While polls suggest that November 4th should be a very good election for Republicans—by most accounts they will take control of the Senate 
and increase their majority in the House—doubts remain. For one thing, as it is often said, the only poll that counts is the one taken on Election Day. But with many states offering early voting, and in some cases, such as Colorado, mail-in voting only, it is more than just Election Day that can determine the outcome. Among the other factors not reflected in the polls are third-party candidates, voter fraud and media bias.
The mainstream media, as always, are firmly in the corner of the Democrats. In the run-up to this year’s election, one would hardly know that the Obama administration has been caught up in scandal after scandal—from the IRS to Veterans Affairs to Benghazi (“phony scandals,” as the media and the administration label them)—or that the President’s approval rating has been dismal, to the point that almost none of the Senate candidates want the once-popular President anywhere near their state. In fact, the news has been so bad for the Democrats that the three major broadcast network news shows barely acknowledged the elections. In fact, ABC’s World News Tonight went nearly all of September and October without a single story on the mid-term elections.
We have documented the incestuous relationship that exists between the media and the Obama administration, providing the Democrats with a built-in edge.
Last May, Accuracy in Media published a special report by James Simpson titled “Voter Fraud: An Existential Threat to America,” that detailed many of the ways that Democrats have been incorporating voter fraud into their election strategy. Simpson concluded, “Voter fraud, and the corrupt political infrastructure that facilitates, or at best ignores it, is an existential threat to our American Republic.” And we have seen many more examples in the days and weeks leading up to this election.
Here, for example, is the latest video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, in which several Democratic campaign workers encouraged people they believed to be non-citizens to vote. There have been credible stories about voting machines in Chicago and Maryland in which votes intended for Republicans ended up registering as votes for Democrats.
In addition, the Obama Justice Department has done what it could to block common-sense voter ID laws, claiming that they disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. But the evidence suggests there is a need for such laws. It’s not just people misrepresenting who they are when they show up at the polls, but as columnist Mona Charen recently cited, there are millions of voters who are registered to vote in more than one jurisdiction, and there are felons and dead people who should have been purged from voting registers in many states.
And what if, in spite of all this, Republicans do very well in the elections, and seize significant majorities in both houses of Congress? Would that show that these concerns were without basis, or rather that the victory was so sweeping that even the media and voter fraud couldn’t overcome it? Perhaps we’ll never know.
But a discussion on CNN on Monday night suggested what the media’s spin might be in case of a Republican victory. According to Maeve Reston, a political reporter for The Los Angeles Times, it would result in either more gridlock, or, “If Republicans are in control, then maybe there will be more of an impetus for them to compromise with the President,” she said. “Maybe they’ll feel that it’s better for them to start making deals with the President, which would certainly be a change from the tenor of the last couple of years.” The CNN host concluded the segment, saying, “I think the voters would be happy with that sort of change, wouldn’t they?”
So there you have it. If the Republicans win an overwhelming victory as a mandate to stop President Obama’s agenda, they should quickly start giving him what he wants, to show how bi-partisan they are. We have already shown the myth of the Republican do-nothing Congress—a Congress that passed more than 360 bills that Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) buried, never allowing them to come up for votes.
But that could be a moot point. If Paul Sperry was right in his recent column for the New York Post, President Obama will be pursuing a unilateral agenda using his “pen and his phone.” In “Obama’s post-election plans for a secret radical agenda,” Sperry outlined the many executive actions that Obama is punting past the current election to avoid the political damage fallout they would cause for Democratic candidates. “The White House reportedly is preparing to provide amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants in late November, including work permits and green cards for up to 34 million,” wrote Sperry. That would presumably kill any hopes of bipartisanship.
Another option for Republicans is to pass bills that reflect their values and their agenda, unconcerned as to whether or not President Obama would sign them into law. The message would be that if the country puts a Republican in the White House in 2016, these bills would be signed into law.
Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org