Well, the headline may be in the “duh?” category, but it is somewhat out of context. The article reported on how the hearings were being held not in border areas, but in Congressional districts which are hotly contested (e.g., Iowa). Hence the criticism was that the ostensible purpose of the hearings — hearing from those most directly affected by immigration — was trumped by the desire to be more competitive in close races by bringing the Republican heavy artillery to those districts. That is a different context of the politicization of the hearings beyond the oneupsmanship which is routine in politics and Congressional hearings.
Well, the headline may be in the “duh?” category, but it is somewhat out of context. The article reported on how the hearings were being held not in border areas, but in Congressional districts which are hotly contested (e.g., Iowa). Hence the criticism was that the ostensible purpose of the hearings — hearing from those most directly affected by immigration — was trumped by the desire to be more competitive in close races by bringing the Republican heavy artillery to those districts. That is a different context of the politicization of the hearings beyond the oneupsmanship which is routine in politics and Congressional hearings.
I must admit, I didn’t even read the article – just saw the headline while browsing the Times…maybe I’ll go back and take a second look…
That’s why the paper issue of the Times is so indispensable — not to mention the sports section, the obits, and the crossword puzzle –
Let’s not get carried away here!…
My dog bites man post regards Bush’s poll ratings. Top 5 right now at pollingreport.com:
ABC/WaPo: 40/58
CNN: 40/59
LAT: 40/58
Cook: 39/51
USAT: 40/56
Odd that the Cook poll is actually the best spread, but there you go.
“That’s why the paper issue of the Times is so indispensable…”
Peter’s right – it makes excellent compost and does a smash – up job on oil leaks in your garage. Must be lots of fiber in that newsprint these days.