Which is it? Heating up or apathy?

Back on January 20th, the Washington Post had an article entitled "GOP Contest Prompts Yawns Outside Beltway" in which it was stated:

In interviews, more than a dozen Republican lawmakers who are home for a long January break said constituents are talking a great deal about high gas prices and even a best-selling book about killing the Internal Revenue Service, but not much about the intrigue gripping Capitol Hill. Even many of those voters who are closely following the leadership contest or the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal reportedly tend to deride all lawmakers as money-grubbing operators, and express little faith that Congress can be cleaned up by any politician.

Then later in the article states this:

....there is mounting polling evidence that voters consider both parties corrupt and distrust Washington in general. A Diageo/Hotline Poll released yesterday found that 72 percent of registered voters said corruption is equally bad inside the two major parties. Less than one in five said Republicans are more corrupt. Other polls show Democrats with a significant edge when voters are asked about who they want elected to the House.

So today's Washington Post has this as a headline "Handful of Races May Tip Control of Congress" where it is now stated:

In Pennsylvania, Sen. Rick Santorum (R) has been running behind his challenger for months. In Montana, Sen. Conrad Burns (R), linked to the Jack Abramoff scandal, is on the defensive. In Ohio, Sen. Mike DeWine (R) is struggling to overcome a toxic environment of scandals that have tarnished the state Republican Party.

Not since 1994 has the party in power -- in this case the Republicans -- faced such a discouraging landscape in a midterm election. President Bush is weaker than he was just a year ago, a majority of voters in recent polls have signaled their desire for a change in direction, and Democrats outpoll Republicans on which party voters think is more capable of handling the country's biggest problems.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see less of a majority in both the House and the Senate, I just find it interesting how the same newspaper can report voters don't really care about ethics, then just a little over two weeks from that article? Ethics now matters? Some polls back in January as listed in the "apathy" article that Democrats had stronger numbers in the House, yet if you read today's article it makes it sound as if this is now a major threat to Republican numbers.

On January 20th, John R. "Randy" Kuhl Jr., of New York was listed one of nearly a dozen Republicans who are considered vulnerable in November as well as Rep. David G. Reichert of Washington, yet neither one of them made today's article.

Guess two weeks from now we'll see which way the Washington Post decides to cover the latest polls. Will it be heat or apathy? Depends on if they are alternating topics or not.

:-)