Busby's opponent does a little quick 'n dirty campaigning

If I'm going to start chronicling the sleazy ways Republicans decide to run their campaigns this year, I'm going to need a snappy title. In the meantime, here's the latest. In California'sheavily Republican 50th Congressional district, Democrat Francine Busby is tantalizingly close to taking the seat. But an awkward statement on her part has become the latest rallying cry for her GOP opponent.

Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don't have papers.”

It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.”

I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow at this from any candidate. The meaning is very clear, and she cleaned up her own awkward response to the interpretation.

Naturally, the Republican pounced on this with a full-throttle misrepresentation.

Bilbray said at worst, Busby was encouraging someone to vote illegally. At best, she was encouraging someone who is illegally in the country to work on her campaign.

“She's soliciting illegal aliens to campaign for her and it's on tape – this isn't exactly what you call the pinnacle of ethical campaign strategy,” Bilbray said. “I don't know how she shows her face.”

Well, no and no. She said that you don't have to be registered to vote to work on a campaign. That's it. But the GOP is running on two things this year: xenophobia and homophobia. So the Republican candidate puts on his righteous indignation and grabs the nearest microphone.

The paper reporting the story happily obliges:

If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: “You don't need papers for voting.”

That's the first line in the story, and doesn't even print 'the sentence.' It's an edited quote that deliberately misleads, and a convenient citation for Busby's foes (Michelle Malkin has already hopped on board). Busby's perfectly sensible explanation is reserved for the last paragraph, in case anyone bothers to read that far.

UPDATE: I've run across another site that covers the story, and a commenter there explains is perfectly. For brevity's sake, I didn't bother getting into the issue of language becoming rather awkard when speaking through an interpreter, but this guy nails it.