This page was last updated on April 28, 2010.
Ethical standard; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 23, 2010. (There’s no link to the subject editorial because it appeared only in the Times print edition.)
4/28/10 - Below I wrote I’d let you know if editorial page editor Robert Uhriniak responded to my e-mail note shown below. Since more than a month has passed and I haven’t received a response, I’ll go out on a limb and assume a response won’t be coming.
Back on February 16th, I started to opine, “I could be wrong, but I suspect the Times is waiting for Democrats to cram through a healthcare bill so it will know what to support and talk up.” I was right.
In summary, the editorial and its companion “Empty promise” support the passage of H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872. In doing so, the editorial repeats as many of the lefty talking points as space would allow. Predictably, the editorial told us those (only Democrats) who voted for these bills “voted to do what was ethically right while 178 Republicans … and 34 Democrats … did what was politically expedient.” This attempt at character assassination verifies an observation I made in my critique of “The rule of law.” In that critique I wrote, “As for the Times use of the term ‘principled conservatives,’ keep in mind ‘conservatives’ can be ‘principled’ only when they agree with the Times. When these very same people take positions opposed by the Times, they are ‘right-wing populists who pose as conservatives,’ or worse.” In this case, when Republicans voted according to conservative principles, the Times asserts they “did what was politically expedient.”
If you’re familiar with Times editorials on this topic since at least 2004, this support of a big shove down the road to a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly is no surprise. That said, the support does fly in the face of what Times editorial page editor Robert A. Uhriniak told me personally, twice. In light of this, I sent the following e-mail note to Mr. Uhriniak on March 23rd.
“Dear Mr. Uhriniak,
“Can you reconcile your comments below [shown here] and in your January 2004 note with today’s editorials (‘Ethical standard’ and ‘Empty promise’) supporting the passage of H.R. 3590/4872 and looking for more? I ask because I don’t see how H.R. 3590/4872 and more similar ‘reform’ is consistent with the Times alleged historical support of ‘a market-based approach to health-care reform going back to the Clinton era.’”
I’ll update this page should I receive a reply from Mr. Uhriniak.
For more on this topic, please read my paper entitled “Healthcare.”
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.