The Enquirer has endorsed Jean Schmidt for Congress.  The endorsement primarily consists of broad and refutable arguments, made regardless to their inconsistency with fact or logic.  At times, the arguments run patently contrary to the articles the Enquirer has published over the past month, which, taken collectively, portray Jean Schmidt as a leader with a history of corrupt and unethical behavior.  The disconnect between the information the paper has printed and a Schmidt endorsement in light of this information simply seemed too inconceivable to me (Does the paper not read itself?) But 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."

For further reading, check out a more detailed article that was written during the Niehaus-Schmidt campaign about Schmidt's unscrupulous campaigning practices: "Tax issue divides rivals in GOP's Senate contest"
-(http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/02/28/loc_14thsenate28.html)

"...She's a quick learner who knows how to make deals and get things done.  Even in her relatively short time in Columbus, she proved effective in passing legislation to address her district's concerns."

This argument borders on parody.  Schmidt's proclivity towards making deals has prompted a state-wide investigation, reported in the very pages of the Enquirer: "Schmidt allegedly failed to report outing" (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050708/NEWS01/507090320)

The Enquirer ran another article (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050730/NEWS01/507300376).  
about Schmidt's favor to Thomas Ach, an Internet gambling businessman.  

"Schmidt is a fiscal conservative who supports continuing President Bush's tax cuts to grow the economy and favors measures to attract businesses to the 2nd District.  She's generally closer than Hackett to the positions The Enquirer has taken on economic and social issues."

This is perhaps the only honest and logical paragraph in the entire endorsement.  The rest is essentially filler for this partisan crux.  

"The defining issue for Hackett has been Iraq. He is a credible voice in critiquing current U.S. policy in that conflict and in suggesting how it should be changed. If elected, his status as the first Iraq war veteran in Congress could help him become a leader in the national debate over the war on terror and military policy."

As Hackett puts it, unlike most Democrats he "speaks military." He could have a unique opportunity to make a mark on the national stage.

But that's also a problem. It seems clear that Hackett intends to use the House seat as a national platform. Schmidt would use it to help deliver services and programs to people in the district."

Cricizing the correlation between Hackett's Iraq credentials and his potential fitness as a legislator isn't bad in of itself.  I myself don't believe that a veteran, by default, makes a better candidate.  But these arguments take the opposite approach and imply that Hackett's experience, by default, makes him a worse candidate.  The Enquirer's three-pronged approach in proving so is as follows:

a) his view on Iraq is meaningless because the House isn't a national stage (wrong)

b) A discussion about the policy of the War doesn't serve the people of this District like "services and programs" (huh?)- check out this Enquirer article (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/NEWS01/507190347)  that lets you know how people of this District really feel

c) He couldn't do anything to change anything anyway because his stance opposes that of the powers that be (perhaps correct but terribly undemocratic and un-American)  

These arguments could be applied to any Iraq vet, regardless of party affiliation.  In that sense, they are powerfully offensive and borderline unconscionable.  The message they give is: if we can't exploit you on a button, your service will not be a welcomed as a legitimate voice in our government.  

"While Schmidt is an unabashed Bush supporter, the "rubber stamp" label doesn't quite fit...She offers skepticism on private accounts for Social Security."

Actually she doesn't.  Her official statement ot the Enquirer (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050724/NEWS01/307240002)
is as follows: "We must preserve the promise of Social Security and ensure that it is available for future generations. I support serious discussions about allowing individuals the opportunity to place a portion of their Social Security funds into well-guarded personal accounts."  

This doesn't sound like skepticism.  In fact, it sounds like support for privatization.  Granted, this is not the whole breadth of her position, but it is the official position she chose to give and should be judged on it accordingly.

Schmidt would be the first woman ever elected to Congress from southern Ohio, and only the third Republican woman in the state's history (the other two won special elections to fill vacancies created by their husbands' deaths). For a party and a Congress that need contributions from people of diverse experiences and backgrounds - not to mention professions other than lawyers - Schmidt has something to offer.

The Enquirer's assertion that Schmidt's presidency of a local right-wing extremist group and her life-long career in politics are more diverse and impressive than Hackett's law experience and service in Iraq is just too ridiculous to fathom.  With regards to diversity and background, even the most bitter of partisans must realize that Hackett has the upper hand.  

"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."

So the endorsement's previous statement: "She's generally closer than Hackett to the positions The Enquirer has taken on economic and social issues" doesn't hold much weight with regards to the "social issues?"  Whittled down, the paper thus doesn't endorse Schmidt as a candidate, but rather her partisan economic ideology.  What else to conclude when every other point the article makes is blatantly contradicted either within the body of the endorsement or by articles which the very paper itself has printed in the past month.

If the Enquirer had the courage to reveal their actual reasons (or reason, singular) for supporting Jean Schmidt in a straightforward fashion, a serious discussion about the merits of Republican economic proposals vs. Democrat economic proposals might be facilitated.  Instead, the Enquirer has concealed the force of the economy in shaping their editorial decisions, wrapping it in indefensible arguments.  

It is my hope that the public who reads this endorsement will have read the paper's headlines over the past month.  It might do the editorial board some good to do the same.

PS: If anyone would like to edit this entry and insert the links properly, I'd greatly appreciate it.