You mean that it might have added to Ford's popularity, at least on first blush?the irony it could have . . .
The other side of the coin is that people who are too 'perfect' or too successful can stir resentment
You mean that it might have added to Ford's popularity, at least on first blush?the irony it could have . . .
Masterful on the part of the tobacco industry, and piss poor that our elected officials let them pull it off."The Quiet Victory of the Cigarette Lobby — How It Found Its Best Filter Yet — Congress"
The Atlantic, Elizabeth Drew, Sept. 1965
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...it-found-the-best-filter-yet-congress/304762/
' . . . Behind the facade of a requirement for printing a warning on cigarette packages (which is not expected to deter smoking much), Congress tied the hands of the Federal Trade Commission by forbidding it to proceed with its own plans to apply much more stringent regulations. Had it not been for Congress, the FTC, which is charged with preventing unfair and deceptive trade practices, would have required a warning both on cigarette packages and in cigarette advertising. The effect of the advertising regulation is what the cigarette industry most feared; Congress obliged by forbidding it for at least four years.
'In another remarkable provision, the law prohibits state and local governments from taking any action on cigarette labeling or advertising. It is one thing for Congress to prohibit the states from enacting legislation which overlaps and is inconsistent with its own requirements, as in the case of the labeling, but it is a far different thing for Congress to refuse to act, and to prohibit the states from acting, as in the case of cigarette advertising.
'The tobacco industry's success at winning from Congress what it wanted while still providing the lawmakers with an opportunity to appear to be all in favor of health was a brilliant stroke. . . '