chuck grimes' is talking about swinging the political spectrum further to the right, not swing votes. there's enough of them that, as a significant minority, and as an organized political force, with plenty of representatives having won controlling positions in the ruling apparatus, they push the discussion of anything and everything -- to the right -- because they can.
some conservative, yesterday, tried to claim that FAUX Snooze isn't biased because they reported a fire at an abortion clinic and CNN had no such report -- not on their Web site as the story was breaking at any rate. Proof, to this guy, that FAUX reports in an even-handed way. (OK> so he gets his media analysis training from Media Research Center but... whatevA!)
Some guy went home yesterday, watched both FAUX and CNN and returned this morning to say: Yeah, FAUX discussed the fire at an abortion clinic, CNN discussed a fire at a Women's Health Center.
That's what Chuck means: subtly and not so subtly shifting the terms of discourse to the right.
Kelley
> > The cover that they are over represented in the press is one thing,
> > but it doesn't really explain the votes or the constant political
> > pressure to the right. On just about every issue there are enough of
> > them to swing the political spectrum.
> >
>
>Assume they are an important element of Republican strength. That does
>_not_ make them a swing vote. It would seem to be the opposite. These
>are precisely the voters who do NOT _SWING_. Instead they are the
>votes
>that can be taken for granted while _swing_ votes come from other parts
>of the electorate.
>
>To make any case at all that they represent a swing vote you would have
>to establish that --
>
>These are people who vote Republican for one reason and one reason
>alone, their religious belief. If they were not evangelicals, they would
>be liberal or radical voters, because they have no other reasons for
>their conservatism. And that is pure nonsense.
>
>Carrol