You can write a letter to the editor here. In the extended entry, I have three suggested areas of focus, all dealing with inaccuracies in the endorsement. The corruption angle in the intro text would also be good. Ann Driscoll has more in her diary.
Also, For information on how to travel to the OH-02 and help Hackett, call his campaign HQ at (513) 735-4310--Chris
I had heard that they usually just went with the favorite, so over the past two days I had started to hope that basically they just wouldn't endorse. Unfortunately, 'twas not to be, and a difficult campaign just became more so:
The candidate who is more in tune with the views of the district's residents, better understands their needs and is in a better position to help meet them should be the one who goes to Washington.
For those reasons, we endorse Republican Jean Schmidt in Tuesday's special election over Democrat Paul Hackett.
Talk about not wanting to rock the boat. To think that this came just one day after
the following piece appeared in the Enquirer:
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. Of course,
this editorial also appeared in yesterday's paper, perhaps forecasting today's endorsement:
Cincinnati's conservative Citizens Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) has teamed with Oregon's liberal Frontier PAC (a left COAST?) to air radio ads asking residents not to vote in Tuesday's special election between Democrat Paul Hackett and Republican Jean Schmidt. The ad actually tells voters to "stay home."
That's a disgraceful tactic. It sends the wrong message about how our form of democracy should work. It goes against the sense of civic responsibility that is crucial to holding our society together. And it ignores the fact that other local issues on Tuesday's ballot deserve voter input.
Apparently, that pissed them off. However, I don't think that Fronteir PAC made a mistake, because to tell you the truth, it seemed as though the Enquirer was stretching for reasons to endorse Schmidt anyway. In the extneded entry, I show three areas where the Enquirer was not entirely truthful in its endorsement.
Returning to
the endorsement piece, there were some pretty aggravating passages that should be fodder for some letters:
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.
If they think this is a negative, they must not have known about
Schmidt's robo-calls:
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.
And they also went along with the family farm joke:
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.
And here's some more nonsense they offer up about 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 account and personal accounts are the same thing, just described with a different Luntz-tested talking point. Seriously, of the three problems I have mentioned here, that was the worst.
Each of these three issues, plus the corruption angle, should generate a worthy letter to the Enquirer. Such letters won't carry the same weight as the paper's endorsement, but it will help. Once again, that link can be found at http://www.enquirer.com/editor/letters.html.
