Over the past 60 years, the out party has gained 37 House seats and seven Senate
seats in sixth year elections. Out of Congressional power for 12 years, the Democrats are saying that it would
be spectacular if they would do an average job on Tuesday.
The Democrat sizzle for being average would be control of both Houses of Congress with a final result something
like this:
Party Senate House
R 48 192
D 50 242
I 2 1
The Democrat drizzle would be a split decision with a majority for either party so small as to make the Congress
virtually ungovernable. It might look like this:
Party Senate House
R 51 210
D 47 224
I 2 1
For the Democrats, the fizzle would be a failure to dislodge the Republicans from either chamber. The result would
again be gridlock caused by ungovernable margins where coalitions of RINOs and DINOs held the decision-making power.
It might look like this:
Party Senate House
R 52 220
D 46 214
I 2 1
Going into the last weekend, the polls are largely useless. The MSM is both actively biased and frivolous. There
is news, such as Saddam Hussein's trial verdict and sentencing, yet to be made and recent news, such as the doltish
behavior of Sen. John Kerry, yet to be digested.
By Saturday, it doesn't seem very likely that there will be any Democratic sizzle. Drizzle might be a little more
likely than fizzle. No one knows. Everybody leads with their own preferences. Some pundits are predicting a flat
tie, some a surge against Bush for Democrats, some momentum for Republicans.
But there is one big test yet to come.
Can the MSM pull off a second Cronkite or not?
The New York Times reporter William Broad has once again written a Bush attack based on leaked information, perhaps
from the IAEA, that alleges that the administration was incompetent by allowing critical nuclear information from
the Saddam era to be made available over the Internet and thus sharing critical secrets with Iran and other enemies.
The site, (Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal) which offered access to some of the 1.2 million pages of documents
found after the collapse of Baghdad, has been a rich source of information about the status of the Saddam regime
during the run up to the war. Its publication was Congressionally-mandated and the site opened last March. It has
been estimated that 60 percent of the documents have been restricted for security reasons.
However, the NYT piece back fired big time.
Knowledgeable bloggers, who had been involved in translating the documents for months descended on the article
and within just a few hours, pointed out that the collection of Iraqi internal documents cited in the criticism
of Bush actually proved that his basic judgment about Saddam was correct.
- Iraq had nuclear weapon plans so advanced and detailed that any country could have used them.
Saddam's scientists were on the verge of building an atomic bomb, as little as one year away.
The documents on the website were in some cases identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security
Council in 2002. That information was developed by U.N. inspectors and did not come from U.S.sources.
Iraq had long-standing ties with Osama bin Laden, PFLP Palestinian terrorists, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in addition
to an internal Iraqi suicide bomber recruitment program for volunteers to lead terror attacks against the United
States.
The main argument for invading Iraq was the potential of Iraq to offer terrorists access to weapons of mass
destruction. Saddam had the know how to develop the critical tools and techniques and to sell them to anyone. According
to the NYT, the knowledge was so advanced that it would still be of help to Iran today. As NRO columnist Jim Garaghty
observed, the antiwar crowd now has to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam
Hussein, but was dangerous posted in the Internet.
The primary campaign tactic of the Democrats has been advertising that tied Republican candidates to George Bush.
The NYT's article definitively demonstrates that public documents available to an informed citizenry demonstrate
that Bush was right all along. Had the United States not decided to topple Saddam, he would have acted to kill
Americans around the world, said Ed Morrissey, thereby showing that destroying Saddam's regime was an integral
part of the war on terror and not a distraction.
It may well be that the polls have not measured the right folk - the ones who actually vote. It may be that news
coming this late is too late to change minds, especially when the MSM fails to report it.
In a late-deciding election, there is still time for the American people to agree with Dean Barrett or not. He
said:
At this point in our history, we can't afford to have such misguided and unserious people in charge of anything
consequential.
November 3, 2006
