Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ruination
which House members who were enforcement first lost their seats to challengers proposing "comprehensive" legislation?

One of the panel members on Brit Hume listed off several last night. Mainly they were Republicans that desperately tried to salvage their losing race by talking up enforcement only positions.

All I heard out of Heyworth for the last year has been borderfenceborderfenceborderfence. One could make the case that being tough on border security does not make swing voters vote against someone. But for certian it demonstrates that talking up border enforcement isn't a winner.

Swing voters are the one's who decide the election, and they're obviously not motivated by tough talk. The base loves it, but the base that likes tough talk was going to vote for J.D. anyway. The Swing voters want border issues fixed (note the polls), but that doesn't mean they want simpleton toughness when the problem is obviously more complex.

121 posted on 11/16/2006 9:25:17 AM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: narby

But perhaps that number is exceeded by people pushing enforcement first who won seats from incumbents who were for "comprehensive" legislation.


129 posted on 11/16/2006 9:58:41 AM PST by ruination
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson