Biased Much

The Times Leader had an Editorial today poking fun at Chris Hackett's "Declaration of Principles." The Editorial said the principles "didn’t touch on honesty and other issues pertaining to personal behavior or ethics" and that "it seems impractical that a member of the U.S. House of Representatives could serve a full term without voting for at least one bill that, in some shape or form, increased taxes. Or benefited a corporation’s financial interests."

The Editorial went on to lay out its own set of generic principles that it felt warranted a "Declaration."

The first problem with the Editorial is its fundamental lack of understanding regarding the substance within Hackett's Declaration. First, the Editorials comments on ethics and behavior are addressed. Before laying out the 10 legislative issues, Hackett provides a preamble stating:

"...Washington that demands a new approach – one that will help return a badly damaged public trust to our federal government."

It's unnecessary for the Times Leader to adopt the Chris Carney attack line on Hackett's principles and argue it doesn't contain a personal ethical statement.

Obviously, if Hackett is intending to return public trust to the federal government, he will only be acting in a way that is consistent with attaining that goal. To poke fun at a pledge with constituents which seeks to ensure public trust and provide accountability is rather absurd.

Second, insulting platform pledges as a series of "grandiose statements" is counter intuitive. It's normally a good thing when elected representatives lay out a vision for what they wish to accomplish or seek to preserve.

"Ensure that Social Security is guaranteed for future generations of workers and
retirees"

I think we all can agree that this is simplistic and a "grandiose statement." But that language comes from Chris Carney's website. Would the Times Leader pick that pledge apart? Would they consider that pandering? In fact, Carney's campaign Issue section consists of less than 10 topics and there is little substance attached. Isn't that even more embarrassing than Hackett's "Declaration"?

It's obvious that the Editorial board doesn't believe in Hackett's principles, but instead of trying to tear them down, they should acknowledge that the "Declaration of Principles" is a good-faith effort to provide voters with a simplistic and transparent way to keep their elected official accountable.