Comments on: Stogie Commentary: Clearing the Air about the CCA

By: Weekly News (August 2, 2010) | TheCigarFeed

Weekly News (August 2, 2010) | TheCigarFeed — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:04:31 +0000

[...] here, which were critical of the Congressional Cigar Association. Patrick S, from the Stogie Guys, took a different approach defending the CCA’s legitimacy and questioning HuffPo’s intentions. There was an also a [...]

By: Gary J. Arzt

Gary J. Arzt — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:04:13 +0000

Why not leave it alone until you have the facts. IPCPR does not fund the Congressional Cigar Association…or sponsor it. That would be in violation of House Rules. Rep Bilbray “sponsored” the group as required by House Rules.

By: mighty

mighty — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:44:40 +0000

In my perspective, what is the heart behind the story? I ready plenty of articles about 2 soldiers losing their lives in a battle. The factual information in the stories is the same, ie, two soldiers died. But one story tells how they were heroes protecting innocents, while the other portrays them as invaders in a foreign land.

So just because some of the raw “facts” might technically be true, what is the heart behind this story? Most likely to continue to provide a slanted opinion aimed at using some “facts” in an effort to discredit and muckrake their readers. This country is going down the drain.

It’s our rights smoking a legal product today, and it will assuredly be something different in the future. The mightiest of oaks can be felled with enough time and a little cut each day.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:49:33 +0000

Gary, perhaps I misspoke. The CCA is sponsored by the IPCPR. Given how much the group is capable of raises through dues and the expenses, sponsors likely cover 3x + dues.

David, there’s little refutation from the CCA about the HuffPo story and the facts it got. Furthermore, it’s an editorial. HuffPo continues to be a top 10 political website in hits and has one its fairshare of awards. I don’t agree with the politics behind the National Review, but I respect the journalistic process that it upholds. HuffPo in my mind is legit. I also have yet to see where they got something wrong in this story.

By: dmjones

dmjones — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:22:32 +0000

I just have one simple question: since when is the HuffPo considered a "reliable news source"? I personally would put more trust in the National Enquirer (broke the John Edwards mistress/love child story…got it mostly right) than the pseudo-intellectual ravings of the madmen they have publish on the HuffPo. Just sayin…

By: Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:32:36 +0000

Ted,

The problem I see there is that having the CCA ranks filled with lobbyist and funded by an industry trade group; makes the cigar industry seem a lot like “Big Tobacco.”

Perception vs. reality is key when addressing politics.

I think the IPCPR through B&Ms does a lot of grassroots work. As Barry at acigsmoker mentioned recently, I’ve yet to see CRA get their name out there, plenty of B&Ms have gotten on local news, etc…

By: Gary J. Arzt

Gary J. Arzt — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:23:48 +0000

Nowhere was it claimed that CCA was "…funded by an industry trade group."

So,Ted, the misconceptions about the group and event continue to be perpetuated, even by the well intentioned.

As for my friend Barry's comments about CRA…I haven't seen him awarded the mantle of infallibility.

Frankly, in light of Huffington Post's purpose; I believe the story is best left to die a natural death.

By: Big Ted

Big Ted — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:16:43 +0000

The way I see it…

-CCA can help expose congress to the unique aspects of handmade cigars (as opposed to cigarettes, machine made smokes)

-CRA provide grass roots pressure

-CAA represent cigar makers on capitol hill

-IPCPR represents mom and pop cigar shops

Maybe after a few years of that, Congress will start to see that cigars are very different from Big Tobacco.