[MrEdd]

What is clear is the only reason Hastert ordered the hearings before appointing members of the house conference committee is that support for the house bill has fallen in the house.

Not at all. The hearings keeps the issue in the public eye, and is aimed squarely at democrat house seats up for re-election in border states. That the debates bother senate open border republicans is a side issue.

[sinkspur]

The hearings keeps the issue in the public eye,

The public doesn't even know about any hearings. And, with the Democrats also on the panels, they come off as nothing but political grandstanding by both sides.

They appear to be a total waste of time.

[WOSG]

"The hearings keeps the issue in the public eye, and is aimed squarely at democrat house seats up for re-election in border states. That the debates bother senate open border republicans is a side issue."

Correct. Even Democrats are lining up on being tough on border enforcement in these hearings. Then Howard Dean ruins it all with another gaffe about how evil pro-border-security Republicans are.

He's the gift that keeps on giving!

[Common Tator]

Not at all. The hearings keeps the issue in the public eye, and is aimed squarely at democrat house seats up for re-election in border states. Are you saying that the voters in the border states need convincing to support candidates opposed to illegal immigration?

I can just hear one of those border state voters!!

Hastert : "Hey did you hear there is a big problem with illegal Mexican immigration?"

Democrat voter: "Do you mean to tell me there are millions of Mexicans coming into our state? "The hell you say. I'd a never knowed it if you hadn't told me." "I thought all them brown people that talk funny just had good tans!!!"

If there is not already enough support in the border states to elect candidates that are opposed to illegal abortion.. where is there enough support?