Posted on 05/06/2005 7:47:06 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo ought to reconsider his membership in the Republican Party, a Utah congressman said Wednesday after the two GOP lawmakers put an intraparty rift over immigration policy on full public display.
"I think he ought to consider his views and decide whether they're consistent with the Republican Party," Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said of the Colorado congressman after the two clashed repeatedly during a forum sponsored by the Latino Coalition, a Hispanic business group.
Advertisement
Cannon, a leading proponent of President Bush's proposed guest- worker program, has had a running feud with Tancredo, an opponent of the plan and outspoken advocate of tougher immigration enforcement. Last year, a political action committee founded by Tancredo targeted Cannon during his primary election challenge.
The two men sat side by side on stools at Wednesday's event inside Washington's J.W. Marriott hotel, and the rhetoric got so emotional that at one point they had a comical tussle over who would get to hold the microphone next.
The debate began with a third panelist, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., denouncing unnamed people he said were exploiting the immigration issue because of bigotry, hatred and prejudice.
"If not for the undocumented workers in this country, I'd say that this room would not have been as clean and well-organized this morning," Gutierrez said.
Tancredo challenged Gutierrez when he took the microphone.
"We certainly would not want to pander to anyone on this issue, would we?" Tancredo said. "What I just heard was not that, was it?"
Tancredo repeated his long-standing call for the country to close its "porous borders" before it considers a new guest-worker program.
"It is crazy to suggest this nation should not do everything possible to secure the border," Tancredo said, saying a desire for cheap, immigrant labor could leave the borders open to terrorists or narcotics traffickers. Tancredo equates Bush's proposal to "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, saying it would reward people who entered the country illegally.
When it was his turn, Cannon immediately endorsed Gutierrez's earlier statement. He said the vast majority of Americans believe that undocumented immigrants should have "a path to citizenship" as long as they have willing employers, have not committed crimes and already are contributing to society.
Cannon said only a small minority of people "truly believe we should kick out" all illegal immigrants. He cited one of Tancredo's political allies, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, who got about 1 percent of the vote after he left the Republican Party and ran for president in 2000 as a third-party candidate.
"I don't think there's a place in the Republican Party for racism, for xenophobia, for ideas that are fundamentally un-American," Cannon said.
Tancredo clapped quietly, saying he also sees no place in the debate for racism or xenophobia, which refers to a fear of foreign people or things.
Still, some observers - including a Tancredo staff member - interpreted it as an indirect reference to Tancredo, since he has recently toyed with the idea of following in Buchanan's footsteps and mounting a presidential campaign in 2008.
Asked after the event if he thought Tancredo was racist or xenophobic, Cannon said: "I don't know what motivates him."
In an interview, Tancredo fired back at Cannon, pointing to his primary election challenge by Republican Matt Throckmorton in 2004. The Team America PAC, founded by Tancredo and chaired by Buchanan's sister, Bay Buchanan, backed Throckmorton. Another group, Project U.S.A., placed billboards saying "Congressman Chris Cannon wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you?"
"Of the two of us, Mr. Cannon is the only one who has had a primary (challenge since taking office)," Tancredo said. "Evidently, there are a lot of people in his district who believe he is not Republican enough."
Tancredo has recently started traveling to early presidential primary states like New Hampshire, saying he wants to make sure the "serious candidates" put the immigration issue front-and-center in the 2008 race.
He has said it is unlikely he would actually run in - or win - a presidential race, but that he would consider a campaign if other candidates ignore the issue.
But he sees no need to leave the Republican Party.
"I believe the Republican Party is with me on the issue," Tancredo said.
"As long as that's the case, I frankly can't think why I would change. In the Republican Party, more people agree with me than with President Bush and Mr. Cannon (on immigration)."
Tancredo was facing a polite but generally skeptical crowd at The Latino Coalition event. Before he appeared, an opening speaker, while listing the VIPs invited to speak, added, "I'm sorry, but we also have Congressman Tom Tancredo."
That prompted a smattering of boos and hisses.
About 30 minutes after Tancredo, Cannon and Gutierrez left the stage, President Bush appeared for a presentation on Social Security. He got huge applause when he diverged to talk about his guest worker plan, which could go before Congress later this year.
See reply #58
You are a cheap labor PR shill. Truth does not matter to you in the least. Just throwing mud.
BTW, when are you going to start your "Anyone who thinks employers should be expected to obey the law and penalized if they don't is for Karl Marx", routine ?
It's not personal. Its professional. Or more accurately, amateurish.
Actually I'm a fair labor shill. I'm against those such as you and hillary control freaks who wish to put their nose into micromanaging of good honest peoples businesses.
BTW, when are you going to start your "Anyone who thinks employers should be expected to obey the law and penalized if they don't is for Karl Marx", routine ?
I don't have to, you sam, promote marxism with each and one of your posts.
"Huh and tancredo's remarks saying Tom Delay should step aside are not irrational."
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above because of the lack of punctuation, but I assume you're saying that Tancredo's statement was irrational. That is an opinion. It's not a fact. I disagree with his statement but in my opinion it was not irrational, it was simply incorrect. It does not mean that he is incorrect about everything.
I've seen you pop up on every thread where Tancredo is mentioned and divert attention away from the discussion of the policy, with your relentless mantra of "backstabber." Why? Is it that important to you that Tancredo be torn down? Or is it simply that you're trying to, by association, discredit his ideas. Again, why not debate the ideas? I have to assume that it's because you want no discussion of the ideas.
Whew the above is clinton semantics in action.
Yunz guys in hillary's basement must be sweating bullets about this thread.
The party need sto move to Tancredo's position not the other way around.
Good honest people don't break the law by hiring illegals. Good honest people obey the law and tell the truth. Good honest people don't expect the taxpayer to pay their employee benefits.
Thank you for exhibiting so clearly the moral and intellectual level of the illegal immigration, open borders lobby.
Huh, then why are you not denigrating the democrat party, which expects productive people to take care of those whose wish not to work.
Oh I forgot, you work for hillary, nevermind.
Thank you for exhibiting so clearly the moral and intellectual level of the illegal immigration, open borders lobby
And thank you for showing your true clintonian rhetoric.
Nice debating skills. You stick to the issue, avoid ad hominem attacks and make your points clearly and concisely. If you think we should open the borders to illegals so employers have a cheap labor source, why not just argue that opinion. It has merits, and some people might be persuaded.
Yunz guys in hillary's basement must be sweating bullets about this thread.
Won't change anybody's mind, particularly because it is incoherent.
Me: If not for the undocumented workers in this country, I'd say we'd have about $ 4B or $ 5B of money annually NOT leaving this country for Mexico, we'd have many more hospitals open [that did not have to close] in the southwest, we'd have a lot less crime and a lot less filled prison cells [INSERT YOUR FACT HERE]..."
Cannon said only a small minority of people "truly believe we should kick out" all illegal immigrants ...
Me: Well, count ME in on that small minority!
"Whew the above is clinton semantics in action."
I just want to make sure I understand. If I make a simple declarative statement, with a few words longer than two syllables, it is "Clintonian Semantics?" What part was Clintonian? I simply offered my opinion on the difference between irrational and incorrect. What makes you say "whew?" I mean, it wasn't that challenging to comprehend.
"Yunz guys in hillary's basement must be sweating bullets about this thread."
One of the most absurd statements I've ever read. First, I don't know what "yunz" means. Second, (and I'll probably regret this), why would you possibly think I was in Hillary's basement? Third, why would you possibly think that anyone would be "sweating bullets" over your postings?
Finally, why do you keep avoiding the question about the ideas?
I never have stated that the borders should be open. I am for a documented guest worker program, and also I am against the rhetoric of tancredo supporters, who think they should be the mirror image of jesse jackson and al sharpton(i.e affirmative action) of telling who honest business people should hire while they pursue their American dream.
Add to the fact of tancredo's backstabbing towards Tom Delay, one plus one equals two, and tom tancredo is appealing to the worst of America and not the best, IMO.
Seriously, what is it with Dane? I assume you have engaged in "discussion" with him before. Is a serious question ever answered in any intelligent fashion or is an ad hominem non sequiter always the response? I guess it might be fun for a couple of rounds but after that, why bother?
I see your natural knee jerkedness kicked in, see reply #73.
"natural knee jerkedness"
You don't know anything about me and whether I have a natural knee-jerkedness. You've already mischaracterized me as engaging in "Clintonian Semantics" so I can tell you're not particularly perceptive.
I grant that you offered a response in #73 with some substance, after I posted my other comment, although you never have responded to me with any thoughtfulness. So now my question is, after you stated your position, why do you go right to the name-calling, associating people with my point of view with Al Sharpton? You must know that is ludicrous and makes you look silly? Why do you do it?
Dane is a regular who always materializes in support of a cheap labor agenda. He never does anything but call names, twist what people say, and throw around "marxist" the way Al Sharpton throws around "racist".
Don't expect coherence or truth from him. He has an agenda.
Dane is kinda like "The Argument Clinic" at times. But he has an agenda of promoting rampant lawbreaking so he strives to create the illusion of GOP grass roots support for illegal immigration.
71% of Hispanic voters disapprove. Are all the Hispanic voters all teachers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.