I wish it was that easy.
During the 1996 presidential campaign I cut & copied a photograph from the Economist magazine of President Clinton smoking a huge cigar. I gave copies of this photograph to a number of my pals. By his own addmission the president has admitted his fondness for a good cigar. Of course I'm sure he doesn't inhale.
Sincerely, Tom L.
Greg Nowell wrote:
> I do think that there is a component of the impeachment
> which is pure affect, the hatred of Clinton because it
> is such a joy to hate, but I also think there is a
> rational component. I agree with one of the other
> people who posted on this list. Clinton realized that
> his winning electoral strategy needed California, New
> York and the eco-topians; that he couldn't hold the
> South. Once he made that decision, it was easy to
> jettison tobacco and even attack it to pick up more
> votes elsewhere.
> In so doing, he attacked billion dollar corporations
> and billion dollar industry which also happens to be a
> core supporter of the Republican party, and in
> particular, the Southern republicans who have taken
> over the Southern conservative democrat constituency of
> the "old solid south." What we have left is a South
> which forks on to the national plate heaps of
> fundamentalism and tobacco money. Never mind that Hyde
> is from Illinois. Tobacco is a big lobby everywhere.
> Pulls strings in California and New York. So Clinton
> was taking aim at one of the core constituencies of the
> Republican party, the one that delivered the cash.
> Therefore, I think that the ideological rubbish and
> so-called irrationality of the Republican move is
> rational from another dimension. They need money in
> order to win votes, they can't win votes without
> money. The annihilate Clinton strategy is designed to
> protect the big money (and ingratiate themselves
> thereto). It is rational to assume that they can't win
> without money, and if you have to put your bets on
> whether you are better off two years from now with lots
> of money and an electorate which may or may not be
> alienated (while the core electorate remains intact)
> versus not having money or seeing their chief economic
> supporter, tobacco, take more hits, then it is clearly
> rational to tie down the King and prevent him from
> doing any additional harm. Because in the tobacco wars
> it is not just short-term issues at stake: the
> anti-tobacco faction wants to implement strong measures
> to stop teenage addiction (such as the effective,
> Republican-killed California campaign).
> What we are seeing therefore is at the surface all
> blowjobs and perjury. The deeper issue is this: this
> is the American version of the opium wars, and in that
> sense we are lucky that the purveyors of a major
> addictive substance which is rooted in the political
> economy of a dozen major states are putting up so
> *mild* a fight.
> Gregory P. Nowell
> Associate Professor
> Department of Political Science, Milne 100
> State University of New York
> 135 Western Ave.
> Albany, New York 12222
> Fax 518-442-5298