At least that's what the New York Times thinks in another of its typically condescending editorials. Apparently, Oregon voters were dupes of "shameless" tobacco companies who committed the sin of trying to protect their own interests in selling what is for now, a legal product. The Times is even more shameless as self appointed arbiter of who should have a right to speak to the electorate. The real problem they have is that Oregonians may have actually listened to them: "The referendum said a lot about the power of money in any election, and not much about what the public thinks about the issue if given accurate and balanced information." In other words, voters are dopes when they fall under the spell of tobacco money but enlightened when influenced by unaccountable dollars from George Soros and Chinese crooks.
The Times also complains that opponents didn't "win by the urgent health care needs the initiative was meant to address, or the benefits higher cigarette taxes would bring by deterring smoking." Well they should have since that statement doesn't make any damn sense. If you deter people from smoking then how are you going to pay the bill for "urgent health care needs"
No comments:
Post a Comment