Here's a great editorial by a LIBERAL DEM.
It is almost a guarnatee that the Republicans will pick up seats in the next election.
It looks like STEVE is wrong again. But, what else is new!!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-6_8_05_SE.html
Posted by ROOF at June 8, 2005 04:57 AMn ll lnd t's lwys pydy whn vrbrng gvrnmnt lt's y kp yr wn mny.
[Editor: ignore=off]Hey Roof!
What the hell does Susan Estrich know about winning???? Didn't she run the Dukakis campaign last century? He lost to "Poppy" Bush!!!
She has been the "designated liberal" on FOX so long that she does not know black from white.
Posted by goalkeeper at June 8, 2005 06:48 AM"This will be just another campaign issue the Democrats can ram down the GOPâ?™s throats next year" - yeah, and this will ensure that every smoker (those still alive next election) will vote GOP.
Posted by T2 at June 8, 2005 07:17 AMgoalkeeper,
It's pointless to argue with crazed fundamentalists like ROOF! They invent stuff in their head and believe that God is talking directly to them.
You surprise me sometimes T2.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 8, 2005 07:35 AMSteve, never underestimate the power of addiction. Smokers will vote against anyone who tries to attack their drug source. If it was up to me, I'd outlaw tobacco tomorrow (but I'm not running for office). And as for this Admin's concern for the public health - that simply doesn't exist. They are not running an Admin for the good of the general public, only for the good of the very rich public.
Posted by T2 at June 8, 2005 08:09 AMWhy don't we just solve all governmental debt problems by selling advertising space on government buildings. I'm sure alcohol and tobbacco companies would love to advertise on school buildings. If your gonna be a whore, be a rich whore.
Posted by rlprather at June 8, 2005 08:12 AMT2:
Democrats wouldn't be framing this as an attack on smokers, but as an attack on the Administration for throwing the industry $120 billion that was supposed to go into teenage smoking prevention programs. The only way for the GOP and Bush to defend itself from those attacks would be to claim that the $10 billion was adequate, which would lead back to why they capitulated when the industry itself was expecting to get hit with $130 billion. And the only way for the industry to defend itself from such attacks would be to show that they themselves were ready to pay $130 billion.
There is little risk of smokers getting mad at Democrats because of attacks against Bush if Democrats make the case that Bush is selling more and more kids into smoking and death.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 8, 2005 08:43 AMok, Steve, I give. Bush=Smoking for Kids=bad.
I am not sure exactly how much money it would take, however, to make teens quit smoking.
How much do condoms cost?
That might help!
Or not!
Pass 'em out to the teens and encourage their use as an alternative to smoking!
Posted by Duckman GR at June 8, 2005 09:06 AMHate to break it to the progressives out there, but the Democrats aren't a progressive party and haven't shown the ability to "ram" anything down anyone's throats for awhile.
The complete helplessness in front of money and the GOP is sad. Bankruptcy, Iraq, how many more issues will the party just betray itself on.
Wish I had some answers, but maybe it's time to fight in the primaries.
Posted by Samuel Knight at June 8, 2005 09:26 AMEvery generation, fewer people smoke. Even smokers don't want their teenage kids to start smoking.
That's where T2's addiction critique fails: It's easy to sell this as Bush wanting your kids to smoke. The smokers may be glad that their smokes are going to be a little cheaper next year, but they aren't going to be happy that Bush couldn't care less about their kids' getting emphysema.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 8, 2005 10:18 AMMatt, I already gave in. If Mr. Joe TwoPaksaday says "that damn Bush is making my kid smoke and its gonna kill him" then votes against the GOP, fine. But I hope the Dems don't plan on pinning their defeat of Bush policies and the GOP in general on weak anti-teen smoking-ads.
Posted by T2 at June 8, 2005 12:11 PM