into my pockets to fund your ever growing bureacracies, or making new laws for your lawyer buddies to build an existence from, including dragging some poor schmuk gas-station owner into court to face massive governmental fines for selling cigarettes to some 17-year old punk. You're the ones with the hypocrisy.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), June 25, 2001.


Come on LN, you do see the conflict of interest here, don't you?. Some Liberals seriously want to reduce smoking by means of ever higher taxation. Other Liberals want the income that tobacco taxes generate. They conveniently ignore that such a sales tax is highly regressive and that punitive taxes will just promote blackmarket tobacco. (oh goody, now we can create a larger BATF bureacracy).

As a former smoker, I think that education and social pressure (some of by way of government) are the most effective ways to reduce tobacco consumption. But I don't think tobacco use will ever be eliminated.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 25, 2001.



http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ CarolASThompson/

Only 4 things smoking has stood for in the last 50 years: 1) lots of your tax dollars wasted on research that only gives answers the powers to be want. (just like a media poll - you ask who you think will give you the answer you want to the very limited question) 2) a way for the socialists to divert the people away from the real problems the people faced in this country ie taxes, Government, GATT,NAFA, UN,WTO etc. 3) Gives someone who doesn't smoke the right to try to take away the right of a smoker in the names of "Public Health" (a socialists term) 4)Gives land fall profits to the tobacco companies, governments & lawyers on the backs of smokers; the pretence of helping to stop kids from smoking by pricing tobacco higher by taxes and the tobacco companies is a joke and a fraud. It's distrubation wealth.

WHERE ARE THE KIDS PARENTS ? Oh sorry, they want the government to raise their kids that they don't have the time to raise like good parents.

Sure Republicans are going to take tobacco's money just like the Democrates. I guess tabaccos money is as good as the money for the Linclon bedroom in the White House or Chinas money for National Secrets.

PS - a coward is a person thats afraid to use their own name when they stand on a "soap box"

-- L.Watson (awdragon@yahoo.com), June 25, 2001.


Lars: "As a former smoker, I think that education and social pressure (some of by way of government) are the most effective ways to reduce tobacco consumption. But I don't think tobacco use will ever be eliminated."

Ditto. I am a former smoker - 12 years. I think education and social pressure (some of by way of government) are the most effective ways to reduce tobacco consumption. I don't think tobacco use will ever be eliminated, nor do I see tobacco prohibition as a good thing to attempt.

If you want to know what a liberal really thinks, may I suggest that the snarlings of "libs are idiots" are a very poor guide.

As for J... you own a very special mental map there, one where the road from "tobacco" to "public health problem" takes a wide, rambling detour in order to run through "entitlements". Funny you should mention entitlements and liberals, because Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are two of the biggest flaming liberal supporters of tobacco farm subsidies - an entitlement program.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.


Little Nipper,

You are hilarious in your attempt at righteous indignation. What do you think that you socialists do with the revenues generated "by taxing tobacco into a luxury item"? If your answer is not "entitlement programs", then you are either a fool or a liar.

I am a libertarian, and as such, am against all forms of government subsidies. However, if politicians are intent on figuring out ways to spend my tax dollars, then farm subsidies beat welfare payments hands down. At least a tobacco farmer is working to try and earn a living.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 25, 2001.

"If your answer is not 'entitlement programs', then you are either a fool or a liar."

Let's see. My choices are: I can agree with you, or be a liar, or be a fool. My! You are an uncomplicated fellow, aren't you?

Let me try my hand at this kind of arguing (...adjusts his beanie... sticks his slingshot in his hip pocket... shakes his fist and turns red in the face) I am too right! You're a stupid dummy! So there!

(Shakes head) I dunno, J. It sounds better when you do it. Pointers?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.


As for J... you own a very special mental map there, one where the road from "tobacco" to "public health problem" takes a wide, rambling detour in order to run through "entitlements". Funny you should mention entitlements and liberals, because Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are two of the biggest flaming liberal supporters of tobacco farm subsidies - an entitlement program.

"All politics is local"

--Tip O'Neill

Sad but true.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), June 25, 2001.



Little Nipper,

That sure was a long, drawn out way to avoid giving me an answer of what you socialists do with tax revenues besides entitlement programs. Were you trying to buy yourself some time to think of something? LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 25, 2001.

"... you socialists do with tax revenues besides entitlement programs."

Your argument consists of saying "socialists think this way and you are a socialist, so you mustthink this way". What if I don't think that way? Either I am not a "socialist", or "socialists" don't think that way. Logically, those are your only two choices, J.

Or, you can quote me. Not to prove I am a "socialist". That would be more of the same sh*t you are already peddling. But quote me to prove what you assert is true about me is true.

Up to the challenge, J?

It is simple enough. Don't argue that what you say is true about me, should be true, but just show that I proved it is true because I said so. Got it? Good! Now go to work and prove you aren't full of grade A SHIT!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.


Little Nipper,

You're starting to steam a little around the collar. Am I annoying you? LOL.

How quickly you forget that it was you who first painted 'libs are idiots' with the broad brush of generalization that you now accuse me of yielding. In fact, my first post to this thread was to parody your very own words.

You take yourself way too seriously, boy. And I seem to always know just what to say to pull your chain. LOL.

Instead of all of the grandstanding, why don't you just answer the question about what you would do with the revenues raised by taxing tobacco, if not entitlement programs?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 26, 2001.

Little Nipper wrote...

"If you want to know what a liberal really thinks, may I suggest that the snarlings of "libs are idiots" are a very poor guide.

As for J... you own a very special mental map there, one where the road from "tobacco" to "public health problem" takes a wide, rambling detour in order to run through "entitlements". Funny you should mention entitlements and liberals, because Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are two of the biggest flaming liberal supporters of tobacco farm subsidies - an entitlement program. "

Funny thing, but I don't consider myself a liberal, ala Hillary and her government controlled health plan scheme. Neither am I a "conservative" ala Trent Lott with his alternate means to find ways to spend big bucks. Government that is ALWAYS smallest and least intrusive is the best.

The hypocrisy of making tobacco a "luxury" item by taxing it highly is incredible. So now poor people won't be able to afford cigarettes, or alcohol, or gasoline, or etc. because the government needs to 'direct' the 'proper' choices for people becuase we can't trust those big bad corporations. Talk about Orwellian!!!!!!!

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), June 26, 2001.


"Instead of all of the grandstanding, why don't you just answer the question about what you would do with the revenues raised by taxing tobacco, if not entitlement programs?"

Funny, when I ask you questions, you label them as "grandstanding" so you can dismiss them without answering them. But your questions are the important ones. Sorry. I don't work that way.

As I recall, your "question" about how the tax revenues would be spent first emerged as a bald-faced assertion. So, let's see you back up your own assertion first. Then we can talk.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 26, 2001.


Little Nipper,

Funny, when you categorize 'libs are idiots' as a typical conservative, that is all well in good in your view, but when I categorize you as a socialist, then you whine, and pout, and cry, "No fair"!

I don't care what way that you think that you work. You won't answer the question because you won't admit that "entitlement programs" is the answer.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 26, 2001.

"You won't answer the question because you won't admit that "entitlement programs" is the answer."

Another oldie but goodie: assigning the motives that are the most convenient for your purposes, in spite of the fact that that those motives are entirely beyond your knowledge. This stuff was worn out before I was a teenager.

BTW, you asked me if I found you irritating. Yes. I do. You may pin that accomplishment to your chest and wear it around like a medal. I also find bad smells, screechy noises and jock itch irritating. Welcome to the club. I am sure you'll find the company congenial.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 26, 2001.


Little Nipper,

I doubt that your elaborate dodge is fooling many of those on the forum; I know that it is certainly not fooling me. Maybe it is fooling yourself. LOL.

BTW, my "annoying" comment was the post before last. You really should be more timely on your "jock itch" witticisms, lest the truth come out that you have to think for hours to come up with such gems. LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 26, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ