Tom Tancredo Eyes White House Run

SFGate ^

[anniegetyourgun]

I don't want the US Prez to walk around saying that we need to wage a holy war against Islam and that all muslims are slime. Maybe you want your national leader to do that, but I don't. I expect him to keep calling people to their highest and best, and trying to suggest that they need to separate themselves from the murderous slime who terrorize.

I would check that spending in real dollars, and would never even think to compare this president to the scummy LBJ - worst president this nation has ever had, IMHO. But go ahead and make those comparisons....just don't scratch your head when folks think you're over the edge.

[anniegetyourgun]

LOL!

[anniegetyourgun]

I'm not....but I cast my lot with the R party...not the D.

[anniegetyourgun]

No, if he wins the party nomination, the R's will vote for him.

[eleni121]

I hope not...but stuff happens. If it does, look for Tancredo or someone like him to be elected overwhelmingly.

[The Coopster]

Because the majority of voters aren't single-issue voters, and all Tancredo has is his single issue.

Additionally, all of the Left and a great deal of the Right thinks he's a nutjob.

Granted - even nutjobs have a good idea once in awhile, but that doesn't mean they have even a microscopic chance at the White House.

I think that Tancredo is just doing what he originally said - getting viable conservative candidates (and probably liberals, for that matter) to quit waffling and take a stand - one way or the other.

[Das Outsider]

If he were the R nominee (which he won't be), he'll be ripped to shreds and left bleeding to death on the the floor by the Left.

The Old Boys Club in the Republican party would have already ripped him to shreds--look all the condemnation from the McCain types; the Left would just scavenge, as usual.

[Das Outsider]

Why are you so sure....?

The OBC and the OBLs. The two usually overlap and you can't raise the money nor get the votes without them. Dancing around the center is the game, and Tancredo is certainly not that.

I don't know. Does anybody know where Tancredo stands on...just about anything except immigration?

[cubram]

That's what Nader supporters said in '00 and '04. You go to "war" with a candidate you can win with, not necessarily one you think is ideal on every issue.

[Dead Corpse]

The same exact AP story without the robotic sybcopahnt replies with a double ration of anti-Tancredo slander is at the link below.

I fixed that one for you. Now it is more accurate.

[FreeReign]

This may be true, but you have to respect the guy for not being politically correct...

The guy will be given a stage as long as he continues to say things that will split-off enough of the conservative vote while at the same time, not attracting the votes needed to win a primary or a general election.

So he's given a Pat Buchanan handler, and then he says what he says about Tom DeLay and then he says what he says about targeting Muslim holy sites. The result is that the immigration candidate becomes a joke and somebody who can't win all to the benifit of Hillary.

Tancredo is politically correct.

[FreeReign]

AP:Experts say Tancredo has no chance at the White House, but like Ross Perot's campaign on a balanced budget in 1992, he has found an issue that could force other Republicans to treat immigration as a major issue.

The MSM is writting the script on this all the way. Tancredo will give them what they want.

[WhiteGuy]

My comment was general, and not just directed at you.

And I certainly encourage everyone to vote for the candidate of their choice!

I think a candidate should do more than have an "r" following his name to earn the votes of the citizens.

[farmer18th]

I don't want the US Prez to walk around saying that we need to wage a holy war against Islam

I guess the Neville Chamberlain factor in the Republican party is stronger than I thought.

Before you react to that, consider this: the struggle against Islam is a millenium old fight. We have a huge national security issue, in all western countries, associated with unfettered civil rights guaranteed to people with a politico-socio-religious belief system that justifies treason against the very countries that are protecting them. (There are NO Muslim dominated countries with rights guaranteed the religious minority; why should we coddle these people?) George Bush is a classic example of misplaced priorities. He sends our boys to Iraq without securing our Southern border. No thinking conservative can possibly defend that, unless you are closet globalist.

[tessalu]

If Tancredo does not do anything but make a lot of noise, he has served our country well. So many of us have been cowered into believing that we should be Politically Correct that we do not say what we really think, but Tancredo has now said it for us.

[farmer18th]

The result is that the immigration candidate becomes a joke

Are you saying that no Republican can win without kissing the butts of both the Arab Lobby and La Raza??

[FreeReign]

Are you saying that no Republican can win without kissing the butts of both the Arab Lobby and La Raza??

No.

[farmer18th]

the center-right

The center-right base will not be hurt, one iota, by asking some serious questions about Islam. Consider this:

My stump speech:

"...to all those American who follow Islam. We hope, against hope, you love peace. We hope, against hope, you love religious liberty, but you will need to begin accepting responsibility for the rogues among you. Saudi Arabia, the greatest financial support for your American Mosques, denies Christians the right to worship. Terrorists, in the name of Allah, are willing to kill the innocent, even your own, in order to achieve their ends. We are very much at war with those terrorists, and if they are willing to kill the innocent, to destroy our churches and our civil liberties, every one of them should know that if they inflict mass death upon our citizens, YOUR shrines will not be safe. Every suitcase nuclear bomber should know that if he destroys an American City, he will destroy Mecca."

[farmer18th]

Then it's time to start putting some teeth in conservative rhetoric, or you WILL have a Perot spoiler. A speech equating the destruction of American Shrines with the destruction of Islamic shrines would get quite a few blue collar Democrats voting Republican.

[FreeReign]

Then it's time to start putting some teeth in conservative rhetoric, or you WILL have a Perot spoiler. A speech equating the destruction of American Shrines with the destruction of Islamic shrines would get quite a few blue collar Democrats voting Republican.

The Muslim terrorists want such a speech. The Muslim terrorists want a world-war. The Muslim terrorists want us to attack the holy shrines of 900 million people. The Muslim terrorists are tired of only the fringe Muslims fighting this war. The Muslims terrorists are tired of all-the-many Muslims who dip their fingers in purle ink and vote, in such places as Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's up to us the voters not to be swayed by destructive speeches given by demogogues. It's not up to us to support such, to win elections.