Ineffective endorsements

In endorsing Schmidt and rejecting Chabot, the Enquirer tosses around the word "effective" while barely explaining what they mean. "Chabot has served with honor, but his effectiveness seems to have peaked. It is time for him to come home." What on earth does that mean? And they reject Wulsin with the line, "One wonders how effective she could be no matter which party controls the House next year."

Do they really think an embarrassing nut like Schmidt will be effective if the Democrats control the House? The Enquirer last week praised Dewine for his bipartisanship, yet endorsed someone who labeled the Democrats cowards.

The worst part, though, is that the Enquirer sets up a standard like "effectiveness" without ever explaining what it means to be an effective congressman. Does it mean they pass legislation? Does it mean they focus on helping constituents (a job, by the way, that has more to do with the quality of the staff the congressman hires than the congressman him/herself)? Does it mean they bring home the pork? The Enquirer doesn't say.

One last point -- neither editorial discusses Iraq. It's the 800-pound gorilla that somehow the Enquirer editorial board found a way to ignore.