The Post has a story today about how yesterday's immigrant march was, for many involved, their first political involvement. Well, from a political standpoint, it wasn't a bad start. The U.S. flags were certainly a nice touch, and the girl saying the pledge of allegiance was very good (check out Rob Bluey's photo gallery).
... Sure, Michelle Malkin's blog has a very good photo essay that shows the behind-the-scenes orchestration of this event (what, it wasn't spontaneous!?). Anyone who works in politics knows that any event is scripted. She also has some pictures of some non-Hispanic leftist radicals working the event.
Still, perception is reality, and most "undecided" viewers aren't going to read Michelle's blog. If the goal was to win public sympathy for their cause, this march came a lot closer than the previous demonstrations in California did.
However, I do have a few thoughts on where they may have missed the mark.
... As the Post noted, "Although the crowd was mostly Latino - speakers' statements were routinely translated from English into Spanish ..."
The language barrier is a dilemma most previous marches have not had to overcome. Upon watching the footage, it occurred to me that the speeches in Spanish (while needed for communication) may have actually served to undermine the non-threatening and inclusive image the organizers were going for (what with all the American flags).
There is no doubt this is a wedge issue that puts Republicans in a very unfavorable position. Clearly, part of the purpose of yesterday's march was to send a message to Republicans.
However, the biggest mistake the organizers made was in planning a march when Congress is out of session. For the life of me, I can't figure that one out ...
Who knows? Maybe they should have hired a political consultant???
