President Obama is a smoker. He signed a cigarette regulation bill. Does that make him a hypocrite?

As near as I can figure, some people actually think this hypocrisy charge is logical.

It is certainly true that Obama smokes cigarettes (he admitted as much in a press conference today). Obama smoked much more frequently when he was in the Illinois legislature (the image is from that period).

It is also certainly true that he signed a cigarette regulation bill.

However, I simply am unable to understand what the hypocrisy is. Obama never said he would not sign a cigarette regulation bill. Obama doesn't maintain that the cigarette regulation bill bans smoking cigarettes (neither would anyone else who understands the meaning of regulation).

This may also be a case where Obama is more aware of the evil of smoking than most people and wants to protect people because of personal experience.

No hypocrisy. Not even close.

Report of Press conference smoking issue is here

A typical accusation of hypocrisy is here

Evan Thomas 2007 and 2009

Here are two transcripts from Mr. Thomas who has been assistant managing editor of Newsweek since 1991 (and is the grandson of Norman Thomas who ran for President a half a dozen times on the Socialist Party of America ticket).

This is from 2007 when George W. Bush was President
---------------------------------------------------

Gordon Peterson: "What do you think, Evan? Are the mainstream media bashing the president unfairly?"

Evan Thomas: "Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do almost --"

Peterson: "But unfairly?"

Thomas: "Mmmm -- I think when he rebuffed, I think when he just kissed off the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton Commission, there was a sense then that he was decoupling himself from public opinion and Congress and the mainstream media, going his own way. At that moment he lost whatever support he had."

-------------------------------------------------------

This is Mr. Thomas in 2009 when Barack H Obama is President.

------------------------

"...I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God...I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility...The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."
----------------

Well there are a number of ways of reading this:
1. Thomas is a partisan democrat and the 'bash the President' is the job of Newsweek when a Republican is President
2. Thomas changed his mind from 2007 to 2009
3. Thomas was lying in 2007 and is a hypocrite.

there are more ways of reading this but I don't know enough about Mr. Thomas to distinguish between them.

Wikipedia site on Mr. Thomas is here
2007 Quote from this site
2009 Quote from this site

Are Anti Abortion advocates hypocrites for condemning the murder of George Tiller?

If I understand him correctly, William Saletan, of Slate Webzine, thinks they are. He maintains that people such as Troy Newman, who, in the various publications of Operation Rescue, comes very close to equating the killing of a fetus with the killing of a living person.

From the Saletan opinion piece,

"...Is it wrong to defend the life of an unborn child as you would defend the life of a born child? Because that's the question this murder poses. Peaceful pro-lifers have already tried to prosecute Tiller for doing late-term abortions they claimed were against the law. They failed to convict him. If unborn children are morally equal to born children, then Tiller's assassin has just succeeded where the legal system failed: He has stopped a mass murderer from killing again.

So is Roeder getting support from the nation's leading pro-life groups? Not a bit. They have roundly denounced the murder. The National Right to Life Committee says it opposes "any form of violence to fight the violence of abortion," preferring instead "to work through educational and legislative activities to ensure the right to life for unborn children, people with disabilities and older people." Americans United for Life agrees that it was wrong to kill Tiller because "the foundational right to life that our work is dedicated to extends to everyone...If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for "educational and legislative activities" to stop him. Somebody would use force...."

There are two problems with Saletan's statement. Saletan is making several assumptions about the anti abortion organizations. First, he says that they equate the value of a fetus with the value of a living person. This is clearly not the case. The anti abortion organizations have placed great emphasis on restricting late term abortion. This seems to show that such groups recognize a continuum of 'humaness'. Second, Saletan says that one organization in particular would not use only "educational and legislative" means to stop a person butchering old people. Actually, there is no record of any anti abortion organizations attempting to use deadly force to close Dr. Kervorkian's clinic nor any record of similar attempts in regard to the few US States that have assisted suicide laws.

No hypocrisy.

Saletan opinion piece here.

Image on the left is the murdered abortion provider, George Tiller.