Can someone please tell me why there is a five page article in the April 2008 Edition of CA about Florida Congressman, Kendrick Meek? He voted TWICE FOR the SCHIP Bill that would tax to DEATH tobacco and Cigars? Oh.. Right.. he said he knew it would get vetoed. So what the hell right? So he just votes to appease the party even though he's a cigar smoker too??? Wow. Now that's Democratic Politics at its finest! I guess if I was using the taxpayer dollars to pay for my stash I wouldn't really care what they cost either!

Seriously, CA, is that the kind of cigar smoker we're interested in? I thought we were FOR tobacco and being able to smoke cigars without being taxed MORE than we already are. It's already bad enough - we can't even smoke in bars anymore. In some states we can't smoke in apartment complexes or within 40 feet of business doors. Now there's a push for a tax that will drive tobacco into the ground (no pun intended) and you did a 5 page story on a guy that votes for it?! How are you going to fund your magazine and writers when no one can afford to care about cigars anymore?

The tax is ridiculous and falls short on so many aspects it's hard to even get started on it. First, those "poor" people the tax is trying to help is about 65% of the cigarette smoking population. So they will be the ones paying the majority of the tax! Nice work there - that's simply ingenious! Secondly, and more importantly, if everyone gets fed up with the tax or can no longer willingly or unwillingly afford tobacco - where will the money come from then?

I don't know what the hell is going on over there, but it looks to me like another liberal writer trying to improve the overall opinion of a democratic party member by showing all the good aspects of his character and ignoring what the readers of the magazine really care about. Oh, yea, you mentioned it and Mr. Meek describes some BS things that might happen to people in a foreign land. He says, "it went too far", but he voted for it?? And you published this nonsense? I don't care if he is Mother Theresa back from the grave. He voted TWICE for a huge increase in tax on the product your magazine promotes and what your readers love - AND YOU INTERVIEW HIM? I'm sure he's a nice guy. He has a great smile and looks good with a cigar. But...

Why don't you do an entire story about the wonderful things the SCHIP will do for the cigar business! Make it a 10 page spread! Make sure you put in lots of pretty pictures of people smiling and holding cigars! I'm sure all of the manufacturers (Rocky Patel in particular) would FIGHT tooth and nail to advertise in that issue. Hahaha.

Nice work, guys. Real nice

You know, I didn't even think about that when reading the artical. Congressman Meek voting for SCHIP and saying, "Well, I knew it would get vetoed anyway" is tantamount to a someone shooting someone else and saying, "It wasn't a fatal shot and I knew he would survive."

I've grown to enjoy the magazine, even though I still wish there were more cigar related information and less of the "good life" stuff, but this sheds a new light on that issue.

Great Catch Mesa!!!!

I have never voted Democratic in my life (and I expect I never will), but what is the big deal about a cigar magazine interviewing a Congressman who happens to be a cigar smoker without a backbone. Its still an interesting read, notwithstanding one's viewpoints on the Congressman...

BoSox,
What is the big deal? Did you read my post? Are you familiar with the SCHIP bill and the tax that you would pay on a single cigar if it had passed? The tax would have been close to $10.00 per stick just for the tax. That's a good 200.00+ tax on every box of cigars to fund a liberal, socialist policy and Cigar Aficionado did an interview on a guy that admitted IN the magazine that the bill went too far - yet he still voted for it twice. I don't see how I can make it any more clear. The magazine is about cigars and they are presenting good characteristics of a guy and ignoring the fact that he is attempting to undermine the cigar industry with his voting. In one sentence he's a cigar smoker and in the other he's voting against tobacco. That's the beef I have with the article and the man. Why do an article on a guy that's smiling in your face and putting a target on your back? Wake up, man.

This is the kind of crap that writers get away with and I'm simply calling one of them out for an explanation. As I said, I don't care about the nice, friendly aspects of Mr. Meek's character if he's voting to pass LAW on killing the tobacco industry. The magazine is about CIGARS! It's not about a nice guy with a good smile! He's voting to pass LAW against the MAIN TOPIC OF THE MAGAZINE and that can't be taken lightly. It's not like he's just having an opinion. He's voting for national LAW. These smiling jack-asses need to be held accountable for that type of crap because it's SERIOUS stuff. These idiots out there smiling at us and voting the opposite way is why this country is in the state it's in and we have to call them out and hold them accountable. Frankly, I'm disappointed in your apathy - especially since you say you have never voted Democrat. Someone needs to call the writer and the magazine out on their bullshit.

If you don't get it now, Sir, I don't know what else to say...

This is interesting. I would love to hear from the editors on this one. I haven't read the article and nor do I know the voting history of any US congressmen but if it is how JSmithMesa says than CA has screwed up.

I highly doubt that Guns & Ammo would interview a politician and cast him in a good light if he were voting for MORE gun control. In the same way that a CIGAR magazine should not glorify a politican that is voting for a bill that would destroy the cigar industry in the US.

Yo editors!! What the deal?

Fight the Power.

You miss my point completely. I agree with you about the Congressman. I agree with you that he appears to the epitomy of a hypocrite. I agree with you about the tax issue. Where I disagree with you is your problem with the magazine publishing the Meeks interview at all. You confuse my "apathy" with simply allowing expression of a viewpoint, no matter how flawed that viewpoint is.

Because the man may be a fool with no political spine is not a reason to ignore him. To the contrary, his views SHOULD be exposed. If the magazine never interviewed him, would you even be aware of his views? Would anybody here?

JWEB,
I could not think of a good example, but you came up with a great one with the Guns & Ammo. Do you think they're doing stories on some lib smiling and holding guns - and he or she has been voting against guns all-the-while? NO! That's stupid. And Guns & Ammo readers don't give two shits about that guy! Perfect example.

Let's call these guys out. Tell your friends. Let's let them know that this isn't the kind of story we want to see in Cigar Aficionado.

J

You want to bang the drum about Rep. Meek, that's your privilege and one of your inalienable rights.

But I do not have any regrets or apologies to make about putting Rep. Meek in our magazine. If you'd take the time to investigate how cigar makers in South Florida feel about him you might reconsider your crusade.

Furthermore, SCHIP hasn't passed yet. You would like to believe that the final vote is all about who voted for and who voted against. If politics were that simple in America, you might have something to discuss. But politics isn't that simple on the Hill, a fact that political cognoscente on both sides of the aisle would be quick to acknowledge.

Read between the lines. You will see always see stories in Cigar Aficionado about true lovers of the leaf.

Gordon,
You are either missing or avoiding the point I'm trying to make. Don't spin the issue to make it seem like I'm the idiot and I haven't done my "research" or read "between the lines".

I'm not banging the drum about Rep. Meek. I'm banging the drum about you, sir. He is obviously a typical democrat that flip-flops on issues and I've pointed that out very well so far I think. But just in case there are any doubts, let's look at the facts. Your article quotes him as saying, "I thought that the tax increase (from 20.7 to nearly 53 percent) on the handmade cigar industry went a little bit too far. Well, not a little bit too far; it went too far."
Then you state, "Meek voted in favor of the bill both times..."

Well, those are the facts. He says it went too far, but he voted for it twice. Those are indesputable facts. He defends his position by saying that, "We knew it was going to be vetoed". I say, what does that have to do with anything? What if it wasn't vetoed? Do you think Rocky Patel would have put out youtube videos if there wasn't a chance this bill would pass? The facts are he votes one way and talks to you another. Then you present him to us as someone who is FOR cigars. I don't buy it.

You're right. The SCHIP bill hasn't passed yet, but if we're supporting the guys voting for it that's not going to help our cause. In my opinion, the final vote IS about who does and who doesn't vote for bad policy. Afterall, how else can we hold our representatives accountable? You surely can't believe what they tell you - as we've seen here. All you can look at is how he or she votes. It is as simple as that. When I vote for any politician, I typically don't pay much attention to what they say and vote based on their voting record. Gordon, it IS that simple. He voted twice to break our industry and you are calling him a "lover of the leaf". He might like cigars, but that doesn't make him a "true lover of the leaf". Now, had he voted AGAINST his party and AGAINST the SCHIP, that would certainly be grounds to do a story of a man that stands up for what he believes in - or at least stands up for a product he likes. Instead, Meek did neither.

It's really not about his character and it's not his fault. He's a politician and that's how they are. What I'm upset about is that you talk about him for 5 pages and show him as such as nice guy - all the while he's out there voting to kill the tobacco industry and YOU know it. I just can't comprehend that. Maybe I'm too small-minded. Maybe I'm ignorant and maybe I'm just spouting off out of sheer stupidity. Or maybe I'm looking at the facts and something here makes my stomach turn...

I don't care to read about two-faced liars that vote for law to kill the cigar industry. Please be more selective in the future.

Thanks,
J

quote:

Originally posted by JSmithMesa:
He is obviously a typical democrat that flip-flops on issues

You'd better go back and check how many Republicans are in favor of SCHIP. I did when I started my letter writing campaign and there were plenty. If you're voting Republican thinking it will stop SCHIP, think again.

I have checked into how many republicans have voted for it, and you can rest assured I have noted who has and who hasn't. But again, that's not the point I'm trying to make. It's not a matter of being democrat or republican. It's a matter of saying one thing and doing another - then presenting that kind of person to me in a favorable light. If it were a republican doing the same thing, I would still have the EXACT same complaint. Also, IF those republicans are going to claim to be lovers of the leaf, I would also point that out as well. It's simply a case of a guy pretending to be something he is not and I don't appreciate him getting attention from a cigar magazine when he's voting to kill the industry. I don't see how I can be any more clear on my point.