November 2, 2006
According to the Washington Post, six of the nine competitive U.S. Senate races are leaning Democratic, with three too close to call, while 13 of the 35 competitive House races are leaning Democratic, 18 are a toss-up, and four are leaning toward the GOP. That would be just barely enough to regain control of the Senate, and assuming the toss-ups are evenly split, would give the Dems control of the House as well. Post political editor Dan Balz appeared on C-SPAN today, and he has always impressed me as professional and impartial, but the onslaught of front-page stories slamming the Republicans for the last month or two really makes me wonder. The huge uproar over John Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" gaffe? That got buried on page A6, and Balz was not very convincing about why it didn't make the front page. So, the possibility of media bias in campaign coverage cannot be denied, and it would be prudent to take all these polls cum granis salis.* As for all the glumness among conservatives and talk of boycotting the vote to protest GOP ineffectiveness, I would heartily agree with Mr. Roderick Edwards, who contacted me from Greenwood, Indiana:
We are told that Republican voters need to send a message to their representatives this November by either staying away from the polls or voting for the Democrats. Indeed we should send a message but it needs to be a strong & clear message to the Democrats & to the complicit media that thinks we are so dumb that we can be easily manipulated. What would really send a message is if we make sure we vote in force like never before.
It would send the message that we can't be swayed by the transparent "October Surprises" of the Democrats such as the Mark Foley flap, just like we didn't buy the CBS faked documents story when they tried to get us to not vote for George W. Bush last time.
I say, let the Democrats have their "October Surprises", let's send them a November Surprise by overwhelmingly electing Republicans on November 7th.
* For you folks in Rio Linda, that's "with a grain of salt" in Latin.
The recent sharp debate in the U.N. over whether to choose Venezuela or Guatemala for the Security Council makes one wonder if the seat really worth it. On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported on a Harvard study which found that the United States gives more foreign aid money to those countries that currently hold rotating seats on the Security Council. On average, since 1946, developing countries on the Security Council have received $16 million more per year from the United States compared to the years before and after they served. The most notable recent cases included Angola and Guinea. Part of this funding comes through UNICEF (trick or treat!) and the IMF. Buying influence in the United Nations? I am shocked ... shocked!