San Diego Union-Tribune: Busby on defense, says she misspoke

Busby on defense, says she misspoke
By Dani Dodge
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
June 3, 2006

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

On Thursday night, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, was speaking before a largely Latino crowd in Escondido when she uttered those words. She said yesterday she simply misspoke.

But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday. After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: "You don't need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign)."...

***

Busby, a Cardiff school board member, is in a tight race with Republican Brian Bilbray, a congressman-turned-lobbyist, who has based his campaign on a tough anti-illegal-immigration stance. Busby has focused her campaign on ethics reform. The two are vying to replace Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who was jailed after pleading guilty to taking bribes....

***

Busby said...she does not in any way support or advocate that illegal immigrants vote...."I was clarifying the question that was being asked in Spanish and then stated that you do not have to be a registered voter to help the campaign because there were many people who appeared to be to be under 18 in the group who wanted to volunteer," she said in a statement. "I'm not surprised that the Republican Party is making this last-minute, desperate ploy and it is absolutely false."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060603-9999-1mi3busby.html

It was a MAJOR screw-up.

It is impossible to communicate without using sentences which, taken out of context, can be intentionally distorted into something else.

The last thing Democrats need to do is to get ever more timid and wooden with what they say. It's not possible to avoid saying something that the thugs will distort, so give up. Instead, stand up for something and learn to immediately fire back (NOT apologize) when they try their crap. Keep your opponents forever on the defensive, so that their misinterpreted quotes come across to the public like the slurs and slanders that they really are.

I realize she amended the statement, but it was a really stupid slip-up, especially with the current illegal immigrant controversy.

How was it "taken out of context" by the way?

to say it another way:

You don't need to be registered to vote in order to help with the campaign.

Taken out of context - one of the favorite Repuke things to do. Don't let them get away with it. She didn't mean that you don't need papers in order to vote.

It's not a matter of "say it another way".

She told people that they don't need "papers" to vote. That's categorically untrue.

I'll give you that she may have misspoken. Don't try to turn it into an "it's the same thing" issue. It's not.

She was telling him that he could.

I have heard the tape, MercutioATC. Have you?

that something is "complete bullshit", without the benefit of knowing what the hell they're even talking about.

:banghead:

but she didn't. She said that he didn't need papers to vote.

That's not a context issue, it's a misstatement. No, I don't think she didn't know the difference or was encourageing illegal voting, but the words she said were what they were. They were a mistake, and she should expect go get some flak for them.

And it should have been followed up within the same sentence with something like "...in order to work on my campaign."

And in Spanish, "voting papers" would often be phrased "papers to vote" or in various other forms like that e.g. "papers of voting", depending on the dialect and education of the speaker.

All that happened is that she didn't flip the word order back when translating to English, a very common mistake when mincing languages or if an interperator (I don't know if she speaks it herself) did so when relaying the question.

All that needs to be said, if anyone gets a forum to confront this, is that if we are going to take her that literally, why don't you believe George Bush said his administration would never rest until he has found a way to hurt the U.S. Or that he caught a 7.5 pound perch.

I'm not sure enough republicans will hold their nose and vote for Bilbray.

I was just pointing out that she wasn't misquoted nor were her words "taken out of context" as some here claim. She said it.

Make a mistake like that and you HAVE to expect that people are going to make an issue of it.

But it may be late enough to not "hurt" her. I'll have to watch for ads jumping on this tonite.

Reading another article it looks like the key will be getting out the under 35 vote which in a primary election may be difficult.

actually say something like that with intent? What bullshit.

If one undecided voter in 50 chooses Bilbray, that would likely (if recent polls are to be believed) put him over the 50% he needs to win outright.

will likely keep it's criminals in office...too many rich old school Republicans and stubborn 'rather die than vote anything but R' Republicans. They don't care that Bilbray doesn't live there and they don't care if he's a criminal.

Someone who corrects an error v an endorser of a wife abusing, deadbeat polygamist :shrug:

Well....Hope she manages to make the best of it and still win in the general.

“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.”

Stupid thing to say in this hyper charged anti immigrant environment. Too bad because she had a good chance of winning.

And this won't help.

The opposition has been digging, waiting for something, and they were going to find it no matter what it took.

ld vote illegally?

Obviously not. She is right. Any sentence taken out of context could be used by the Republican party or the MEDIA ("If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one") for that matter to make anyone sound horrible.

Is there a context in which saying "You don't need papers to vote" is appropriate?

Obviously she wasn't trying to send her supporters to the slammer for voting fraud, so what's your beef? In context, speaking extemporaneously, one is allowed to fuck, to screw up, surely?

Note that if you take the quotation out of my last sentence in the first paragraph of this post, "one is allowed to fuck", you could make political hay with it. But if you're not a dumbass idiot, you would take the whole sentence, indeed the whole paragraph, into account and you would know that I wasn't talking about fucking, nor screwing, but about making mistakes.

Sure, my language is more colorful than a politicians, but the point is the same. You are, apparently, being deliberately obtuse, feigning ignorance, and fanning the flames of the right wing echo chamber's fire. You appear to expect a perfect candidate and are willing to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater... Why are you supporting the right wing? Why are you here?

That's not the case here. She said what she said. I don't, for a minute, think she meant it...but she DID say it.

It's like Lamont owning $10k in Halliburton stock. Is it a big deal? No. Does it detract from him as a candidate? No. However, it's a stupid oversight and he's gotta expect to get some bad press from it.

She said it and she should expect to hear about it.

Pardon me for linking to a RW Web site, but this snipped IMO provides enough context to give her a fair hearing:

http://rogerhedgecock.com/files/best-of/Busby%20P2.mp3

I don't believe there can be any question that they are twisting her words; nor is there any question that she uttered words that are too easily twisted.

It's obvious to me that she meant to say that there was no requirement for a person to be a registered voter in order to help with her campaign.

She did not mean to say that anyone without "papers" was entitled to vote.

It was a poor choice of words at the worst possible time; words that have left her vulnerable to intentional misinterpretation by Roger Hedgecock, Rush, et al.

How that guy is trusted by anyone in San Diego let alone a large swath of people is something I just do not understand.

I expect it from the masses... but HERE?

*sigh*

you need a card that says you are registered, legally, to vote in this country. I can't believe some Ds are going to help the Rs by spinning this into something it's not. Way to help the enemy! :eyes:

Which is why she saying that she mispoke.

...."I was clarifying the question that was being asked in Spanish and then stated that you do not have to be a registered voter to help the campaign because there were many people who appeared to be to be under 18 in the group who wanted to volunteer,"

So no, you don't need papers to vote. You need a voter registration card. A very weak argument against her IMO.

Yeah, she tripped over her tongue, and corrected herself. How you interpret her words will reveal your political agenda.

The problem began because of the translater, who put the question in a way that unfortunately caused Busby to think of her under-18 volunteers who aren't registered to vote.

None of this is of ANY importance in this race unless you deliberately read meanings into Busby's words which never existed.

:eyes:

you MUST show ID when voting..and there ain't no free state ID card here.

Ohio - nuttier and more damaged than you can even imagine.

(and readily accessible for those who aren't mobile)

The Washington Times said that Bilbray is favored to win. I hope that's not true, but at least the Democrats forced the Republicans to spend $4 million to save a "safe seat."