Pimpin' 4 Vasquez: Part Two

I was reading this article posted in the Boise Weekly.

Contained within this unsigned missive are some fascinating insights into how the media see Politicians and their attendant campaigns.

Canyon County Commisioner Robert Vasquez, however, is running for Congress, and appears to have completely removed the filter between his brain and mouth.

So, the suggestion seems to be that one of the more important aspects of running a campaign is to not tell the truth? Thanks for the heads up guys.

Take his seemingly innocuous August 9 press release, "Vasquez to Speak in San Diego Thursday." In it, Vasquez calls his own Republican Party "misguided," accuses a California school district superintendent of "(buckling) at the knees in his haste to appease the criminals," i.e., illegal immigrants. He also used the platform-if a local press release can be called that-to announce his endorsement of Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo for president. Tancredo, another anti-immigration pundit, is also known as the legislator who recently suggested that Mecca could be a viable U.S. military target (just in case we happen to run out).

So we have a candidate here who appears to be calling a spade a spade. What's the problem exactly?

As a quick aside, can you guess what word our trusty wordsmith above neglected in that last paragraph?

Take a second and read it again, it's as obvious as the nose on your face.

Anything? Okay, here's a hint -- Tancredo, another anti-immigration pundit.

Yeah, it's pretty annoying when they neglect the most important word isn't it? Did you catch it yet? Allow me to rewrite the sentence with the proper word selected. The word without which the sentence makes no sense.

Tancredo, another anti-ILLEGAL immigration pundit.

Ahhh, doesn't that feel better? Moving on briskly now.

I find it refreshing that the unknown writer of this piece is so upfront about their desires. What do they want?First of all I am continually blown way by our press's love of ILLEGAL immigrants. The sneering tone toward the word ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL catches my eye. Can you even have serious debate when one side won't acknowledge something as fundamental as an individuals legal status, it is relevant. Let a coupla press jobs go to ILLEGALS and we'll see how sanguine they are then.

Secondly, there is not one thing on Mr. Vasquez's list of grievances that I disagree with and I don't think I'm alone in that. So why is the subject of ILLEGAL immigration treated like a sloppy kiss from your aunt Marge? Disgusting yes, but not to be spoken of in polite company.

Third, I find it instructive to parse the substance of this article and glean the attitude displayed toward candidates in general. Is a candidate simply a purveyor of party line drivel? Mr. Vasquez rightly takes to task his own party which has a less than stellar record as regards ILLEGAL immigration. What do we want from our candidates? I want people who have a vision for this country and aren't afraid to buck the current trends, especially bad trends, to serve the people (us).

I think the writer of this piece has revealed something important about his or her predilections. I think this individual in their laziness prefers candidates who parrot the party line because it's infinitely easier to pigeonhole them and pass judgement if they never leave the strictly defined party reservations.

I think the writer of this piece fears candidates who tell the truth, candidates who buck the system, because people might sit up and take notice. Truth is a dangerous thing, when it is unleashed who knows what might happen. This is also why the parties are unhappy when a candidate speaks his or her mind, the people might suddenly demand something that these career politicians/ninnies have no intention of providing.

I think the writer of this piece lays bare the blatant hypocrisy of the media. God forbid we should address these problems as the Left/Democrat side is even more firmly in bed (if this is even possible) than the right/Republicans. If drastic change comes about the Left will be hurt much more drastically than the right, and as my wife has been known to say --Media bias? What media bias?

I was just inspired to look up the word candidate. Here's what the Mirriam-Webster has to say --2 : free from bias, prejudice, or malice : FAIR 3 a : marked by honest sincere expression b : indicating or suggesting sincere honesty and absence of deception c : disposed to criticize severely : BLUNT

Blunt, I like that.

I think that will be my new standard for candidates I endorse.

Why are Tancredo and Vasquez considered so dangerous to the status quo?

Better question, why are their fellow politicians so afraid of these guys?

Oh, The ability to stay on topic is the only thing that separates us from the blogging rabble. It truly takes an enormous chutzpah to suggest that the dead dog media have any claims of superiority. Your fear is peeking guys.

Linked @ The Political Teen

And @ Stop The ACLU

And @ Cao's blog

illegal immigration
Robert Vasquez
media bias