CCRC Editorial Section
It took a while to publish but it can be sent out now
READER OPINION: Editorial Ill-conceived Comparison
by former state Sen. Thomas R. Eaton
Published in the Keene Sentinel: Saturday, May 16, 2009
I’ve always been told don’t get into an argument with
someone who buys ink by the barrel, but I must answer this
paper’s editorial of April 27 with the expectation that I may
have to deal with the paper’s wrath at a later date because of
it.
With The Sentinel’s distorted editorials and the approach the editors are taking I do hope our only local newspaper doesn’t drive itself the way of Colorado’s Rocky Mountain News, the Seattle Post and quite possibly the Boston Globe.
The Sentinel’s contorted comparisons to try to make a point deceived readers by mixing together arguments in a recent editorial about the local district court consolidation and a social issue of years ago that are just plain wrong.
That editorial comparing the political behavior of Rep. Daniel Eaton to my actions as Senate president is disingenuous.
The ill-served comparisons are used solely to try to prove a point that The Sentinel editors want to make — a point which doesn’t serve its readers well.
When Rep. Eaton argued against the Robertson floor amendment keeping the Keene District Court open (“I was the sole speaker against it and killed it on the floor”), he was speaking about an issue close to the heart and pocketbooks of the taxpayers in Keene and every town in Cheshire County.
As properly recognized by Rep. Robertson, this issue will exclusively impact local citizens. The consolidation of the district court in Keene in favor of the Jaffrey court continues to anger local residents because it will cost our taxpayers much more in tax money and local resources than it will save the state.
The Sentinel compares the very politically motivated actions of Rep. Eaton to my actions as Senate president when I did not vote on a parental notification bill.
This is just not an honest comparison, it is apples and anise star fruit. As the presiding officer of the Senate, it was my practice, as it is the speaker of the House, to vote only to break a tie and in specific cases where legislation had a great singular impact on my local district and its pocketbook.
There are many solid reasons for this practice that I could go into at length, but that isn’t relevant here. I have stated it many times before but The Sentinel continues to ignore the facts.
Also, after listening to my constituents, I did change my voting practice in my second term as Senate president.
Let me be perfectly clear again. I am pro-choice. I believe in an individual’s right to choose, but I also believe in parents’ authority over underage daughters. The Sentinel persists in purposely confusing that distinction and to confuse my record to make a point about a social issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with the current court consolidation or the actions of Rep. Eaton to promote the consolidation.
I did indeed refrain from voting on a parental notification bill in 2003 based on my then practice as the presiding officer.
Had I voted, I would have voted in the majority as the bill still passed without my vote. In 1999, as a first-time candidate, I filled out a questionnaire by Planned Parenthood and supported what I felt was a women’s right to choose. In the ensuing four years I realized that the right to choose by a minor versus the right to choose by a woman of legal age are two majorly different issues.
I also heard directly from my constituents and the response was overwhelmingly (four-to-one) in favor of parental involvement in abortion decisions for minors.
It seems that The Sentinel enjoys whipping you for life for changing your opinion, especially when one does not agree with its editor’s viewpoint.
Your readers deserve a straightforward editorial position on the consolidation of the local district court.
The editorial that did appear only served to confuse this important current issue with an old social debate.
Your readership deserves much better than that.
Now, what is the editor’s real opinion on court consolidation?
THOMAS R. EATON
27 Pheasant Hill Road
Keene
With The Sentinel’s distorted editorials and the approach the editors are taking I do hope our only local newspaper doesn’t drive itself the way of Colorado’s Rocky Mountain News, the Seattle Post and quite possibly the Boston Globe.
The Sentinel’s contorted comparisons to try to make a point deceived readers by mixing together arguments in a recent editorial about the local district court consolidation and a social issue of years ago that are just plain wrong.
That editorial comparing the political behavior of Rep. Daniel Eaton to my actions as Senate president is disingenuous.
The ill-served comparisons are used solely to try to prove a point that The Sentinel editors want to make — a point which doesn’t serve its readers well.
When Rep. Eaton argued against the Robertson floor amendment keeping the Keene District Court open (“I was the sole speaker against it and killed it on the floor”), he was speaking about an issue close to the heart and pocketbooks of the taxpayers in Keene and every town in Cheshire County.
As properly recognized by Rep. Robertson, this issue will exclusively impact local citizens. The consolidation of the district court in Keene in favor of the Jaffrey court continues to anger local residents because it will cost our taxpayers much more in tax money and local resources than it will save the state.
The Sentinel compares the very politically motivated actions of Rep. Eaton to my actions as Senate president when I did not vote on a parental notification bill.
This is just not an honest comparison, it is apples and anise star fruit. As the presiding officer of the Senate, it was my practice, as it is the speaker of the House, to vote only to break a tie and in specific cases where legislation had a great singular impact on my local district and its pocketbook.
There are many solid reasons for this practice that I could go into at length, but that isn’t relevant here. I have stated it many times before but The Sentinel continues to ignore the facts.
Also, after listening to my constituents, I did change my voting practice in my second term as Senate president.
Let me be perfectly clear again. I am pro-choice. I believe in an individual’s right to choose, but I also believe in parents’ authority over underage daughters. The Sentinel persists in purposely confusing that distinction and to confuse my record to make a point about a social issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with the current court consolidation or the actions of Rep. Eaton to promote the consolidation.
I did indeed refrain from voting on a parental notification bill in 2003 based on my then practice as the presiding officer.
Had I voted, I would have voted in the majority as the bill still passed without my vote. In 1999, as a first-time candidate, I filled out a questionnaire by Planned Parenthood and supported what I felt was a women’s right to choose. In the ensuing four years I realized that the right to choose by a minor versus the right to choose by a woman of legal age are two majorly different issues.
I also heard directly from my constituents and the response was overwhelmingly (four-to-one) in favor of parental involvement in abortion decisions for minors.
It seems that The Sentinel enjoys whipping you for life for changing your opinion, especially when one does not agree with its editor’s viewpoint.
Your readers deserve a straightforward editorial position on the consolidation of the local district court.
The editorial that did appear only served to confuse this important current issue with an old social debate.
Your readership deserves much better than that.
Now, what is the editor’s real opinion on court consolidation?
THOMAS R. EATON
27 Pheasant Hill Road
Keene