On Meet the Press, Buchanan falsely claimed Dem candidates support federal law banning smoking in public places
SUMMARY: On Meet the Press, Pat Buchanan said of the September 26 Democratic presidential candidate debate: "I think the Democratic Party doesn't know how far to the left they are moving. I mean, they said there that smoking is going to be a federal crime in public places." In fact, two of the candidates in that debate -- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- said they opposed a federal law at this time banning smoking in public places and voiced their support for letting local communities develop such laws.
On the September 30 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan said of the September 26 Democratic presidential candidate debate: "I think the Democratic Party doesn't know how far to the left they are moving. I mean, they said there that smoking is going to be a federal crime in public places." In fact, two of the candidates in that debate -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) -- said they oppose a federal law banning smoking in public places at this time and instead voiced their support for letting local communities develop anti-smoking laws. Host Tim Russert did not correct Buchanan's false generalization about the Democratic candidates' position, despite the fact that he moderated the September 26 debate.
During the debate, Russert asked Clinton if she was "in favor of a national law to ban smoking in public places." Clinton responded: "Not at this point. I think we're making progress at the local level." Answering the same question, Obama said, "I think that local communities are making enormous strides, and I think they're doing the right thing on this." Obama added: "As I said, if we can't provide these kinds of protections at the local level, which would be my preference, I would be supportive of a national law." At the debate, before moving to a different topic, Russert asked if there was "anybody here who's in favor of a national law to ban smoking," and based on a show of hands noted that Sens. Joseph P. Biden (DE), Christopher Dodd (CT), former Sen. John Edwards (NC), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Sen. Mike Gravel (AK), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) are all "in favor of a national law."
As Media Matters for America noted, an August 28 New York Post article used the misleading headline, "Hill Eyes National Cig Curb," to which Internet gossip Matt Drudge later posted a link with the headline: "Hillary Supports National Smoking Ban." In fact, when asked during the August 27 Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum whether she would support the federal government "outlaw[ing] smoking in public places nationally," Clinton asserted: "I think the way that we're proceeding is probably the smarter way right now, which is locality, community, state." Indeed, the Post article noted in its final paragraph that, "[a]sked whether the feds should impose a nationwide ban, Clinton deferred to local governments."
From the September 26 Democratic presidential candidate debate:
RUSSERT: One second -- one second here. I want to turn to another health issue because this is important before I bring [co-moderator] Alison [King] in. Over 400,000 Americans have premature deaths due to smoking or secondhand smoke. Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of a national law to ban smoking in all public places?
CLINTON: Well, we banned it in New York City. And people thought it would be a terrible idea, and everyone was really upset about it. And actually, business at a lot of establishments, like restaurants and other places, increased because many people felt more comfortable going when there was no smoking.
I think that we should be moving toward a bill that I have supported to regulate tobacco through the FDA. And once it has those health warnings and once the FDA can regulate it, I think that will give a lot of support to local communities to make these, what are essentially zoning decisions. And I'd fully support that.
RUSSERT: But you're not in favor of a national law to ban smoking in public places?
CLINTON: Not at this point. I think we're making progress at the local level.
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, a national law to ban smoking in all public places?
OBAMA: I think that local communities are making enormous strides, and I think they're doing the right thing on this. If it turns out that we're not seeing enough progress at the local level, then I would favor a national law. I don't think we've seen the local laws play themselves out entirely, because I think you're seeing an enormous amount of progress in Chicago, in New York, in other major cities around the country. And because I think we have been treating this as a public health problem and educating the public on the dangers of secondhand smoke, that that pressure will continue.
As I said, if we can't provide these kinds of protections at the local level, which would be my preference, I would be supportive of a national law.
RUSSERT: Have you been successful in stopping smoking?
OBAMA: I have. The -- you know, the best cure is my wife.
RUSSERT: Is there anybody here who's in favor of a national law to ban smoking in all public places?
[crosstalk]
BIDEN: I would ban -- yes. I would ban -- and all publicly, nationally. And one other point I want to make on this --
DODD: Three thousand kids start smoking every day in this country.
RUSSERT: OK. So Biden, Dodd, Richardson --
RICHARDSON: I did it in New Mexico --
RUSSERT: -- national law. Kucinich and Gravel.
KUCINICH: Wait a minute. I've been breathing in a lot of secondhand smoke here tonight. You bet I'll go for a national law.
RUSSERT: All right. So Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel and Kucinich in favor of a national law. Alison, you're up.
EDWARDS: Wait, wait, wait, and Edwards.
RUSSERT: And Edwards.
From the September 30 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
BUCHANAN: I think Obama's got a real problem here. I don't think you can defend yourself against the charge of lack of experience by talking about it. What he has to do is -- his problem is he's got Edwards, who is energizing the left wing of the Democratic Party and taking left-wing positions. And Obama, the more he moves out there, the more he moves out of the center -- and he can't go after Hillary the way Edwards does because he'll ruin this really good national image he's got of being above politics --
RUSSERT: Politics of hope.
BUCHANAN: Yeah, exactly. And so, at the same time, he's got to beat Edwards. So he's got a very rough position.
But let me say this, Tim. At that debate that you hosted -- and it was quite a debate -- I think the Democratic Party doesn't know how far to the left they are moving. I mean, they said there that it's gonna be -- smoking is going to be a federal crime in public places; 18-year-old Marines can't drink beer; and 6-year-olds are going to be taught about gay marriage. You know, they can't learn about Adam and Eve, but they can take an elective on Adam and Steve. You know, I can see the Republicans just beating them to death with this, and the "sanctuary city" stuff. Rudy's being killed with "sanctuary city."
Don't underestimate what it is pat buchanan is doing here: The "lung cancer vote" may well decide the upcoming presidential election.
Buchanan has a problem with children being taught about gay marriage, but not with children being exposed to secondhand smoke in public places. Learning about something (in this case - gay marriage) doesn't seem detrimental, while secondhand smoke can lead to lung cancer.
I wish smoking would be illegal, it is the worst thing humans do to themselves.
I wish they would ban alcoholic beverages.
Just playing the devils advocate. ;-)
Perhaps the devil isn't concerned with which of the two substances is the biggest offender, but I do think governments should prioritize accordingly:
Estimated yearly U.S. deaths from cigarette smoking: 438,000
Number of alcohol-induced U.S. deaths in 2003, excluding accidents and homicides: 20,687
I thought the comparison would get more interesting if we factored in DUI deaths (13,470 in 2006) and deaths anually from fires caused by careless smokers (4,000+), but alcohol still doesn't come close to tobacco statistically.
I want the god damn Government out of my life.
The issue at hand is smoking in public places, not your home. This is everyone's life we're talking about, not just yours.
Something else incredibly obvious that Julia's post below brought to mind as well...
Standing in a room next to someone who is consuming alcohol will not give you cirrhosis of the liver. Even if you stand there for 50 years, it won't happen.
I wish they would bring back pot. In fact, considering pot makes you all happy lazy, I don't understand why Republicans don't support it cause according to them it's us liberals who smoke it...
They blame pot for diverting wholesome American youth from committing slaughter in Southeast Asia for Wall Street and opposing US imperialism. They ban it because they just hate peace. Pot makes people non-violent, not good for an imperial expansionist policy based on mindless violence.
LMAO
Bring BACK pot?
Did it go somewhere?
OK, smartypants. I meant re-legalize it! You naughty little word parser, you! ;)
:-) Couldn't resist.
Seriously though, if that be the case, move out here to Oregon and convince a doctor that blazing up a skunk pipe is the only thing that gives you relief from what ails you.
I like keeping it illegal. I get way better prices then those shabbby pot clubs. If pot clubs really cared, they would drop the damn price by half.
In Oregon, you're allowed to grow your own for medicinal purposes.
They should just legalize it. I would love to grow it, just because it is a pretty plant and all. :0)
MYOB! Let's keep government out of peoples personal lives shall we? You wouldn't want someone else telling you what you can't do with your body, why do you feel you can make that decision for someone else? I myself, hate sports and think that competitive ideology is socially destructive and breeds sociopathy. Would you want me to prevent you from watching your favorite sport? Not that I would even think of doing so.
"Let's keep government out of peoples personal lives shall we? You wouldn't want someone else telling you what you can't do with your body, why do you feel you can make that decision for someone else?"---LL
That's an interesting comparison, and relevant to the abortion arguement. The problem with it of course is the second hand smoke. A closer analogy would be food types that are deleterious to ones' health, like trans fats. But even there the government has a place in regulating the food supply for safety sake, and even long term safety.
If you can make smoking illegal. What else can you make illegal. I wouldn't think you would support a MommyState.
I do appreciate your sentiments though.
"If you can make smoking illegal. What else can you make illegal.[sic]"
To clarify, the issue at hand is making smoking illegal in public places.
Before introducing the scare tactics by facetiously pondering what else can be made illegal, "big government", "mommy state", etc., I would first suggest that you consider the precedent that's being set. The prohibition of smoking in public places forbids an act that kills an estimated 38,000 nonsmokers a year by way of secondhand smoke exposure.
After taking into consideration exactly why it's being prohibited in public places, find another product that produces this level of death and disease for bystanders, and you'll have something else that should also be prohibited in public places, and thus, an answer to the question of "what else can you make illegal?".
I thought the comparison would get more interesting if we factored in DUI deaths (13,470 in 2006)
Alchohol?
You aware Feinstien wanted to remove alchohol from planes? It failed, but what a idiot.
Interesting, Feinstein wasted time on something that failed, surprise, surprise. It doesn't really have anything to do with what I said though, does it?
Naw, I just find her amusing.
Minnesota is going smoke free indoors statewide starting October 1. Thank God. And we have a Republican Governor.
As usual this Tim Russert presentation and its No Nuance dysfuntional appeasers -- of the Radical Juvenile Delinquent Republicans -- misrepresent the Democratic points of view.
Hillary and other leading candidates stated that these are local matters. That it is the right of local principalities to regulate smoking, and not the Federal government. And that surprising as it might be regulating smoking locally has been shown NOT TO BE harmful to business.
Quite the contrary that it turned out that a lot of people had been avoiding smoke filled establishments so that, in NYC, where smoking was banned in public places Business has actually GONE UP.
But as usual the No Nuance dystfunctional talking heads are poisoning the oxygen in the PIPELINES of an informed electorate, with out of context remarks and blatent lies.
The other night Tim Russert showed himself to be a Republican Operative, as he and Chris Mathews (who has admitted to be Republican..and it shows), after the debates, Russert expressed the Radical Republican SPIN on Social Security...a system that has worked VERY WELL and which brings in $190B PER YEAR SURPLUSES...Which Mr. Russert and Mr, Mathews' party has been squandering ($1.4Trillion) after mocking Gore about a lock box... as the Republicans turned the Federal Agencies that Americans pay to protect their interests, into Central Headquarters for the Republican Party!
But it is not new for Tim Russert to use OUT OF CONTEXT innacurate Republican Talking Points, AS THOUGH there is any truth to them or are historical facts.
We saw this months after month in the lead up to the 2004 elections. Where Kerry had made the CONDITIONS for his vote very clear, as usual I saw it live, and was baded on what Mr. Bush said to get those votes!
1) TO INTIMIDATE SADAM, BY SHOWING A UNIFIED FRONT SO HE WOULD FINALLY ALLOW THE INSPECTORS BACK IN.
2) In the mean time Mr. Bush was to create a coalition that included Iraq's nieghbors.
3) And only go to war as a LAST RESORT, if Sadam did not allow the inspectors back in WHICH HE DID AS A RESULT OF THAT UNITED FRONT.
The fact that Mr. BUsh betrayed that vote, FORCED THE INSPECTORS OUT, PROUDLY CLAIMED THAT HE DOESN'T DO NUANCE, WENT IN AS A FIRST RESORT, AND Committed the biggest flip flop in history by dismantling the Iraqi Army and its institutions and then trying to put it back together again.
All this seemed above Tim Russer's pay grade or his paper thin Republican intellect.
INSTEAD: For over a year, evey week or even more often, he would plaintively claim over several stations: " But John kerry vote for "tHE" War".
One of the most DANGEROUS elements of our country, is that the contract of such Republican Appeasers as Tim Russers does not expire until 2012!!!!! And he has already begun to do the same eroneous "when did you stop beating your wife" eroneous premise to Senator Clinton.
It is not just Fox "news" that is guilty of disninformation (A station that introduced the Democratic candidacy of General Clark, his picture surrounded by large red arrows like a stock that should be sold...BUt NBC is almost as bad as CNN...Which develops amnesia about things that reported live minutes or hours before.
One of the most blatant poisoning of our informaiton superhighways was the constant hum drum of Republican Talking Points that characterized the Democrats as having no Plans for Iraq....This would get louder whenever...Time after time after time -- Democratic leaders presented, announcing proposals and bills for various strategies about changing events on the ground in Iraq.
But What were the Republican Talking Point that the Republican controlled talking heads would repeat (eager for their tax cuts? or acting like their children were being held hostage in Republican Party headquarters, dupes or like good Republican Operatives ...The message over and over again was "The Democrats have no plans for Iraq"
The Republicans hate our government and by their governance it shows...
And almost every tragedy our countriy endures is the Result of the morallg bankrupt, intellectually dishonest Republican idealogy, coupled with a conscious and successful media campaign..that takes advantage of our vulnerability to decptive advertising about a defective product...that is the Republican Party. Period.
A good post Sam. Don't think many here would argue against you.
Baloney.
Hillary said "NOT AT THIS POINT". That wasn't a no, it's none of our business.
Spin harder.
she said not at this point because there was progress on the local level, which is the way she seems to prefer.
She was dodging the real answer... get with the program.
The only thing worse then a Democrat or Republican, is when they work together.
-Lewis Black.
what would be the "real answer"?
Time will tell. She did not flat out say "NO". Now did she?
who said she did?
Question answered with a question? Smooth move x-lax.
question answered with a question? um, like you just did?
I seriously think smoking in public places should be a business decision, particularly in restaurants.
I disagree, because I've been in places where restaurants spent the bucks to put in good air filtration systems that made the restaurant a pleasent experience for both smoking and non smoking patrons. But many places can't or won't spend the money to make that happen thus forcing an unpleasant experience on those of us who would like to try new dining experiences. I really like trying new things, so I use the dining ratings to make many of my dining decisions, none say "smoking allowed". So my experience is doubly ruined by a place with a good rating having smoking, and me only finding out about it by either calling in advance (wasting my time and dime) or showing up in person only to turn around and leave.
Yes, the big meme is that restaurants will lose money if smoking is banned. Somebody forgot to tell California Pizza Kitchen who even in Texas is smoke free and is booming. There are many localaities here in Texas who ban smoking and they seem to be doing fine. As Snoopy said, if I go into a place where smoking is apparent and I can't get away from it, I will either leave or not go again. Why should somebody else have a right to pollute other peoples' air? It's a public health issue. About 25% of people smoke (my last stat on cigs which may be old). Why should the 75% who don't have to suffer? It's a stupid argument. It's so apparent, yet we have people who think that a ban is so terrible. Invariably someone will bring in other bad habits (like overeating) into this argument. But overweight people don't pollute other people's air. It's also a public health issue but different and not applicable to the smoking ban argument. And I did lose my colorful, story telling Irish grand pop to lung cancer at an early age. Bottom line is, if you're polluting the air, go home and pollute your own air and don't make others suffer.
AMEN Julia!
. But overweight people don't pollute other people's air
However, they may cost tax payers a fortune in medical care.
As do smokers, by a hell of a lot more I might add.
Really? Can you show me examples, because I am truley unaware of that.
Pass the humble pie, please. I was misinformed a while back, and thus, I am wrong.
While both issues do contribute significantly, Obesity wins handily.
According to one study, Obesity increased health care costs by 36 percent compared to 21 percent for smoking.
Ok, thanks.
Having lived in a city which had the big debate on smoking in bars and restaurant which resulted in banning all smoking in public places I can tell you that all the people who said that the reason that they did not frequent these place because of smoking also did not frequent these places when they became non smoking.Business is way down and several have closed. If you are going to say that you would go to a non smoking bar ect please do. The poor owners who believed the non smokers got completely sucker punched by this legislation. Do not believe the stats that say that more people will show up because they don't.They said they would and then did not. If you asked any of the owners if given the choice of air filters vs no smoking most now would opt for the filters. No choice was given and serious drops in business occurred. Again do not believe the masses will show up. In my community it looks like the non smokers just like to complain and don't follow through with the dollars. Bsers all of them.
Plaing in the music scene for over 20 years I have seen the affects as well. Banning smoking did not brng in a flood of people to the shows. It DID hurt business initially. Then some bars started creating a OPen Area outside for smokers. Guess what happened next? Non-smokers started complaining about that! Dems-People will never be satisfied.
Playing....
Snoopy,
I hate smoking as well. I think people who do it are probably the stupidest people on earth. It's just as bad or worse than taking illicit drugs or drinking yourself silly. It boils down to having no respect for yourself and those who care for you. That being said, the government has no right telling a small buisness that they can not allow smoking in their place of business. It's a simple matter of choice and the free market. If one doesn't like smoke, they shouldn't give the place that allows it their money. If the publics consensus is to not frequent places that allow smoking then businesses will either ban smoking or lose vital revenue. This is just another case of the government playing Bill O'Reilly, their looking out for us. How long before the government tries to ban smoking in peoples own homes? How long before social services can be called for smoking around ones children? I hope these laws are challenged in court and shown to be the good ol' government overstepping their bounds again trying to save us all from ourselves.
We will probably have to agree to disagree, because while air filtration systems would solve the problem for all, if you don't design them in up front prior to opening they become way to expensive to add at a later date. In addition, businesses would have to shut down to do the installation. Many restaurants can't afford to do that.
Perhaps the government could better aid the situation by helping make the cost low on that equipment? hmmm, could be a good idea but then we'd have people complaining that government is promoting smoking.
You have a no win situation here unless you are willing to agree that one role of government is to promote business. People who say "keep them out of my life" are not just throttling government, they are throttling business as well. Kinda like shooting yourself in the foot...
Day one in Minnesota of the smoking ban in restaurants and bars, Its about time. It should be national law banning smoking everywhere other than homes and your car, that's it. With any luck in 10-15 years smoking can become extinct... one can only hope....
In the Bay Area a City banned smoking in your own home (townhouses). So, where would the smokers of these homes smoke if a law passed saying no smoking outdoors?
It was the city of Belmont, CA that approved an ordinance that bans smoking in apartments and condominiums. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me, about as ridiculous as sodomy laws.
LOLOL... agreed.
Pat is so far to the right that a moderate like Edwards appears way off in the distance to the left. All Pat sees is a speck, not sure what that is, might be a candidate.
Clinton responded: "Not at this point. I think we're making progress at the local level."
^^^^^ That is all I had to read.
Wow yeat another missleading headline from a site that claims Media Matters. This exposes who you really are. From your own transcript of the debate:
"OBAMA: ...If it turns out that we're not seeing enough progress at the local level, then I would favor a national law."
Pretty soon the damn Dems will tell me how to dress my child. Here in cali you can no longer smoke in your OWN DAMN CAR if a child is present. Sorry, keep your god damn nose out of my business. Damn Dems-People.
My mom smoked around me for my entire childhood and now I'm more susceptible to Bronchitis because of it. Not to mention how times she burnt me accidentally with her lit coffin nails. If California passed such a law, I commend them for it.
As far as how you dress your kids, I believe child endangerment laws would already address that. A prosecutor could make a case against someone for taking a child outside into freezing cold weather wearing nothing but a pair of swim trunks. Schools also have dress codes for varying reasons. Aside from this, your simply employing more irrelevant and facetious dooms day scare tactics.
Doh! that's "how many times".
"facetious dooms day scare tactics"
No dooms day tactics. I do not believe in that chit.
I am just tired of these laws for the stupid.
It's the same right wing hysteria that comes with seemingly any proposal that Dems put forth that's designed to help or protect people. In this case, it's protecting people in public places from smoke that contains 200 poisonous compounds. Then, somehow, by way of the rightwing noise machine, the proposal is morphed into a catalyst for some mythical scenario of impending Democratic fascist rule designed to destroy the economy and invade people's private lives (even though we're talking about something they do in a public place).
A further word on the government telling you how to dress your child...
If there are clothing items which have been proven to kill children, then I'm all for the government telling me that I can't dress my child in them.
Look I hate to admit it but PB is right on this one. I consider myself on the left, and I'll vote democratic, but this nanny state business has got to stop, and you shouldn't try to vilify Pat Buchanon for pointing out that, *by and large,* the Dems. are totally on the wrong side of this one. There's lots that the Federal Government can do to discourage smoking and mitigate its health effects, but there have to be some things that the Federal Government doesn't do. Regulating smoking in bars and restaurants is something that can be perfectly well left to the wisdom of the American people, acting through their local and state governments.
There is no proposal to ban smoking in public at the Federal level, so it was a silly question.
Someone needs to ask Pat Buchanan, how does your opposition to tobacco regulation square with the "pro-family / pro-life" agenda ???
Anyone who is unconcerned with the deaths of 300,000 American every year should declare himself 'pro-death"