Excerpted an edited based on two posts (here and here) at MyDD--Chris
OK, so many of us know by know that the Enquirer has endorsed Schmidt. This is definitely a disappointment (I was hoping for no endorsement) and it will hurt the Hackett campaign. That, however, does not mean we need to take it lying down. It is time to write a letter to the Enquirer, and what they have written offers up a lot of possible angles.
First, there comes the fact that is is already doing what they think she shouldn't:
We hope that Schmidt, if elected, will resist the temptation to score points on divisive social hot-button issues, but will work to understand all viewpoints, seek consensus and get the job done for the district.
Either they are unaware of how Schmidt is running her campaign, or they are complicit in distorting it. Schmidt is already making robo calls entirely focused upon
divisive social hot-button issues :
Just got my second robo-call
"Did you know that LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PAUL HACKETT is AGAINST a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and admits to being PRO-CHOICE? Make sure to come out on Tuesday and cast your vote for JEAN SCHMIDT who reflects OUR values!"
HA! Hope they spent a lot of money on my personal robocall because it just confirms my vote will be for Hackett.
Next, we have the Enquirer's mystifying inability to recognize conservative frames on Social Security:
While Schmidt is an unabashed Bush supporter, the "rubber stamp" label doesn't quite fit. Schmidt offers a more nuanced appraisal of the Patriot Act, expressing support in general with reservations on some provisions. She offers skepticism on private accounts for Social Security.
Talk about swallowing frames hook, line and sinker. Here is
what Schmidt actually said at the last debate:
The moderator asked directly if they supported privatization.(...)
I won't cut benefits, I'm opposed to raising the cap and the retirement age, and I am opposed to privatization.
"Raising the cap won't solve the problem. You only push the problem another few years out."(...)
She just said it, she is "for personal savings account." And she did it all drawn out like, like it was something different than privatization.
News flash for the Enquirer--private accounts and personal accounts are the same thing, just described with a different Luntz-tested talking point.
Third, the endorsement came just a day after the Enquirer ran a piece raising questions about Schmidt's ethical lapses:
Republican congressional candidate Jean Schmidt's media consultant said Friday she had no recollection of lobbying the governor's office on behalf of Cincinnati businessman Roger Ach's Internet lottery business when she was a state representative, as was reported Friday by the Toledo Blade.
But her Democratic opponent, Paul Hackett, jumped on the story, saying Schmidt "should have been lobbying for her constituents."
The Blade on Friday quoted documents released by Gov. Bob Taft's office that included a November 2001 e-mail written by Taft staff member Jon Allison complaining that Schmidt "continues to bug me on the Internet lottery."
Ach wanted to persuade the governor to back his plan to sell lottery tickets through his Internet business.
One year after the e-mail, Schmidt received a $1,000 campaign contribution from Ach.
So, they catch her in a lie and an apparent quid pro-quo, and then endorse her the next day. Nice. Wouldn't it have prudent to perhaps wait a little while before endorsing her in light of these problems, or at least mention them at some point in the endorsement piece? They did neither.
Fourth, we have the "family farm" nonsense:
A lifelong Clermont County resident, Schmidt grew up on the family farm and has been involved in various civic and community groups for many years.
Of course, it wasn't a farm, but rather
land used for a housing development:
If Schmidt is a farm girl I'm Lance Armstrong. I know exactly where the "farm" is, because my home was on the edge of it, and when I lived there 25 years ago it hadn't been farmed in a great many years. As I remember, Gus never farmed it (somebody should confirm that), but bought the land up cheap and, bit by bit, turned it into a subdivision. And from googling I found that Jean is still living in the same house (on Wards Corner Road, in Loveland), which then was a subdivision, not a farm, and I rather doubt it reverted back to farm status in the years since.
Good research work on your own backyard there, Enquirer.
Fifth, via Ann Driscoll, the Enquirer is clearly just towing the party line and sucking up to the local powers that be. For example, last year they endorsed Schmidt's incumbent opponent in a primary for state Senate:
The Enquirer has indeed towed the party line. I will highlight a few particularly poor moments in an overall poorly argued endorsement.
"She served 10 years as a Miami Township trustee before her election in 2000 to the first of two terms in the Ohio House. Last year, she narrowly lost a primary bid to advance to the state Senate."
The Enquirer also endorsed her opponent, Tom Niehaus in this election. It explains why in their endorsement (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050612/EDIT03/506120304/1023/EDIT) for Schmidt in the Republican primary this past June:
"Last year she lost a close primary race for an Ohio Senate seat to Tom Niehaus, R-New Richmond. We praised Schmidt's legislative record but endorsed Niehaus, notably because Schmidt's attack ad late in the race distorted the two candidates' records on taxes."
Of course they didn't endorse Schmidt then--she was running against an incumbent. Of course they won't endorse Hackett now--he is the underdog and the nominee of the party that hasn't controlled the seat in over twenty years. Throughout the piece they say Schmidt would be better simply because she would be a member of the majority party in Congress, and thus would be able to bring home more pork. However, what has the majority party in Congress done for them to date?
No matter how bad things get in Ohio, and no matter what other reasons they can dredge up, the Enquirer is clearly fixated on endorsing the powers that be and not changing the direction the state is moving in. The pres is supposed to shine light on problems in government, not simply endorse whoever is in power. The Enquirer is clearly afraid of rocking the boat and challenging the system, for reasons I will not bother to speculate on. This is a paper that has no guts to endorse anyone who doesn't look like they are going to win. That's just sad.
Those are just five topics I can think of to write letters about. You can do so here.