From the Cincinnati Enquirer:Rep. Jean Schmidt's campaign Web site lists several political endorsements, including one from fellow Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Westwood.Either somebody is playing games with Rep. Schmidt or the Schmidt campaign doesn't understand how to ask for and secure an endorsement.
There's only one problem.
Chabot says he didn't endorse Schmidt, who faces a primary challenge May 2 from Republican Bob McEwen, a former congressman from southern Ohio.
"We have not been asked for an endorsement by anyone in that race," Chabot spokesman Gary Lindgren said Tuesday, adding that Chabot backs both Schmidt and McEwen.
But Schmidt spokesman Barry Bennett said Schmidt has a different recollection of a Feb. 16 meeting with Chabot, during which she asked for Chabot's support and was told she had it.
"She believes she walked out of that meeting with his endorsement," Bennett said. "Now they are saying that his support doesn't mean an endorsement?"
I am reminded of the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." This problem with Chabot coming on the heels of probelsm with Tancredo illustrates a campaign in chaos...I don't neccessarily think that it is, just that this is what the perception is based on the latest news cycle.
Mark's Remarks
Mr. Chabot's campaign has its issues in accuracy well, in terms of sending mixed messages. From the Enquirer:
The two mailers that Rep. Steve Chabot sent out this month to different parts of his congressional district were nearly the same on the outside - full-color, slickly produced fold-outs showing a smiling Chabot and a Cincinnati skyline.
But inside were two completely different messages.
Under the title of "Working For You,'' the mailer that went to the nearly all-white voters of Green Township and adjacent areas listed these issues: "securing our borders,'' "protecting pension plans,'' "strengthening ethics laws'' and "cutting taxes and balancing the budget.''
But on the east side of the Mill Creek Valley, in the neighborhoods where the African-American votersof the 1st District live, there was no mention of cutting taxes, securing borders or the like. There was just one message - "Voting Rights Act Authorization.''
After the town hall meetings, Chabot said he fully realizes the diverse interests of the district, but said he does not tailor his message to appeal to one group or another.
"That's not the way I operate,'' Chabot said. "When I talk to constituents, I assume they all voted for me.''
Photocopies of the two mailers - East Side and West Side - circulated among the crowd at the Urban League, prompting some in the audience to question why Chabot had a different message for different parts of town.
"Do you think that we don't care about pension plans, or immigration, or ethics reform?'' said Art Slater, a retired sociology instructor. "We're interested in all the issues you mailed to Green Township.''
DOH! Mr. Chabot waffling there a bit, aren't we? I mean, the proof is in the paper. YOU WERE tailoring your message, and there is really nothing wrong with that. However, you might want to admit it when confronted with it. I mean, I understand, you don't really want to talk because, quite frankly, you sound like an almost dead fish when you talk, full of spittle in your mouth. Really, drink more water, it will make you sound better.
What I am seeing in this situation is Schmidt being manipulated by the McEwen group. Chabot and McEwen go back quite a ways, and I think he is encouraging Mr. Chabot to play word games. Makes me think, and I hate to say it, that Cranley might be the better person for that district. Chabot just seems like the typical establishmentarian Republican of big tents with nothing but air underneath them.
